The American Spectator

Jack in Wi.| 12.14.11 @ 6:37AM

Ben how many homes do you have? You always seem to be traveling and stuffing yourself in some resturant. I am near your age and suggest a more modest life style.

Newt Gingrich and Huntsmen will only get near the White House if they take a walk by it on an afternoon stroll. Obama's ambassador to China and Clinton's stooge have no chance of ever getting elected. Newt is already imploding in Iowa and dropping like a stone in New Hampshire. He has such a huge amount of baggage, he is unelectable and unexceptable.

Ron Paul is tied with Newt in Iowa in the latest poll up on Drudge this morning. He has the best organization and the most committed voters. Romney also has a good organization and committed support. Newt is difficient in both. It has always been about Romney and Ron Paul. They have always been the only guys who could beat Obama. The party will never be united until these 2 factions can somehow be reconciled. We need an honest and vigorous debate to see if there is some way to reuinte the party to beat Obama. Newt is nothing but a distraction.

Stuart Koehl| 12.14.11 @ 7:12AM

The early medieval Paulicians gave birth to the Bogomils, from which we derive the word "bugger". I think that just about sums up how I feel about Ron Paul and his drones.

Au Contraire| 12.14.11 @ 7:28AM

And whose drone are you?

Stormzeye| 12.14.11 @ 8:40AM

Great to hear from you Stuart. Only you could come up with a put down with a Byzantine or Medieval reference.

Willis| 12.14.11 @ 1:47PM

Bogomil? Wasn't he the police lieutenant in "Beverly Hills Cop"?

Patrick| 12.14.11 @ 3:00PM

I wash my hands of all three of the top contenders.
Gingrich = Leftwing whore in conservative drag
Romney = Milquetoast
Paul = In need of some thorazine

canuckistani| 12.14.11 @ 5:09PM

Too funny.

T. Holcomb| 12.15.11 @ 9:35AM

If you really believe Newt is a left winger, you are seriously mistaken and need to do some serious research. Newt is and always has been a Right wing Tea Party man.

usfrog| 12.15.11 @ 3:48PM

I hope you are being sarcastic.

willard rowsey| 12.16.11 @ 12:35PM

I've watched & listened closely to all the debates & switch between FNC, MSNBC & CNN in order to get all the info. possible, I've changed my position on who I'd trust with my Children & Grandchilden's future, I'm a 76 yrs old Veteran &
Lifelong Republican (Ike was my 1st vote) Now I
will vote for Newt & No other. Merry Christmas

William L. Gensert| 12.14.11 @ 8:23AM

Who cares how many homes he owns? He worked for everything he has. Enjoying the fruits of your labor is the essence of the American dream. Personally, I love the personal nature of what he writes, taking the time to mention the "little people," because he understands that in America, there really are no little people. I suspect that you, Jack, stiff the cab driver, or refuse to tip the waitress, if your Perrier is not cooled to precisely the temperature of your choice. As far as Mr. Stein is concerned, I hope, at 67 years-old, he enjoys as much of what he has created as he can, you, however, with your bitterness and envy, not so much.

Claypoole| 12.14.11 @ 9:10AM

The thing I like best about Ben Stein is that he reminds me in almost every column to be grateful to God for my blessings. Grateful for my husband and children, and grateful to Him for putting us here in this miraculous nation. Merry Christmas, everyone.

Gary B| 12.14.11 @ 3:37PM

Agreed. And Merry Christmas to you, too, Ms. Claypoole.

Scott| 12.14.11 @ 10:01PM

Worked for everything he has??? Very, very doubtful. Are you aware who his father was, Herbert Stein?

Maybe you should do some research before sounding a fool. Stein is no different than Steve Forbes and GWB. "Leaders" on the right who were born on third base and thought they hit a triple.

Kelly| 12.16.11 @ 10:25AM

Hey Ben and his wife earned it. Mainly through acting. "Bueller?" "The wonder years". "Win Ben Stein's Money". Also Ben has been a successful writer. Plus his wife is a very successful lawyer. Ben enjoy the fruits of your labor. This person, born into a lower middle class family is enjoying the fruits of long hours of study and hard work and I hope Ben does too :)

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 2:25PM

How many politicians does George Soros own?

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:42PM

One that really counts - the guy who can make recess appointments of people who favor denial of medical care to seriously ill people over 55 years of age.

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:46PM

I agree. Is Dr. Stein asking anyone (besides himself) to pay for those homes? No. Unlike the current president, who has decided our kids and grandkids can pay for the defaulted mortgages of his political supporters and guarantee business loans to Soros, Buffett, Goldman Sachs, and GE Capital.

J. Edgar Hodgkins of Ole Miss| 12.14.11 @ 9:35AM

Please allow me, a retired history professor from Ole Miss, to recommend a few of my Christmas selections, dear readers:

TOYS FOR BIG BOYS by Ben Stein. Ben shows off his cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. Lovely photos of Ben barechested in his boat, leather-clad on his motorcycle. This huge coffee table book will appeal to both men and women. $175 Rizzoli.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED by Margie (a children's book). It's a story about a little girl who loans her lovely doll to her friend, and her friend, in a fit of anger, bashes the doll's head on a radiator pipe. $5.99 Tulip Press.

LOVE IN THE TIME OF DEATH PANELS by Garcia Gomez-Phillipe. A psychological thriller about a man who's been in a vegetative state for 15 years, and the hospital decides to pull the plug. The wife not only objects, but demands that fresh flowers be delivered to her husband's room daily. $29.95 Fascista Press.

WHEN JESUS LAID HIS HANDS ON ME by Ken (Old Texican). Ken tells about the time he pulled a muscle in his right shoulder while helping his friend Margie move an upright piano up a staircase. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but the theme is this: Jesus will answer your prayers if you really believe. $17.50 Glory Road Press.

A SEXUAL HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH by Miss Alabama. Miss Alabama, an Episcopalian and social and cultural doyenne of the South, writes about the ravenous sexual appetites of Southern Baptist men. Using her husband, Hank, his male friends and relatives, Miss Alabama rips open a sordid social fabric of unbridled sexual depravity. You'll need to turn on the air conditioner before opening this steamy tome. $45.00 Pavlova and Bertolucci.

Paul McGrath| 12.14.11 @ 11:40AM

I've looked at two posts so far today, and I've seen your book recommendation comment on both of them. Sorry. Not funny. I hope I don't see it again, but somehow I doubt it.

K & W| 12.14.11 @ 1:15PM

I read both posts of book recommendations, and they made me smile. Hodgkins of Ole Miss knows how to use humor to put AmSpecs' silly and self-important posters in their places.

Toys for Big Boys is just the type of book
Ben Stein, AmSpec's most ridiculous braggart, would attempt to throw together. I refuse to use the word "write" because Ben lacks the language skills, knowledge, and imagination to actually write a book.

And Hodgkin's spoof of Ken (Old Texican) and Margie is dead on target. These are precisely the types of books both would write.

And I especially liked the sarcasm in Love in the Time of Death Panels.

Very humorous indeed.

#| 12.14.11 @ 1:18PM

Ditto, K & W.

Bend it like Beckham| 12.14.11 @ 4:04PM

I like Miss Alabama's book. But it ain't just Southern Baptists that practice "unbridled sexual depravity." It's all of us.

Who was it that said that sex is NOT a dignified performance? It is anything but.

My wife and I always watch porno before sex. I mentioned this to my buddies, and they admitted they do also. And we're all doing "depraved" things.

Get over it Miss Alabama. We're all sexual pigs now. Think about it.

Occam's Tool| 12.14.11 @ 10:55PM

Stuart, happy holidays, sir. Your comments on Paqulbots are completely accurate, although I believe that comparing them to free living, hermaphroditic roundworms with 302 neurons who copulate with themselves and breed true (C. Elegans) is much more precisely descriptive of this genus of Americanus politicalidioticus.

I'm sorry, but as the husband of a Summa Cum Laude graduate of The Capstone, I cannot let the good reputation of Miss Alabama go undefended. G-d Bless you, ma'am. I find your writings much more interesting than Ben's, and considerably more amusing. Incidentally, as an accountant, my wife certified the vote on the Miss Cullman who became the Miss Alabama who became the Miss America in the late 80s, early 90s---I forget the year.

moderateme| 12.15.11 @ 10:29AM

Hilarious, I bought it until I looked for Steins book on Amazon. Got me.

Intelligent, witty, interesting, and mostly very civil comments on a conservative website. I have truly entered an alternate universe. Congrats to all

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:58PM

Christmas Reading for Obama Nation:

ALL YOU NEED IS CASH (or BARACK AND THE GREENBACK FACTORY), by Obama, Geithner, Frank and Pelosi; an engaging fantasy about a charismatic man in an Italian suit who talked his way into his job by complaining about deficit spending, then pushed the lever on the Greenback Factory to Warp Drive and made as much worthless cash in three years as the guy before him did in eight;

WORN OUT OXFORDS, by J Edgar Hodgkins: About retired professors from Ole Miss who haven't discovered that the half of the Medicaid money they put away has been promised to the health insurance industry in 2014 (in exchange for $6 million in campaign contributions to Max Baucus), let's hope the surprise ending doesn't include end-stage renal failure and a voucher for home-hospice care instead of dialysis;

BYE, BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE (or, DISSENT'S NOT PATRIOTIC ANY MORE), in which the Left's calls for civil discourse in American politics four years ago got smothered by the fists of SEIU loyalists at "town hall meetings," in a unique interpretation of Obama's rallying cry "get into their faces."

Fredx| 12.14.11 @ 10:30AM

I can't find "unexceptable" in the dictionary, but it's the most convincing non-word I've come across today. Next on deck: unexceptability. This is fun!

Alan Brooks| 12.14.11 @ 5:00PM

Since you guys sometimes miss attributions (too busy attacking Obama tpo always pay attention) and are such sticklers about copyrights, I did NOT write the following, okay? it was written by Richard Eskrow at IEET:
"Fire all the janitors and make poor kids clean their schools? Zap Korea with an airborne superlaser that’s never worked during testing? Ignore global warming and plan to re-engineer the entire planet with untested technology instead?

People like Maureen Dowd have been having fun with Newt Gingrich’s wackier ideas lately. But despite their snarky comments - and the fact that some of Gingrich’s ideas truly are bizarre - they’re missing something important and making a fundamental mistake.

They’re seriously underestimating both Gingrich and the “Insane Idea Industry” he represents.

The Shock of the Newt

Gingrich may sound like the mad-inventor villain from a 1930’s movie serial. But his eccentric concepts and pseudo-intellectual logorrhea aren’t just the product of his own eccentricities. They’re the natural flowering of a fifty-year trend in corporate conservatism which serves the agenda of the ultra-powerful in some very important ways.

Call him Dr. Strange. But Newt’s not some Random Idea Generator who spews out whatever crazy notion his Id generates out of half-digested Popular Science blog posts. He’s merely the latest in a long line of conservative ‘thinkers’ who play a vital role for Corporate America: They generate an ongoing barrage of radical ideas that, slowly but surely, help to undermine our country’s shared social vision.

What’s next: Ending Medicare by putting seniors in a post-hypnotic trance state so they think they’re not dying from inadequate medical care? A flock of flying squirrels to deliver the mail? Invisible robot St. Bernards instead of ambulances?

No idea is too zany to be considered - as long as it serves The Agenda.

The Crazier the Better

Think of Gingrich as the secret love child of Milton Friedman and Howard Stern. Or of nuclear-war advocate Herman Kahn and Marilyn Manson. Newt’s brand of conservative ‘idea generation’ is designed, first and foremost, to get lots of attention - which it has - and to make the values we’ve held for generations seem stale, rigid, and somehow less exciting than the futuristic corporate oligarchy of tomorrow.

Shock value is just as important as the ideas themselves. In fact, it’s more important. The Newt conservatives are conducting an intellectual guerrilla operation against deeply held values of the common good. Most of the ideas aren’t intended to be practical. They’re like performance art, but of a kind that’s designed to reinforce the suggestion that our old way of life is failing.

Newt is merely the latest and most conspicuous example of this Insane Idea Factory in action. There’s plenty more where he came from.

And the crazier the idea, the better. There are no rules and no boundaries, even those of common decency. Firing janitors and making poor kids clean the schools instead? That’s creative thinking! Ending Social Security and putting the financial security of a nation’s elderly at risk? That’s innovation! These liberals won’t think outside the box!

For all their carping about ‘liberal dreamers,’ there are no more impractical and wild-eyed dreamers on the planet than Gingrich and his fellow Conservative Utopians. They love coming up with the kinds of ideas that college students used to have in the sixties when they were getting high in their dorm rooms. The difference is that the college students were straight again in the morning.

But in the halls of conservative think tanks, the lava lamps never stop burning.

The Unthinkable

Herman Kahn wrote a book called Thinking the Unthinkable in which he argued that the US could attack the Soviet Union and start a nuclear war and “win.” That laid the foundation for decades more of a pointless and costly arms race, and spawned a whole industry of intellectual agents provocateurs whose role was to challenge conventional thinking with “rule-breaking” brilliance - even when , especially when, the conventional thinking was right.

An entire right-wing think tank industry was spawned. That network generated many ideas that served large corporations, including the concept of an “individual mandate” compelling citizens to buy health coverage from an industry dominated by for-profit insurers. That’s why Newt endorsed the idea, when it was created for the purpose of undermining the Clintons’ health reform project. He’s only rejected it now because it undermines an even more important objective: defeating Obama.

Hey, creative thinking’s great. I wouldn’t be affiliated with an organization like the Institute for Ethics in Emerging Technologies if I didn’t believe in exploring radical ideas. But the idea is only part of the process. It’s equally important to review the idea to see if it makes sense. Brainstorming begins with creativity and free association. But then it should be followed by analysis and common sense, hopefully leavened with humane values. The Gingrich types never get past the free association part.

As I was saying, creative thinking is great - that is, if you don’t forget the ‘thinking’ part.

The Agenda

The real objective is to convince middle-class Americans that most of the things they value in life - job opportunities, education for their children, a secure retirement - are obsolete, ineffective, standing in the way of a more vibrant future. That’s why Jack Kemp pushed “Free Enterprise Zones,” which would have suspended most of our labor laws and minimum wage requirements. The idea keeps resurfacing as a way to prevent outsourcing to the Third World - which it would, by turning portions of our own country into Third World enclaves.

Gingrich’s"Contract With America” was a masterpiece of word manipulation. Now he’s rebranding reality again: Economic security will “stifle innovation.” The Social Security system doesn’t “tap the energy of the market.” Unionized janitors are preventing poor kids form “learning the culture of work.”

Newt is like the kid in your high school who was pretty smart - but thought he was a genius. He’s not even close. But when it comes to distracting and confusing the public just enough to push through a radical corporatist agenda, he’s pretty damned smart."

Know what’s not smart? Underestimating Gingrich, or the corporate idea factory he represents.

Edward White| 12.14.11 @ 7:58PM

Amen and Amen.

Alan Brooks is actually capable of analytical thought and rational argument, a rarity on American Spectator.

Thanks, Alan, for the cogent analysis of Newt the Mad Maze Runner.

stmichrick| 12.14.11 @ 9:21PM

Who's Corporate America?
Name Names, please.
Frankly, using that term undermines your credibility Alan.

Quiche Lorraine| 12.17.11 @ 9:49PM

You lost me at "shared social vision". Do any
writing of your own Alan? You might want to get
your own website if you intend to post the articles
of "real" writers in full.

Vance Frickey| 12.20.11 @ 12:06AM

Instead of carping about Gingrich's ideas, let's look at what's actually been put in the pipeline by Obama and the Fools on the Hill - most notably defunding Medicare by half to pay for ObamaCare in 2014. "Disingenuous" doesn't BEGIN to do justice to accusing Newt Gingrich of denying adequate health care to seniors when Obama's own appointees to the Social Security Board and governing body over Medicare/Medicaid BOTH advocate denial of dialysis and other costly but life-saving health care to those over the age of 55.

irish19| 12.14.11 @ 8:34PM

And yet the RCP average as of today shows Gingrich up by 12 over Romney and 12.5 over Paul in Iowa. Gingrich is in 2nd in NH with Paul coming in 3rd. Where are you getting your numbers or the idea that Paul has even the tiniest chance of winning?

Occam's Tool| 12.14.11 @ 11:09PM

Irish---many happy holiday wishes to you, sir!

One thing that has not been explored here is the risk of Paul developing dementia during his term---it's remarkably high---by age 85 (he will be 82 at the end) the risk of DAT (Dementia, Alzheimer's type) is 50%. There is also the risk of stroke, etc, as well. This is a job known to be a man-killer, and I don't care that he can ride a bike now---I want to know if he will be able a year from now. The odds aren't the greatest.

In addition, of course, he and his followers are Antisemitic scum---which is the reason, of course, that he supports Occupy Wall Street. Unless, of course, he also supports defecation on police cars....hmmm, this is a point I have not considered....

Occam's Tool| 12.14.11 @ 11:09PM

Irish---many happy holiday wishes to you, sir!

One thing that has not been explored here is the risk of Paul developing dementia during his term---it's remarkably high---by age 85 (he will be 82 at the end) the risk of DAT (Dementia, Alzheimer's type) is 50%. There is also the risk of stroke, etc, as well. This is a job known to be a man-killer, and I don't care that he can ride a bike now---I want to know if he will be able a year from now. The odds aren't the greatest.

In addition, of course, he and his followers are Antisemitic scum---which is the reason, of course, that he supports Occupy Wall Street. Unless, of course, he also supports defecation on police cars....hmmm, this is a point I have not considered....

Soonerific| 12.15.11 @ 10:25AM

Too bad the Paulistinians aren't as violently opposed to Obama as they are Newt.

Red in Denver| 12.15.11 @ 12:03PM

DOES THIS INDICATE RON PAUL'S A 911 'TRUTHER' ??? (COMMENTS START ABOUT 50 SECONDS INTO THE VIDEO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENpjWNIt-Y

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:00PM

Ron Paul is sort of a projective intelligence test for the American voter: support him and you fail. And talking about Gingrich's "baggage" is absurd when Paul's newsletters show that Paul is the tarry, smelly id of the Republican Party. The press have refrained from seriously deconstructing Paul, I think, because if he were nominated by the Republican Party his racist newsletters would be the "October surprise" of all time.

Nancy in NC| 12.14.11 @ 7:52AM

I could not pick two worse people to head this government, other than the two already at the helm. But I don't see much difference, other than Huntsman has more hair than Biden and perhaps about 50 more IQ points.

I believe this will be the last article I read by Ben Stein. He has lost all credibility with me.

(And exactly why does he contribute here anyway? The HuffPo might suit him better.)

Jeff R| 12.14.11 @ 8:23AM

Gee, I don't always agree with Ben Stein - believe me - but to ask why he contributes "here."

You sound like a lib, ma'am. Intolerant of opinions that deviate from your own. I'm not a conservative because I want to boot Ben Stein or any other commentator off any opinion site.

Not agreeing with Mr. Stein is fair game... and expressing your differences are good. But leave the intolerance for the left.

beebop2| 12.15.11 @ 5:25AM

The subtitle of "clear view from Rancho Mirage" says it all for me.

Most conservatives are tired of the hoipoloi deciding who the candidate is. Perhaps if he had written this from say, Detroit or Buffalo I'd be a bit more convinced, but then again, any where you go, there you are.

CrackerHound| 12.14.11 @ 9:22AM

Nancy, It seems to me that you believe Gingrich/Huntsman are not rigid enough conservatives to be the Republican ticket in the next election. In in an ideal world, I too would prefer more solid conservatives. I like these guys paired together for the reasons that Ben has put forth. Here are two people with precise ideas on a wide range of issues that are critical to fixing a host of problems and they are basically common sense solutions grounded in preserving liberty/cutting the deficit/reduce spending and promoting capitalism. Fixing the structural inequities in US-China relations is also crucial and it will take leaders with a vision to tackle this.

As much as I like the conservatism of Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Palin, they do not possess the skills to tackle the overwhelming problems that we face. They ONLY have conservative credentials (no substance) and like all politicians in history they end up disappointing and abondoning the base for expediency. Newt is at his core a conservative. Pair that with his skills and we might have hope.

Reading the posts here on The AS and other places and listening to the punditry is so much distacting noise. When immersing yourself in this culture, you immediately get tunnel vision as I have for many years. It's getting so bad in consevative circles that many would have you believe Reagan was not conservative enough. This is one reason the Republican primary has become a circus...everyone trying to pretend they are the only conservative in the pack.
Take defense as an example. A REAL conservative would cut defense from the high spending levels we have now. There's pleanty of room for it without compromising defense and our role in the world. But if someone suggests this they are automatically labeled a RINO. How is the other side going to take you seriously if you say cut spending...only on the liberal cookie jars and not ours? I say this as a Tea Party member.....We really, REALLY need to untangle this partisan divide in our own party and more importantly, nationwide if we are to move forward. The only group that prospers in this enviroment are the marxist-socialists that created it. Ignore the media and ignore columnist, talking heads and narrow minded partisans...and we have too many of them anymore! You can witness for yourself that it is not working. We need the statesmanship of the founders quality, not of the guy in the basement with a laptop quality.

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:04PM

Ben Stein has managed to annoy me from time to time; most recently when he whined (and whined, and whined) about the size of the woman seated directly behind him on a cross-country airline flight.

However, he's an intelligent and insightful fellow, and Spectator's lucky to have him. And Gingrich and Huntsman are what we Cajuns call "faute de mieux" - easily better than anyone on either party's slate of candidates if only from a serious lack of choices. I'll take them gratefully.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 7:52AM

" Quick … who is the only Republican presidential candidate currently beating Barack Obama among independent voters?

Believe it or not, it’s Ron Paul. According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, Paul leads Obama among independent voters by a 48 to 39 percent margin – the only Republican to enjoy a lead among independents.

“This is yet another poll that clearly shows how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” Paul’s national chairman said in a statement. “Dr. Paul is making strides not just among Republicans, but independent voters as well. This broad base of increasing support proves that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

RCV| 12.14.11 @ 11:33AM

You must have missed the last Rasmussen national poll. Ron Paul runs worst against Obama, even worse than Gingrich.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 4:09PM

he also missed the latest Paul speech....like all the previous ones: filled with ankle deep platitudes.

Vance Frickey| 12.19.11 @ 11:11PM

Question: Which leading Presidential candidate is on written record as making the most asinine and bigoted comments about African-Americans possible? Ron Paul!

And since Ron Paul is NOT Barack Obama, he doesn't get the Get Out of Trouble for Association with Racists that Obama got during the 2008 campaign, when his wife and minister were both revealed to have been outspoken racists. Face it, to parallel Obama's involvement with racism in that campaign, John McCain would have had to have been a member of an Aryan Identity church for 12 years.

But the editors and television news directors of the nation are silently praying that Paul gets the nomination of the Republican party so the party AND Paul can be inextricably tarred with the racist brush based on Paul's published comments in his newsletters.

Gingrich is the only candidate in the race with a prayer of beating Barack Obama, personal baggage or not.

Doctor Right| 12.14.11 @ 8:13AM

Wrong as usual.

Both Gingrich and Romney are beating Obama in swing states among registered independents.

Do your homework, genius.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 9:05AM

Read The Public Policy Poll. Doctor Reich.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.....115513.pdf

You're The RINO-CINO ,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontaman, Mittens Romney.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 11:19AM

You are mentally retarded

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 11:55AM

You're The Chairman Of The Bores.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Big Bore's Face.

Ralph| 12.15.11 @ 11:25AM

Boar Hunter is right. Clint's gone full retard.

Mike W| 12.14.11 @ 9:42AM

You are deluding yourself if you think Gingrich has a chance. Once the Democrat party's money starts hitting him with attack ads (all true) then he will melt like a snowball in July.

Stein is a pathetic joke. I have no idea why he comments here since I thought this was a conservative web site.

I am now informed by Stein that to be a president of the USA you have to love Israel. Heretofore I wasn't aware that it was a requirement. I thought you just had to look out for the interests of the USA.

The election is over before it has begun.

Jeff R| 12.14.11 @ 10:31AM

"Stein is a pathetic joke. I have no idea why he comments here since I thought this was a conservative web site." -- Mike W

Not conservative by your standards, Mike? Your intolerance is like Nancy in NC's... Well, Stein doesn't agree with me - ban him!

That's the left's approach, not the conservative approach to the airing of ideas and opinions. Why don't you take the time to try to refute Stein rather than type some knee-jerk nonsense.

Nancy in NC| 12.14.11 @ 3:29PM

Did I say one word about banning Stein? No, I "wondered" aloud, and made a statement about my intent. I don't care what you do, but I'm expressing my opinion.

I was fed up with Stein when he kept yapping about the rich paying more taxes. If that's how he feels, why isn't he coughing it up?

And I'm sick and tired of people telling me to be tolerant. Exactly how tolerant are you of my opinion? I've put up with (tolerated) so much bad behavior that I'm tired of it. I'm sick of so called "stars" thinking they can put their opinion out there and I'm supposed to buy it hook, line and sinker.

I'm happy that Ben Stein has 2-3 or whatever houses, has a lovely wife, etc. but his political opinion is fair game. Exactly why his he purposing Gingrich-Huntsman? He likes them. Gee. I'm impressed. Gingrich stands up for America...such sterling qualification.

As I said before, I believe I'll pass on Mr. Stein's next article.

Robert776| 12.15.11 @ 4:32PM

Mike is so right about every point he makes. As a lifelong conservative I have never been in such despair about an election. I have learned from some so-called conservative comments that Perry = Reagan, Bachman = Thatcher, and Cain = Churchill. Anyone who believes any of this is no true conservative. If someone says that Glenn Beck = Milton Friedman, I'm going to throw up my hands and vote for Obama. Or maybe I'll just throw up.

Wayne| 12.14.11 @ 8:14AM

Huntsman is an Obama Republican, of course Stein likes him.

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 8:26AM

Until recently in PA we had a gaggle of critters known as Rendell Republicans. They were in fact supporters of Fast Eddy Spendell, the Mayor of PA, (he was never really the Governor) and nothing more than Democrats who changed their regisatration. Huntsweenie is an Obama Republican.

Don| 12.14.11 @ 8:17AM

Ron Paul worries me regarding national Defense.
I prefer Newt. Warts and All.
He could be our modern day Winston Churchill, as a National Review article discussed a day or so back.
Having said I prefer Newt, I would vote for Romney if hs is the nominee.
I cannot get comfortable with Ron paul, no matter how I try.
I think of him as a nutty uncle. I am sorry.
I cannot consider him, even though I share Libertarian views.
The world is just too damn scary to give him the trigger. Withdrawal from worl defense would only open us up to a Pearl Harbor or WTC, as sure as the sun rises in the east.
It ALWAYS does.
WWII is the prime example of what happened when civilization looked inward.
Obama has actually not done too badly in that respect in my view.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 9:11AM

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

Dr.Ron Paul, I'll ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran,if necessary."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 11:42AM

You are a retarded, shallow, laughable joke who posts the same transparent lies ad nauseam.

Ron Paul betrayed Reagan, as everyone including you damn well knows. You have posted this same lie at least ten times I can remember. You are retarded. You are not in the Tea Party and neither is that vapid, diminutive little man you support. Obama looks gay on a bike with his helmet and mom jeans. Ron Paul might as well be wearing a dress when he rides his.

Ron Paul has announced in advance he will betray America's interests the same way he did Reagan. Oh I forgot he stabbed Reagan in the back without advance notice. At least he lets everyone know he intends to betray America.

Put that in your Libro-cino-your-just-a-big-ol-meaney-name-calling-little-coward-if-you-don't-like-Ron-Paul's-platform-of-legal-marijuana-and-internet-porn-pipe-and-smoke-it.

And by the way your a retard.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 11:52AM

You Seem Very Cranky This Morning RINO-CINO Chairman Of The Bores.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 12:36PM

Retard, the chanting of lies over and over does not make them true.

Neither does posting things out of context. Ron Paul is a nut and wears a dress when he rides his bike.

Maybe you should start helping him with his 2016 campaign. He has not gotten the nomination the last 4/5 times he has run, but Im sure it will be different in 2016.

Oh and your still a retard.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 5:03PM

You Seem So PMS'Y , Chairman Of The Bores.

" Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.

Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.

The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Eric| 12.15.11 @ 11:35AM

You shouldn't call morons retards. Poor choice of words.

Mark in LA| 12.15.11 @ 6:25PM

Ronald Reagan was no Reagan - that's why Paul abandoned him.

Bob K.| 12.14.11 @ 9:03AM

You know Ben? With Perry and Bachman The Republicans would probably be assured of winning 44 electoral votes. With your two they might not win any.

RCV| 12.14.11 @ 11:34AM

Please. That ticket would not win a single state outside the South.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 4:19PM

wanna bet?

in the general election the attention is inevitably going to focus on Obama and his record. spare me the MSM diversion...anyone who travels the blog universe, speaks to casual acquaintances understands that there is pervasive dissatisfaction with Obama.

All this talk of which Repubs don't stand a chance? It's a tacit admission that Obama can't stand on his own merits. In strategic terms, one would express this as a "center of gravity". And Obama has a very obvious and intractable problem: failure...with millions each the living symbol of his ideological intransigence, intellectual short-comings, leadership weakness.

RCV| 12.14.11 @ 5:36PM

But you and your friends thought the same in 2008. Given the remaining GOP field, reelection looks quite solid in my view.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 11:06PM

pls...historical reconstructionism is so unattractive.

the 2008 election was about George Bush......a burden McCain had to absorb along with running a poor campaign.

The media and Obama will work overtime to deflect voters from his horrific record by skirting the issues and focusing on personalities. it won't work.....even Democrats are beginning to understand massive ineptness and detachment of their leader.

irish19| 12.14.11 @ 8:41PM

Therein lies the problem with Romney. He will not force zero to justify and run on his record. Newt will.

Bob K.| 12.14.11 @ 9:37PM

RCV
Bachman is from Minnesota. Texas and Minnesota's electoral votes come to 44.

Scott| 12.14.11 @ 10:04PM

If you think Bachmann could carry Minnesota state-wide, than I have some ocean-front property to sell you.

She's lucky every 2 years to carry her heavy leaning GOP district.

RCV| 12.17.11 @ 7:21PM

She would give us Democrats more material to work with than Palin did in 2008, with the same results.

Louis Jenkins| 12.14.11 @ 9:04AM

Ben, you live in the lap of luxury. Why do you even bother writing these days?

Peppermint Tea| 12.14.11 @ 9:23AM

Newt may be the next president (I hope not) but Huntsman will not be the veep. Veeps are chosen to help win campaigns. Huntsman doesn't bring anything as a RINO. The Republican Nominee will chose a Tea Party running mate like Palin, Bachman, Rubio, or Rand (not Ron) Paul.

WJ| 12.14.11 @ 9:45AM

Gingrich / Huntsman as our nominees assures us of four more years of Obama/Biden.

Get out of the echo chamber and look at the race with an open mind. Ben Stein has no credibility. Watch him on the news shows and he comes off as a moronic liberal.

Buck Ofama| 12.14.11 @ 10:34AM

How is Stein's credibility relevant to Gingrich and Huntsman?

bob alou| 12.14.11 @ 9:46AM

Huntsman brings nothing to the table from an electoral college, or ideological perspective. Nothing.

RCV| 12.17.11 @ 7:22PM

Except a strong draw to independents, whom the GOP desperately needs to win.

bill| 12.14.11 @ 10:06AM

Huntsman was Obama's ambassador in China, and that disqualifies him to be GOP contender. His fiscal and social policies are complicated and confusing.
In contrast, Newt makes more sense in terms of his policy on taxation and regulations, and his tenure as the speaker, he accomplished a lot.
Huntsman is unelectable while Newt still has chance.

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 11:34AM

Anybody is 'electable'. Obama is a prime example. That term is dumb.

bluecollarbytes| 12.14.11 @ 10:22AM

What does Huntsman add to a ticket but his well known disdain for conservatives and their politics? This is to appeal to the well-balanced middle, so full of inner conviction, level-headed positions (arrived at some time just prior to casting a ballot), and all around good taste. Yeah that's what we need.

Bill| 12.14.11 @ 11:31AM

Only thing Huntman adds to the GOP campaign is "Obama was my ex-boss."
That's a shame, isn't ?

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 11:55AM

He also adds milquetoast to the campaign. A moderate's moderate.

Bill| 12.14.11 @ 12:25PM

Yup. Those RINOs are back.

Buck Ofama| 12.14.11 @ 10:33AM

>Comparing Mr. Huntsman with Joe Biden is just plain cruel...

Hilarious.

We must rid the white house of the communist vermin infestation at all costs.

martin j smith| 12.14.11 @ 10:44AM

Oh standing up for America that will be the day. It is no longer PC to do that. I tired of people who lie with a straight face and we have some candidates who fit that bill. Huntsman,Romney,Gingrich.

Then we have Paul wo if he wants to get elected better get this into his thick skull: His blaming America for 9/11 will kill his chances and ( now gird your loins you wonderful Jewish Haters ) he had better not lose the Jewish vote and others as well who support Israel. He could even get the nomination but if he turns off enough people who are tired of Obama's ANTI-AMERICANISM he can lose. What a victory that would be --is that not so. American voters want a change from Obama not Obama lite.

gary siebel| 12.14.11 @ 11:13AM

LOL
Obviously your money acumen is better than your political acumen.

You spoke to someone at a gas station -- wow -- meaning what? you asked him to fill your tank?

So long as here are people like you there will always be demands to (over)tax the wealthy. You and Steve Wynn ought to move to China. Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out.

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 11:21AM

Those two run together and I won't vote, welcome in Obama to his second and final term as an elected president. Oh and since the cowards in the RNC refuse to man up, welcome to the end of America.

Purp| 12.14.11 @ 11:36AM

Whether it's the horrible Obama, the bombastic Gingrich, the wooden Romney, the wing-nut Paul, the fumbler-mumbler Perry, the wide-eyed Bachman, the RINO Hunstman, or the also-ran Santorum, predicting the End of America is a little extreme, don't you think?

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 11:50AM

Not if the incompetent, Marxist, narcissist boob Obama is re-elected.

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 12:26PM

Yes I do "think" and no I do not think that is too extreme. Quite the contrary.

Are you old enough to remember when Russia was?

Are you old enough to recall and understand what triggered their collapse? They were also considered too big to fail at one time.

Do you not see what is happening in England right now? Europe?

Do you not see the balkanization occurring within our boarders? Our federal government is refusing to enforce existing law on illegal immigration and is suing states that attempt to enforce them. Have you heard of a place called Dearbornistan?

Do you not see and understand what is being brought about by the class warfare we are engaged in with the Marxist takers in the flea and locust class?

OWS calls for revolution and Obama and the other democrats support them.

Give me! Give me! Give me! Tax the rich!

Do you not understand that our government has already been saturated with Obama appointed or hired political apparatchiks unanswerable to we the people?

Can you not see how onerous our government has become and understand how apt the comparison to that of a growing cancer?

We can survive Obama or whoever is elected. We cannot survive people stupid enough to vote for Obama.

Purp| 12.14.11 @ 12:52PM

Well, we survived people stupid enough to vote for Ronald Reagan and GW Bush, didn't we? Even survived people stupid enough to vote for Nixon. You're "sky is falling, sky is falling" Chicken Little impersonation is dumb at least, probably ignorant, but at worst evil. America will survive, have no doubt. Whether you're scaremongering will survive, I have my doubts.

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 1:26PM

We may not survive people stupid enough to vote for Obama. We made it past those dumb enough to vote for The Jimmuh. Ronald Reagan won by two landslides, but you are either too stupid or too young to know.

Purp| 12.14.11 @ 2:24PM

And those stupid ones that voted for Reagan are mostly dead now. Winning an election doesn't make him any good, now does he?
And, America survived ... that was my point.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 4:24PM

are to tell who really has the stranglehold on drivel in this thread. I'm leaning to you Purp...so you can fall asleep tonight tonight knowing you are a winner!

Gerard| 12.14.11 @ 5:58PM

I voted for reagan and I am damn glad I did!! What planet are you from ? The fay before he was wprn in, the Iranians released 300 plus American hostages taken under..be seated...Jimmy Carter.. remember the Cold War? reagan crushed the Soviet Union without firing a shot... germany is now unified and Poland is a free democracy. reaganomics launched a 25 year BOOM tha helped Clinton get re elected. He sent striking air tafficmcomtrollers packimg... In my estimation...he was the greatest President of my lifetime and Carter, and now O are the worst. Are we watching the same movie?

Mark in LA| 12.15.11 @ 6:18PM

If you think Reagan was a great President then you were watching a movie because it wasn't reality.

The Reagan "boom" was a mirage. It was created by taking us from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor. His amnesty did more to destroy this country and enhance illegal immigration than anything the commies did. He brought the Israel first neocons into the executive branch. His war on drugs sped up the process by which we are losing our civil rights. His "free trade" nonsense is why our jobs are all now overseas. His looking the other way while the crooks on Wall Street and the banks stole with abandon led to the S&L fisco paid for by the taxpayers. His pathological beliefs about the communists led to the massive wasteful spending on weapons that mostly never performed as intended until costly retrofits were done over and over again, many of those program were cancelled after tens of billions spent. His psychotic belligerance to the USSR almost caused WWIII in 1985 when the Norwegians alerted Moscow of a weather satellite rocket launch that forward radar stations of the Strategic Rocket Forces never heard about. A Russian officer had about 10 minutes to decide if the rocket was a first strike missle or not. Luckily, for the world, it was decided that a first strike would not be a single missile and the Russians did not launch. Lucky for Reagan, Margaret Thatcher convinved Reagan to stop listening to the neocons and he actually did something useful toward the end of his administration.

Yeah, the Reagan myth continues.

John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 6:53PM

Purp,

At fifty-five, I hope I'm not yet "mostly dead". Dad's eight-three and still kicking. He and Mom are on a three-week visit to London. Perhaps voting for Reagan was a key to longevity :) Naw! Just good conservative genes!

I hope you survive the next election, too!

Anthony| 12.14.11 @ 12:03PM

Who says Ben Stein is out of touch? He's the only person in America who knows who John Huntsman is, and V.P. material no less.
Ben ole boy, you sure do have your ears to the ground, but those eye drops ain't quite doing the job.
Now the question is, who put this thought into Ben's head, his dog or his shrink?

da monk| 12.14.11 @ 12:13PM

Is there any candidate you Conservatives can agree on ? Judging from your comments there is no person who will satisfy any of you. Any thoughts about Rush?

Boar Hunter| 12.14.11 @ 12:30PM

What do you care? You and all the others in the flea and locust class should be happy to have Obama again. Hasn't he given you everything you wanted?

RCV| 12.17.11 @ 7:24PM

We are happy to have him, and given the potential competition, will be happy to have him for four more years.

Mike Hawk| 12.14.11 @ 1:23PM

Rush isn't running. He doesn't want the pay cut.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 11:12PM

Don't let Limbaugh do your thinking for you.

Pat| 12.14.11 @ 7:00PM

Da monk: Good point and Republicans never fail to confuse us voters with the bewildering variety of their presidential offerings. Some potential GOP candidates are RINOs, some are Hawks, some are Doves while others are Hippos, but in the final assessment they’re all Elephants. The Democrats kindly offer us candidates as boringly consistent as grade A eggs in a plastic carton – their candidates - to a man, to a woman or to a “transgendered” - all desire to “help the less fortunate” and for only a modest personal commission on every trillion dollars in taxpayer giveaways.

Average Americans would prefer candidates who are honest, dripping with integrity, intelligent and who will put the welfare of the nation above that of their supporters and themselves. Yeah, and single American women would like a wealthy, handsome, sensitive, caring and obedient man to marry them. Good luck with both those naive dreams.

Who Knows?| 12.14.11 @ 12:31PM

Ben Stein continues to be a joke.

Kingofthenet| 12.14.11 @ 12:58PM

I had wandered far away in the store from Big Wifey and suddenly I could not see her any longer. I got frightened. What if she were gone? What if I were alone without my wife? I was totally scared.

Ben, I would advise an 'assisted living' home, you sound like a dementia patient. He loves America, AND he loves Israel, isn't that special, did anyone ever tell you you can't serve TWO masters.

Who Knows?| 12.14.11 @ 1:29PM

For all you Gingrich supporters, here's a heads up, that IMHO shows that he is weirdness on stilts

"You can’t teach Old Newt new tricks
By Jennifer Rubin
Newt Gingrich makes much of the fact that he’s now 68 years old and a grandfather. The implication, I guess, is that he’s not going to be unfaithful to his current wife as he was with his previous two spouses. But it also defies common sense for us to conclude that at 68 years old a man can entirely remake his personality. Every day we see more evidence that he hasn’t changed a bit.
Rich Lowry writes: “The New Newt says he’s 68 years old and therefore has mellowed and matured. He was 65 years and a few months old when he opposed TARP and then supported it. He was still just 67 years old when he criticized President Obama for not instituting a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for doing it. He was on the cusp of 68 when he denounced Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform as ‘right-wing social engineering,’ before contorting himself to explain it away.” The sense that he could, at any moment go wildly off the rails, is always lingering. “All that is predictable about Newt is that he is unpredictable, and, irresistibly, an election that should be about President Obama and his record will become about the heat and light generated by his electric performance. That’s the way it was as speaker, too. Eventually, he wore out his welcome in epic fashion.”
Part of why the “New Newt” myth is so transparently false is that he is incapable or unwilling to learn from his errors. At the onset of his campaign he brought down the wrath of the entire party by blasting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for allegedly engaging in “social engineering.” And wouldn’t you know it, that he did it again yesterday. Forbes reports that Gingrich rehashed his attack on Ryan in an online interview:
“I think you know that I like Paul Ryan, and you know that I’ve praised him a lot over the years. Callista has known him since he was an intern. And he and I talked after Meet the Press, which has been blown totally out of proportion. What I was saying was in answer to a very specific question, which was: if there’s a program which is very very unpopular, should Republicans impose it, and my answer was, no! When we passed welfare reform, 92% of the country favored it, including 88% on welfare. Reagan ran to be a popular president, not to maximize suicide. And I think conservatives have got to understand, you govern over the long run by having the American people think you’re doing a good job, and think you’re doing what they want. Now the question is, how do you have creative leadership that achieves the right values in a popular way?
Maximize suicide? Well, he doesn’t seem to be very remorseful for attacking a reform plan that every Republican House member voted for. Moreover, in his retelling, Gingrich entirely leaves out his “right-wing social engineering” comment, which was the flashpoint of the controversy. The report in full also details how poorly he understands Mitt Romney’s plan (which provide a Medicare option but within a defined contribution scheme). It’s the undisciplined, fact-challenged Gingrich that drove his party around the bend in the 1990s.
It is not surprising that Romney is drilling down on Gingrich’s inconsistency. The Post interviewed Romney, who seemed to echo Lowry and many of Gingrich’s harshest critics:
“He has been an extraordinarily unreliable leader in the conservative world—not 16 or 17 years ago but in the last two to three years,” Romney said. “And even during the campaign, the number of times he has moved from one spot to another has been remarkable. I think he’s shown a level of unreliability as a conservative leader today. . . .
“Let’s look at the record,” he said. “When Republicans were fighting for cap and trade and needed a leader to stand up against cap and trade, he did an ad with Nancy Pelosi about global warming,” he said. “When Republicans took one of the most courageous votes I’ve seen in at least a decade to call for the reform of Medicare under the Paul Ryan plan, he goes public and says this is a ‘right-wing social engineering’ plan. Even today he called it ‘suicide.’”
It is helpful to have an opponent who persistently illustrates your critiques.
Gingrich’s stubborn retention of a grab bag of unattractive personality traits also suggests that the Old Newt, hyper-partisan and passionate about many wacky things, won’t be trimming his sails in the general election. Already we see a mammoth gap in electability, reflecting the public’s conclusion that the Old Newt is the same as the New Newt.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll tells us:
Obama leads the former House speaker by 11 points among registered voters, 51 percent to 40 percent. But the president’s lead narrows to just two points against Romney, 47 percent to 45 percent.
Against a generic Republican, 43 percent say they will probably vote for Obama, while 45 percent say they will probably vote for the GOP candidate.
Why the difference between Gingrich and Romney? Look no further than their favorability ratings.
Gingrich enjoys strong numbers among Republicans (46 percent positive vs. 21 percent negative), conservatives (42 percent positive vs. 23 percent negative) and Tea Party supporters (54 percent positive vs. 16 percent negative). In fact, they are higher than Romney’s numbers among these same three key Republican groups.
But Gingrich struggles with other important voting blocs — like women (20 percent positive vs. 38 percent negative), independents (16 percent positive vs. 40 percent negative) and suburban residents (25 percent positive vs. 41 percent negative).
By comparison, Romney fares better among women (22 percent positive vs. 31 percent negative), independents (21 percent positive vs. 29 percent negative) and suburban dwellers (29 percent positive vs. 30 percent negative).
What’s more, 50 percent of registered voters say they would not vote for Gingrich in a general election — compared with 45 percent who said that about Obama and 44 percent who said that about Romney.
Likewise, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds, “Among all people surveyed in the AP-GfK poll, including Democrats and independents, Romney fares better than Gingrich in head-to-head matchups with Obama. Obama and Romney are statistically even. But Obama leads Gingrich 51 percent to 42 percent.” In sum, Gingrich has a big electability problem.
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, they say. And the general electorate thinks they’ve seen this dog before. Gingrich is his own worst enemy, and because he can’t change his essential nature or curb his worst instincts he is also a general-election disaster waiting to happen. "

MikeALoeb| 12.14.11 @ 2:13PM

I have an honest question for the Ron Paul people:

Suppose Ron Paul wins the Presidency. Will he have any success in getting his massive reforms through Congress? I agree that the government is too large and the overreach must be repealed. I agree that this country is headed off a cliff unless someone slams on the brakes. However, with Paul, I imagine just more gridlock in Washington. He may have some great ideas, but what in his history shows that he has the ability to lead others to his way of seeing things (i.e. Reagan)? Since he has been in Congress has there been an instance in which he lead (and other members have followed)? I just don't see him as a leader.
Consequently, I'm not sure he would be a very effective President.

At this time, I am not sold on a candidate, nor have I ruled one out. Above are my concerns with Paul. Give me a reason to think otherwise. Thanks.

Dylan| 12.14.11 @ 3:27PM

Considering most of the Republican field is talking about (they will never really do any of it because they are corporate shills) auditing the fed, reducing size of gov't, our financial policy, etc. how can you doubt that Paul is winning support in the Congress?

Do they agree with him really? NOT AT ALL, but they must answer to voters, and are parroting Ron Paul to save their political butts.

If he was prez, and leaning for these reforms that have the backing of the masses they will have 2 choices. Fall in line, or find a new job. Politicians are the ultimate survivors, so they will grumble, complain, etc, but will fall in line.

WE NEED meaningful change NOW. Not Obama change (all talk) not Newt (how can an establishment man bring any change) or robot Mitt, we need real change before we are totally hosed.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 4:29PM

bahahaha. they haven't listened to him while he's been a Congressperson! I do believe you have too simplistic a notion of the wellsprings to power, influence and leadership.

the poster is spot on......Paul doesn't have the allies he will need to execute his strategy - whatever that is since he is more platitude than substance.

Mark in LA| 12.15.11 @ 5:54PM

Ron Paul can unilaterally as the commander in chief of the armed forces close overseas military bases which serve no real purpose. He can get us out of South Korea, Japan, and Germany.

He can order cuts to defence. He can call on Congress to close worthless departments like Education. He has the authority to lay off people from those departments.

Most importantly he will stop digging the hole we are in.

PODBAYDOORS| 12.14.11 @ 2:16PM

When all out of Washington can pour an oily black pall on life, a post like this sweetens things immensely if only for a little while. I too am blessed with what I know to be the greatest gift any guy could have and thank God every day for it. Merry Christmas, Ben!

bill| 12.14.11 @ 2:31PM

Gingrich is not a perfect candidate. But between Newt and Mitt, I choose Newt because Newt has a proven record being a problem solver.
He has many controvercial stance in many issues, but as a President, Newt will be a voice for the people, while Mitt will embrace the moronic socialist path of Obama.
I firmly believe Rick Perry still has a chance in winning the GOP node, and has the electability to defeat Obama in a landslide.
Perry has a solid conservative record, and no reason voters should underestimate him.
Perry is the dark horse and winnable.

Michael| 12.14.11 @ 2:54PM

After reading all the "adult" statements, I'll add my comment. (Paragraph) Bachmann-Santorum. If it's a deadlock, then Bobby Gindal.

oldfart| 12.14.11 @ 2:56PM

Ben - you underestmate the ability of the Marxist to stuff the ballot box.
I pray you are right.

John Mikus| 12.14.11 @ 3:15PM

Sorry, Stein lost me when he ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported Barack Obama for president the last election.

Why should I consider his comments on Gingrich/Huntsman as anything close to an intelligent analysis in the light of his endorsement of Obama?

Kingofthenet| 12.14.11 @ 3:20PM

The Republican Nominating strategy all comes down to what you want, Do you:

A. Want to beat Obama no matter what, even if his replacement is a similar 'Big Govt.Type.
B. Willing to take a humiliating lose to support a 'REAL' Conservative, in other words 'go down' fighting.

It really comes down to whether you hate Obama MORE than you love Conservative Values.

carnot| 12.14.11 @ 4:33PM

well...yes and no. this whole thread is overly simplistic. the reality is that were a Republican elected Prez....his options can be constrained by placing a conservative House and Senate as the firewall this Prez must work through.

irish19| 12.14.11 @ 8:57PM

And that is why staying home this election out of spite is NOT an option.

Dylan| 12.14.11 @ 3:23PM

Wow, a shocker. A warhawk jew supports Gingrich... You gotta be kidding me! Get the best military and pay later...yeah, that is how we got in this mess you moron.

Gingrich has 0 integrity or credibility to win anything. If you can't stomach Mitt, better just put your head in the sand until 2012.

Glenn Koons| 12.14.11 @ 3:28PM

Newt is good for the Pubs and yet the Hunt seems to be just a DC Estab. type. Perhaps if he could establish some conserv cred, he could be considered as a VP though I do not know what electoral heft he would give the ticket. Then again, Newt and someone like Bob McD of Va. would have some effect. We shall see as people all over the USA seem hell bent on destroying all our Pub people while giving Obama a free ride.

Chef Schnauzer| 12.14.11 @ 3:40PM

Hey, Ben - Merry Christmas - the very best of the season to you and your family. I hope your prediction is inaccurate. Life goes on. Politics and government are irrelevant, repugnant and leave a disgusting ring around the soul.

John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 6:47PM

Chef Schnauzer,

It also leaves a repugnant mill-stone around the neck. Hence, not irrelevant. It's hard to have your face to the sun when it is being ground into the dirt.

Bill| 12.14.11 @ 3:51PM

Here's gonna happen in next few months:

IA winner: Ron Paul

NH winner: Mitt Romney

SC winner: Newt Gingrich

FL winner: Rick Perry

Super Tuesday winner: Rick Perry

and the GOP nominee: Rick Perry

President: Rick Perry

Why not?

RCV| 12.14.11 @ 4:14PM

That scenario is entirely plausible. However, if Gingrich lost the first two primaries, he might well be gone by South Carolina.

bill| 12.14.11 @ 7:51PM

Gingrich will win SC because he is from GA. However, GOP votes in the South will be split between Gingrich and Perry. In that context, Perry will have the edge and outperform Gingrich by winning FL, AL, NC, VA.
It's plausible, too.

John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 6:44PM

Bill,

Could be worse! I'm doubtful about your first call. We'll see soon. If Newt wins in IA, your can just replace all your "Rick Perry"s with Newt.

Could be better, but also could be worse. I'll take Perry or Newt. Each has his strengths and weaknesses. My favourites are gone, or will soon be (that would be Santorum).

bill| 12.14.11 @ 7:54PM

JN,

Mike Huckabee won in IA, and John McCain got the GOP nomination. IA Caucus in recent years picked the wrong candidate.

If Gingrich wins in IA, still Perry will secure the GOP node. I hope.

John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 9:16PM

Bill,

McCain then would be the Romney now. It's a different world. Perry's was never my favourite, but if he gets the nomination, I'll be right behind him.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 2:38PM

Rick can run and wag his tail but can he speak?

E_Montagu| 12.14.11 @ 3:53PM

Btw, I just made a contribution. This is a good site.

I had never considered Huntsman for VP and would never consider him for P. However, it makes a lot of sense for him to be Newt's running mate.

1. He's my commie sister's favorite Republican -- so we know he'd bring some "moderates" and independents.
2. Newt almost has to pick a governor for Veep so that his ticket has some executive branch experience.
3. And Huntsman happens to be the former governor of UTAH, which will give the West a place at the table and should help in Utah neighbors -- and states Obama won in 2008 -- like Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.

E_Montagu| 12.14.11 @ 4:04PM

A question for Ben Stein and other "We {Heart} Love Israel and the Defense Budget!" conservatives:

If by some strange twist Ron Paul wins the nomination, will you support him strongly against Obama?

I will.

P.S. I wouldn't care much who was president if we could make the Pauls -- father and son -- the leaders in the House and Senate, respectively.

Bill| 12.14.11 @ 4:20PM

Ron Paul is the king of "Libertarianism", except his throne (No disrespect, but his foreign policy sucks). His prince, Rand Paul, makes a lot of sense than his father, especially on foreign policy.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 1:47PM

Why are we still in NATO? The ex-Soviet block nations are in the EU. Japan can afford to pay for all of its defense. We are broke - see the US National Debt.

Clint| 12.14.11 @ 5:09PM

" Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.

Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.

The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Pat| 12.14.11 @ 5:29PM

Took Americans 8 years to become thoroughly fed up with Bush and his Republican administration, Obama managed to achieve the same effect in less than 2 years - maybe he truly is The One. Obama’s “gagging us with a spoon” index was helped along by a really nasty recession - or so his water boys in the media constantly remind the public. Of course, before he assumed the throne, he made all kinds of idiotic promises about what wonders he would perform on the American economy if elected, he failed to keep any of his promises, so the current “it’s not Obama’s fault” mantra is the mainstream media’s tiresome version of “He’s a Jolly Good Fella”.

The Republicans are anxious to regain the White House so they can start doing the same things Obama is presently doing, except the future beneficiaries of involuntary taxpayer handouts will most likely reside in different zip codes than the current Democratic parasites. As usual, we’re faced with voting for a probable duo of two middle-aged white guys carrying more baggage than a 747. That’s now decidedly OK by many Americans if only some of Obama’s more egregious taxpayer swindles can be undone, repealed or buried in bureaucratic red tape for the remainder of eternity.

Some Democrats, wearing paper bags over their heads to hide their identity and meeting secretly in a basement storeroom of the DNC Headquarters, are pondering the futile task of dumping Obama and running someone else in 2012. Good luck with that, it’s the smart political move but the Democrats have their own baggage to consider and bringing some rookie up from the minors to pitch in the World Series isn’t likely to thrill the Hope and Change loyalists.

Jane| 12.14.11 @ 6:14PM

I just love John Huntsman. Grrrr...what a man!

bill| 12.14.11 @ 7:55PM

Huntsman lacked charisma, records, and leadership.

Millie| 12.14.11 @ 6:57PM

You are only half right!! Huntsman is the number 1 guy, not the other way around!!!!

bill| 12.14.11 @ 7:56PM

Huntsman is the #7 guy in the GOP field.

POST American| 12.15.11 @ 12:55AM

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

Putting SUB-Mitt ROME-knee

---------------TTTRick Pair---HE

------------------ME SHALL BALK MEN

--------------------and 'Knew it' Getting RICH aside

AS the Congress authorizes the 'disappearance'
of American citizens here and abroad

----ENTER -----'HUNTS----MEN'

As 2012 ---enters

-------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg-------------------

AVCurmudgeon| 12.15.11 @ 3:18AM

Somehow I have this vague, dim and distant memory of people saying that this campaign would be about fundamental differences in vision for our country. Guess not.

Gingrich and Huntsman? Really? These are the ones to carry the banner of the conservative world view into the 2012 elections? Seriously? This is taking the "Anybody But Obama" thing to its extremes. Yes, I'll vote for them ... the GOP might just as well have one last success before it is officially buried forever as the unwanted right-center wing of the Democratic Party.

jim| 12.15.11 @ 8:14AM

That was about one of the best little articles I've read in a long time! Soothing, fluid, complete. Thanks for the thoughts.

Tom Johnson| 12.15.11 @ 8:51AM

Don’t Underestimate Newt
13 Dec 2011
Folks,
Don’t Underestimate Newt. And don’t undervalue him, either.
Newt’s Contract With America and other organizing efforts helped bring about a Republican majority in the US House of Representative in 1994[1] after 40 years of a Democratic majority in the House. Working with Democratic President Bill Clinton, Newt helped limit public welfare in 1996, pass a capital gains tax cut in 1997, and passed a balanced budget in 1998, the first balanced budget since 1969, a period, until 1994, when Democrats controlled the US House and the US budget process.
I personally wanted Mitch Daniels as the Republican candidate for US President. A close second is Rick Perry. My complaints against Newt are two: 1) I wanted to see a younger group of Republicans emerge as leader candidates. And 2) in July Newt made some derogatory comments about Paul Ryan, who is trying his best to help guide America (a thankless task) on the road to fiscal recovery and stability.
That said, Newt is the rare politician that actually gets things done, as per his record above. And his recent statement before a Jewish group that he would select John Bolton as US Secretary of State sends a clear message of strength, forethought, and determination to both friends and enemies (read Iran, Pakistan, Soviet Union) of the United States.
“The Left” is attempting to make Newt appear as a loose cannon to the American electorate with the Leftist goal of smearing Gingrich. Nice try. Please, keep it up!
It is exactly that Newt personality characteristic of being unknowable, unpredictable, and intelligent and accomplished that has both The Left fearful of loosing to Newt and, importantly, the US foreign enemies fearful of a re-backboned US.
Respectfully,
Tom Johnson
http://opinionscribe.blogspot.com
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

Brian Goettl| 12.15.11 @ 9:03AM

Not so fast there, Ben, Romney now leads in Iowa. As for me: I have decided to fully support Mitt Romney, and will be donating to his campaign today. I had been looking hard at other candidates, as Mr. Romney was a bit squishy on his conservative core values. But, after taking a close look at first Cain (who made my decision for me) and then Gingrich, I have made a final decision. The deciding factor was reading that both Ann Coulter and Christine O'Donnell support Romney. My pick for a winning team in the fall would be either Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan. Either would be unbeatable against Obama/Biden.

T. Holcomb| 12.15.11 @ 11:04AM

Romney leads in only 1 outlier poll while the rest have him trailing Gingrich, Paul and Perry. Let's not be disingenuous here. Romney is not going to win in Iowa.

Rumpole| 12.15.11 @ 9:11AM

This is why I love Ben!

Richcpl| 12.15.11 @ 9:29AM

This might be an interesting piece, but if I have to wait till the sixth paragraph for you to meander to the point, I'll never know. Zzzzz.

Lady in Red| 12.15.11 @ 9:58AM

Before you go overboard, Stein, about Newt, read this:

http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910

Newt Gingrich: Indispensable Republican

It's very nuanced, clear-sighted. The author, John H. Richardson, has another, shorter piece in Esquire about Ron Paul, also. Last April.

And, an old one on Joe Biden, but why bother?

There's Tomko the union man, plus Keith Richards. I have a lot of reading to do.

But, you, start with the Newt piece. It is complicated, not a simple-minded op-ed.

....Lady in Red

Jvnvch| 12.15.11 @ 10:10AM

I thought Stein was supposed to be highly intelligent. Gingrich is not going to be president, and Huntsman is not going to be vice president.

Damn, I must be smarter than Ben Stein.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 2:01PM

Jon Corzine is smart, look what happened to him.
Robert S. McNamara was smart and he betrayed our servicemen and women. Ben is smart and likeable.

MissouriConservative| 12.15.11 @ 10:25AM

Just like for magicians and comedians, timing is critical. Unfortunately the latest polling data shows today that as Gingrich is getting vetted by us the voters. Just like Perry , Cain and others, we take a look and find them lacking. Newt was up 21 points on 11/30 by Rasmussen, then it slid down to 13 on 12/5 by Fox News and today Gallup shows it down to 8 and the AP down to 6. Now I didn't learn the new math, but when a lead goes from 21 to 6 it indicates Newt is coming up lacking. His claim of $300,000 for being a historical consultant, now actually closer to 1.6 million shows he was at the feeding trough just like the rest. We Missouri and Iowa farmers know which pigs are greedy at feeding time.
Santorum correctly called Newt out saying you treat the Soviet Union, an enemy differently than you do a friend. It is called horse sense. Like asking your best friend (if you want to keep him) before you date his recent girlfriend.
I was glad to see ABC correct Perry over the Romney book, using both editions. Perry was smart not to take the bet. No gamble for Romney in that. Also recognizing that Romney took a $1 a year as governor salary and none with the Winter Olympics, you get the feeling that he is not a career politician, but someone who wants to give back. He is not the perfect candidate, but a lot closer to Herman Cain as a common sense businessman.
Lastly, Perry did nail down one good thing to think about. Not once, but twice Newt broke his marriage commitment. When push comes to shove, who or what else would he compromise.
Gingrich is just another slick snake oil man and we ain't gonna buy it.

BurkeVA| 12.15.11 @ 10:35AM

I have only one question for you. If Newt is the "slick, snakeoil salesman," then why does Romney have to resort to such awful personal attacks against him?

BurkeVA| 12.15.11 @ 10:32AM

I took the time to watch the Huntsman-Gingrich debate. Fabulous! It was Lincoln-Douglas style and what we heard was substance followed by substance followed by substance. Interestingly, it took place the same day at Newt's off the cuff shot at Romney. Guess what got all the coverage? And guess what the RINO Elites focused upon? We are all being very poorly served by our so-called political leaders and the media.

Brian Goettl| 12.15.11 @ 11:22AM

Following up my last post:

As for the important core issues for Romney, he is solid on those that matter most. He is a capitalist. He believes in the foundational principles of the country. He knows that you don't solve a debt crisis by going further in debt. He believes in a strong America that does not have to apologize to the world.

As for skills, he is a strong manager who has succesfully turned around failing businesses and organizations including laying off unproductive workers.

If any country needs a CEO with those skills right now, it is America. In short, Romney is a successful, competent CEO. It's well past time for America to have one as it's CEO.

Andrew Allan| 12.15.11 @ 12:49PM

Congratulations on Big Wifey.
My condolences for your love of Newt.

Dave| 12.15.11 @ 12:55PM

Never forget: Ben Stain called Al Franken "one of the smartes guys I know" and max'd out his political contribution to him. He helped bring Franken to the Senate. NEVER FORGET!

Go away RINO Ben! With friends like you, we don't need enemies!

Jesse| 12.15.11 @ 1:02PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is worth voting for. These other neocons and shills are a waste of time. Ron Paul 2012!

nova9047| 12.15.11 @ 1:06PM

The wit of Alf Landon + the wisdom of Wendall Wilkie rolled into one unelectable miasma. Thank heavens Obama has not been worse. For we will surely remain his comrads another 4 years.

Agoraphobic Plumber| 12.15.11 @ 1:14PM

Mr. Stein,

I have three reactions to your piece.

1) I would envy you for having the woman of your dreams...if I didn't already have the woman of my own dreams. You are absolutely correct....a good woman makes all the difference.

2) I share your antipathy for Obama, but don't have your confidence in Gingrich. He has good points...but he also has positions I just can't support.

3) Huntsman...who is he again? If Gingrich wins the nomination, and if he selects Huntsman as his running mate, I sincerely hope we'll get to know this man as well as we got to know Sarah Palin in the last cycle. Actually...no...I don't want to know him THAT well. I'd just like to know his stand on the pertinent issues. I have no interest in his uterus, how well he did in college 30 years ago (since Obama didn't release his own records), how he cuts his nails or whether he prefers his coffee black or with creamer.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 1:22PM

I sure don't want to know if they wear boxers or briefs.

Gaz| 12.15.11 @ 1:41PM

Somebody wake up Ben before he floods his Depends!

Mark in LA| 12.15.11 @ 1:53PM

Can you idiots get it through your heads that "Newt will out-debate Obama" means nothing to 2/3s of the voters whose IQ is below 100. Newt means more wars, more debt, more special priviledges for the bankers, and more of the same. Nobody he needs to cross over is going to vote for him. The independents don't like him and will no longer "hold their noses" and vote for Republican neocon establishment garbage.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 2:02PM

Mark this is why Obama must go!

Danford Kennelworth III| 12.15.11 @ 2:04PM

Ben Sten is the most out of touch person on the planet. Yeah, LOL, Obama should be scared of Newt. I guess that's why the DNC is smacking their lips at him being the GOP candidate. Ben, it's time to retire because you have really lost your marbles.

Greg Martin| 12.15.11 @ 2:11PM

So Ben, you love you wife and you would vote for Newt? Let me ask you Ben. Would you cheat on your wife? Probably not- why, because you have morals and character. Would you cheat on your wife numerous times? Probably not, because you have morals and character. Then why would you vote for somebody to be President of the U.S. who not only cheated on one wife, but cheated on two wives? I don't get it. Do you?

Lady in Red| 12.15.11 @ 2:25PM

How does one get rid off all this "black, blocked out comments," Am Spectator?

This is annoying as hell!

angee woodman| 12.15.11 @ 4:06PM

Mr Stein,

Ive watched you grow with Big Wifey over the past few years and Im very touched.

My parents do the same thing..

Noble protective men are hard time find these days

Stephen H Benedict| 12.15.11 @ 5:06PM

Thank you Ben. With the constant bashing of Newt by the candidates and Fox News and the republican establishment, finally someone without an agenda who has the sense to calmly look at the candidates and see who these people really are. God bless you!

Slder| 12.15.11 @ 5:43PM

Calling anyone with the idea of pre-emptive war, or any kind of strike on Iran brilliant is the mark of a completely insane person. Ben and Newt should have their heads examined for supporting such an insane idea. Haven't we had enough of war? Haven't we had enough of war mongers who avoided the draft during the Vietnam war and now cheerfully talk about sending other people's children to war? These people have lost all sense of decency. They will not have to suffer. Ben will not have to give up one of his houses or country club membership. Will his children or grandchildren have to step up and enlist? Will Newt's grandchildren that he likes to brag about serve? I highly doubt it. Have either contemplated what the cost of such a war would be? Iraq cost us over 1 billion dollars per day, and it had no serious Armed Forces to speak of and we lost 4400 soldiers there. Not to mention we had initial problems that bogged down our advance on Baghdad despite their inabilities. Iran would be ten times tougher with possibly tens of thousands of war dead, and cost us well in excess of 2 or even 3 trillion dollars. Iran could do incalculable damage to our economy in the meantime, easily closing the straits of Hormuz and effectively cutting off our major oil suppliers. And what would it cost us in terms of loss of international prestige and influence? It insane to contemplate this seriously, absent an attack on us or our allies. This is not what our nation needs to be about. We should be a beacon of hope for the world not a country to be feared and loathed. That is not our legacy. Unlike Newt and Ben, I have been to war - several times. I have no patience for people who wave the flag and monger for war but cannot be bothered to stand up and be counted when what they sow comes to fruition. Going to war with Iran is insanity, not brilliance.

E. Tomchin| 12.15.11 @ 6:56PM

Fine article except you have the sequence backwards. It'll be President Huntsman, Vice President Gingrich (where he can't do any harm, or at least no more than Biden did.)

moreco2| 12.15.11 @ 7:15PM

OMG, 2 uberRINOs.

rhoetus| 12.15.11 @ 7:40PM

Which failed policies are you willing to fund out of your wealth/income in perpetuity? The debt is now over 15 trillion plus the unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security. Are you going to let the AARP determine the issues? Vote for Ron Paul.

David| 12.15.11 @ 8:20PM

Please folks, take a good look at Santorum. I have been working a lot - many nights - and tonight is the first debate I will be able to see. I hear that Santorum has not done well in the previous debates, and that is so hard for me to believe. I used to watch him in the well of the House and Senate on C-SPAN and he was excellent. I just have to see tonight what most people have been saying about him because I just don't believe it. If I come away believing that he was excellent, then I am going to have to say that people are even bigger idiots than I thought. And that is why Bam Bam has an excellent chance to be re-elected.

Dr Dave| 12.15.11 @ 10:42PM

Gingrich-Huntsman? Nutso! A chameleon with three wives and a Mormon who chose to go to China to be his man. No wonder they say your profession is "comedian".

POST American| 12.15.11 @ 10:45PM

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

---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------

------BIGGER than 1945!

----------------Creepier than X-FILES!

-------------------------As inevitable as the sunrise!

------------------------REJOICE!

JFGalt| 12.16.11 @ 8:13AM

A vote for Newt is a vote for more of the same republican nonsense we've been getting from the party. We'll be back at war with somebody in no time and able to turn the spigots back on full force to the MIDC. AS seems to have a hard-on for Newt. Funny thing about the hatred on this site for Ron Paul - the complainers are supposedly against all the things he is until it comes down to actually having somebody do it - NIMBY syndrome. These people call for change from party orthodoxy yet they fear anyone that will bring it. Smells like a lot of neo-cons in disguise. Ron Paul is not in favor of supporting our 51st state of Israel no matter what they do to provoke their neighbors. I used to be a fan of theirs but it looks as if they are a victim of too much military power in the region and soon may bite off more than they can chew and drag us with them whether we are with them or not. AIPAC does its work well. The US empire is broke and the only thing that politicians can do is to take us down the path of hyperinflation. The FED killed us - we just don't know it yet. Ron Paul has been telling you for years that this was coming so why are you so surprised today? Yeah, go for Newt, who we already know to be a disgraced politician - did you forget? A wife cheater, untrustworthy and now amazingly rehabilitated by the party. Man, there are some real fools out there. You all laughed at OBAMA!'s supporters for the mindless drones they were yet look in the mirror. The difference with Ron Paul supporters is they actually take action and support him because they know the real thing when they see it - you guys well...You can fool some of the people some of the time but the republican party can fool republican supporters all of the time.

Bob| 12.16.11 @ 9:13AM

Ah Ben, I'm right behind you, heading for Palm Desert from Huntington Beach on Saturday afternoon. My wife and I will pick up our son, returning from McGill U., at John Wayne airport and get underway for a week of sun, reading, drinking, and, most of all, enjoying each other's company.

Allen| 12.16.11 @ 1:55PM

Why would anyone pay attention to this guy? Last thing he was campaigning for was higher taxes. Wouldn't want him endorsing me if I were running!

FW Noll| 12.16.11 @ 3:13PM

Sir, I hope you are wrong about the Huntsman projection. Can't stand him. The smugness, the professed desire to be civil to Obama (while Obama trashes the opposition and the nation without substance), the so-called "science" believer posture, the"global warming" thing, all of this and more irritates me. I'd prefer Gingrich-Santorum, or Romney-Rubio, or Romney-West. But Huntsman? Yuck!

Becky| 12.19.11 @ 12:50PM

I usually enjoy most of your comments and articles, but I must respectfully disagree w/ you on this one, Ben. Huntsman leans too far to the left of center for me, and although Newt is smart in many ways and a noteworthy debater, I have to say that I don't trust him, partly because of his personal life, and partly because of his political connections and practices of the past. Not sure who I'll vote for just yet (likely anyone but Obama or Ron Paul), but I'll NOT be voting for Newt, no matter who is running mate is, in the primaries. JMO

James| 12.20.11 @ 2:01PM

Mr. Ben Stein has excellent perspective as always. A Gingrich-Huntsman ticket could go a long way in both the Republican primaries and the general election if they would work to bring limited government to the United Nations through non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel. The UN resolutions against Israel are big government gone wild and require the United States to use military intervention a lot more than otherwise would be necessary. Non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel would be a diplomatic solution that is better and more effective than military interventions in the Middle East; which is not to say that a military intervention might not be necessary, just that the need for military interventions would be greatly reduced. Limited government conservatives ought to support the non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel both as effective foreign policy and an effective campaign to win the GOP presidential nomination and US presidential election.

James| 12.20.11 @ 2:01PM

Mr. Ben Stein has excellent perspective as always. A Gingrich-Huntsman ticket could go a long way in both the Republican primaries and the general election if they would work to bring limited government to the United Nations through non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel. The UN resolutions against Israel are big government gone wild and require the United States to use military intervention a lot more than otherwise would be necessary. Non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel would be a diplomatic solution that is better and more effective than military interventions in the Middle East; which is not to say that a military intervention might not be necessary, just that the need for military interventions would be greatly reduced. Limited government conservatives ought to support the non-recognition of governments that do not recognize the nation of Israel both as effective foreign policy and an effective campaign to win the GOP presidential nomination and US presidential election.

hmrhonda| 12.21.11 @ 12:30PM

That would be my number one choice

Citizen Pain| 12.21.11 @ 5:42PM

Ben Stein has zero credibility - go back to his faulty '08 prediction on the mortgage market (a tiny blip he said) but to promote Huntsman proves the Bilderberg Group New World Order is alive & well at A/S. Very sad.

Shannon| 12.24.11 @ 8:37AM

Doesn't make a difference because Newt who didn't even qualify in his new home state of Virginia, will NEVER get the nomination and despite the fact that I really like Huntsman I would never, ever vote for a ticket with the Newtster on it.