-
Not Super, But Pretty Good
June 18, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Player of the Week
June 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Bart Brightman vs. The 50 Ft. Democrats
June 5, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Gawker to Put Up or Shut Up
May 29, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
A Further Perspective
Mitt Throws a Fit
Why direct it at the former speaker instead of at himself?
Mitt Romney is mad.
Wouldn’t you be mad if you had double digit lead in the polls in South Carolina only to squander that lead in a matter of days and then lose to Newt Gingrich by twelve points?
Wouldn’t you be kicking yourself not releasing your tax returns even though your top advisers had exhorted you to do so?
This is not where Mitt Romney expected to be going into the Florida Primary. He was supposed to have gone three for three in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Instead with only the Granite state in his pocket, Romney has entered the Sunshine State facing his winter of discontent.
So now Romney is going after Gingrich with everything he’s got. In light of the fact that Romney will soon release his tax returns, he is accusing Gingrich of “potentially wrongful activity of some kind” by not registering as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, called upon him to return compensation he received from Fannie & Freddie and for good measure called him “highly erratic.” You can be sure that Romney will be raising this and then some during the two Florida debates this week.
While these charges might once again raise doubts about the former House Speaker, will it necessarily benefit Romney? After all, Romney is telling Republican primary voters why they shouldn’t vote for Gingrich. But it doesn’t tell them why they should cast their fate with him. After all, when the Romney PAC went after Gingrich, it ended up benefitting Rick Santorum.
So therein lay the problem. What is the raison d’être of Romney’s candidacy? Well, his main selling point has been his experience in the private sector. Yet when that experience is challenged, Romney displays the kind of thin skin reminiscent of President Obama. Romney equates criticism of his time at Bain Capital with criticism of free enterprise itself. That Romney considers his private sector record beyond question is a strong indication that he treats the Republican nomination as if it were an entitlement. And here we thought Romney wanted to earn his way to the nomination. At the very minimum, he has to do more than earn it in New Hampshire.
Frankly, aside from a clear cut victory in the Granite State, the only thing Romney has earned during this campaign is suspicion from many Republican primary voters. His reluctance to release his tax returns gave suspicion that he was being evasive and had something to hide. Romney also earned suspicion when he said he enjoyed firing people who provided services to him. Yeah, yeah, I know he was referring to health care providers. But is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe he also enjoyed firing people while he was at Bain? At the very minimum, these were not very carefully chosen words and he said them far too casually. In a time of high unemployment, are those struggling to make ends meet going to trust the economy in the hands of someone who derives any kind of enjoyment out of firing people?
Of course, Romney continues to earn suspicion from Republican primary voters for being a conservative of convenience. It is all well and good for Romney to extol Ronald Reagan’s virtues and to say he wants America “to remain the shining city on the hill.” But when he was running against Ted Kennedy here in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney wanted absolutely nothing to do with Reagan when he said, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” While one can criticize Newt Gingrich for being at odds with conservatives at various points over the years, he led Republicans to a majority in the House of Representatives and no one can take that away from him however some might try. And where was Romney while Newt was championing the Contract With America? He was calling it a “not a good idea” and a “mistake.”
I understand that Mitt Romney is angry at Newt Gingrich for stealing his thunder in South Carolina. But while Romney directs his anger at the former Speaker, Newt will be content to direct his anger at President Obama and the liberal media who protect him. If Romney isn’t careful and lets his anger towards Newt get the better of him, he could help clear a path for Newt to the White House even more than he has already.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/mitt-throws-a-fit
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
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 6:48AM
Newt Gingrich is not electable even if he manages to take his crusade of big ideas to the nomination.
Your rhetorical question is one you should be asking yourself, as in, "Why am I not mad that a corrupt Washington insider is doing so well?"
First, Newt was one of the guilty parties in the House Banking scandal. The incident was not a question of just kiting checks which is a criminal offense, it speaks more to the Newt's (And many other politicians) mind set that the public are sheep to be sheared. How so?
The kited checks were a loan from the U.S. Treasury. Illegal loans. The irony of it is that Newt kited a check to the IRS for $9,463 in addition to kiting 22 other checks.
The way the scam worked was that elected Representatives had their own bank, the House Bank. It was overseen by the House Sergeant At Arms who the Speaker of the House controls lock, stock and barrel.
The checks were simply held in the bank while the funds were paid out of the U.S. Treasury. The House Sgt. At Arms floated a check for a house right off of Capitol Hill.
This doesn't make you angry that Newt Gingrich is an admitted unconvicted criminal?
Let's take it further. It's well known that people that get away with criminality take it further at some point.
That takes us to the House Ethics investigation of Newt, his payment of $300,000 to compensate for the investigation, and his resignation. All in a day's work in your belief?
Just yesterday Newt Gingrich released a copy of a 2006 contract which was very vague and now adamantly refuses to release any more information about his relationship with Fannie/Freddie, all the while calling Romney a vulture capitalist.
I'll tell you who the real vulture capitalist was, it was Newt Gingrich who helped Fannie/Freddie sack the public treasury for 8 more years while escaping detection.
Even if you give Newt the benefit of the doubt, that has to leave one to wonder about his ability to grasp real facts, since the history of Fannie/Freddie was in the numbers.
In fact, while Newt was speaker, a federal agency, OHFEO reported in 1998 that Fannie/Freddie were corrupt to the bone and something should have been done immediately.
And where did Newt run when he resigned? Right to the place he knew he would be welcome, a corrupt GSE.
If none of the concerns you or makes you mad your faux concern is noted.
Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 7:16AM
The sooner Net and Mtt destroy themselves the better. Gngrich is just a paid flunky for the worst elements in Israel. Wthout these people dumpingy milllions into his campaign he would of had no money to attack Romney.
Romney the other hands just a failed governor of the most liberl statethe country. Neiher has a sincere in their bodies. They have the backbones of Jello and flip and flop at the change in the wind.
TrueBlue | 1.24.12 @ 5:43PM
You say that Jack, but all those voters would then go straight to Santorum, who you have also said on multiple occasions you hate and is a warmonger, chickenhawk, etc etc with your usual rhetoric. If Newt and Romney dropped out, Dr. Ron Paul would be losing 75% to 25%.
sjccoach| 1.24.12 @ 8:19AM
Romney is not electable. He loses in a landslide to Obama because he is Obama lite and hates the base of his party. What is the difference between Obama and Romney? Obama is a communist and Romney is a big government socialist.
steve| 1.24.12 @ 8:25AM
This is just plain idiotic. On issue by issue, Romney disagrees with obama. So how can he be obama lite?
Gregg| 1.24.12 @ 8:40AM
Easy - just listen to Romney describe himself during his 2002 campaign:
"...my views are Progressive."
Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. Living as I did and do, in Massachusetts, I got to see first hand that Romney is no Conservative. If yuo think he is you will be deeply disappointed.
Better than Obama? Yeah.
Conservative?
No way.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 9:08AM
Bush called himself a compassionate conservative and got elected twice on it. If that isn't the essence of progressivism what is?
rjh| 1.24.12 @ 12:00PM
Bush was fortunate in that his opponents were laughable, bufoonish Democrat hacks. Being a conservative, it was very disheartening for me to watch the Bushes destroy the Republican party.
Gregg| 1.24.12 @ 2:11PM
At lease Bush used the word "conservative". Romney did not.
And the phrase "compassionate conservative" is fuzzy enough to allow people to arrive at their own conclusion as to what it might mean (for the 1st election).
But Romney called himself a *Progressive*. He used that exact word to describe himself.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 7:01AM
You're splitting hairs.
Gregg| 1.25.12 @ 9:14AM
Oh yeah...Willard's statement of:
"..my views are Progressive"
is a real hair splitter.
You have no argument.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 9:58AM
Bill Hussein O'Stalin,
It's clear you don't like Newt. Chacun à son goût. Your criticism, while factual, isn't well balanced. The check "kiting" scandal wasn't actually kiting (picking a nit), but rather the abuse of the overdraft protection the House Bank offered all its members. You don't get such a perk, I don't and they shouldn't have had it either. But Gingrich (who wrote 22 "hot" checks - not 23) and the "Young Turks" actually blew the cover on this - perhaps calculating the damage would fall predominantly on the Dems - and let the chips fall. Some members (almost all Democrats) had written hundreds of checks and kept overdraft balances for years.
As to the ethics charges... you may recall the Democrats papered him over with ethics violations. 83 or 84 were dismissed. The $300K was a settlement - it gave both sides a win; including the Ethics Committee which didn't have any ethical compunction against listening to Newt's private telephone calls. You may have the will and resources to spend years fighting this sort of political battle, but I don't damn those who do not. One reason (among others) that I would never run for office is that I could never be good enough to withstand such scrutiny.
One thing I will not do is sit this one out. I don't see a perfect candidate, and I'm not running. I'll have to pick one of those actually on the ballot - assuming the Justice Dept. lets Texas vote at all.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 10:00AM
Oops! ...83 OF 84 were dismissed.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 10:48AM
Actually, your comment that his check kiting wasn't kiting and not illegal is not the slightest bit factual.
A decision was made to prosecute some of the check kiters and some went to prison including the House Sgt. At Arms. I don't remember the exact amount but he allegedly paid for a house (Over $300,000) with his illegal check/loan.
I suggest you check the D.C. code which is the law where the crimes were committed. These types of crimes are not normally prosecuted anymore if a settlement is reached. That doesn't mean a crime was not committed.
I think the decision to prosecute was not made because Newt and some of the others, including current Senator Dick Durbin, could plead they didn't know the bank was holding the checks.
On the other hand the U.S. Attorney could have pursued a conspiracy investigation against the entire lot but your comment that theirs was privileged situation is true. They are the elite.
By the way, part of that investigation was also the House Post Office where members of Congress took their stamps down and turned them into cash. That was also clearly illegal, yet not all were prosecuted.
As far as Newt and his ethics charges he resigned. Maybe he was tired or maybe he through there was more to come and he didn't feel like feeding the attorneys. The point is that his ethics got him involved. What were those ethics?
Also, how do you explain Fannie/Freddie and Newt's refusal to release the documents? The Democrats have them and whether you like Romney or not his point about the October surprise is valid.
Here's some more about Newt that I think the media is going to use to rip him apart if he's lucky enough to knock Mitt off his game:
" in 1995, Newt's book scandal was pretty big news. He was offered first $2.5 million, then $4.5 million by Harper Collins, a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox TV network and newspapers and TV stations around the world. Murdoch has been having problems with a complaint by NBC that Fox is a foreign owned TV network, which is against US law.
In the past, Harper Collins has offered million dollar book contracts to several conservative politicians in countries where Murdoch was having regulatory trouble, including England (Margaret Thatcher, Jeffrey Archer) and China (Deng Xiaoping's daughter). A week after the initial offer, Newt met with Rupert Murdoch - and Murdoch's legislative lobbyist - to discuss politics, including the NBC complaint. As facts about the deal were made public, and even Republicans criticized him, Gingrich decided to give up the $4.5 million advance for a still-lucrative deal based on royalties.
Gingrich's story kept changing through the controversy. First, Newt's spokesman said that Murdoch knew nothing about Gingrich and the book deal. On Friday January 13, Newt's spokesman admitted that Murdoch actually met Newt on a park bench the week before the deal was made, but didn't talk about it. He also said he knew nothing about Murdoch's lobbyist being at their meeting. The next day, he admitted the lobbyist was there, but claimed he didn't say so because no one asked.
Newt also said repeatedly that the book wasn't his idea; that a literary agent named Lynn Chu had sought him out and proposed it. After Ms. Chu said that Gingrich's associate Jeff Eisenach called her first on Newt's behalf, Eisenach and Newt's spokesman admitted that was true.
The 1984 Book Deal Murdoch's book deal wasn't the first lucrative and controversial book deal Newt engineered. In 1983 he established a limited partnership in Atlanta called COS Limited, which pulled together about two dozen of his biggest campaign contributors to finance his book.
The former administrator of his congressional offices in Georgia, Dolores Adamson, resigned over the deal. "The manuscript was put together in the district office using office equipment," she said. "He would just come in and say 'This is what I want to do.' I would say, 'This is not ethical," but after a while he didn't listen." That office equipment, of course, was paid for by US taxpayers including you."
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 12:25PM
Bill Hussein O'Stalin,
The deal was that the bank provided overdraft protection up to the monthly payroll amount. Most, but not all, were within than limit. The criminal investigation were of things done with the money - loaning to a campaign, investing the overdraft in a CD, etc., not that practice of overdraft, itself. You claim Gingrich was an admitted criminal for his overdrafts. I disagree. I know of no one prosecuted for the overdrafts - please advise me otherwise.
I'm quite sure you think Gingrich committed a crime on the 84th ethics charge. God may know so, but the law does not. Gingrich admitted no wrong-doing and the matter before the committee to find such violations of House rules or even a crime was closed. That doesn't mean you have to vote for him, but it does mean that no crime was committed.
You damn Gingrich for his ethics getting him involved but completely ignore the political environment which brought those charges and that 83 were dismissed as being without merit. Whose ethics?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 1:40PM
Please, get serious. If Newt had nothing to worry about he wouldn't have resigned. His own party voted for it.
As far as the House Bank several members were convicted. Some kited checks were traced to other crimes. Many were swept out of office. Out of the entire group I think only two or three were actually convicted of the check kiting.
However, it was a privilege the average citizen would not have gotten from any bank. And it was only possible due to a sleazy atmosphere that both parties allowed to continue.
It you're content with people who screw the public at the drop of the hat because they can get away with it, so be it. You are what you eat.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 2:14PM
Bill Hussein O'Stalin,
Serious, indeed! The ethics scandal was in '97. Boehner and others tried to force him to resign then. He said not no, but hell no, remained Speaker and was re-elected in the '98 elections whereupon he, facing the caucus which would no doubt not return him as Speaker, resigned and left the House. So what did his own party vote for?
I'll be pleased for you to dredge up the names of people "convicted of check kiting." I no of none. The atmosphere was, no doubt, sleazy and yet you give no credit for Gingrich's role in stopping it.
I eat just fine, thank you.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 7:06AM
There is no check kiting charge. There were some convictions related to the checks and here they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal
Four ex-Congressmen, a Delegate, and the former House Sergeant at Arms were convicted of wrongdoing as a result of the investigation that followed.[2] Among these, former Rep. Buz Lukens (R-OH) was convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Former Rep. Carl C. Perkins (D-KY) pled guilty to various charges including a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions including the House Bank. Former Rep. Carroll Hubbard (D-KY) pled guilty to three felonies. Former Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) was charged with seven felonies, but she ended up pleading guilty only to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank. The House Bank investigation also led to Delegate Walter E. Fauntroy (D-DC) pleading guilty to an unrelated charge of a making a false statement relating to a charitable contribution to his church. The former Sergeant at Arms, Jack Russ, pled guilty to three felonies.[3]
c.j. acworth| 1.24.12 @ 6:48AM
Will Romney allow his anger to Newt-er him?
I've decided to just grit my teeth, hold my nose, and pull the lever for whoeverwhatever ends up with the "R" next to its name. I can't work up enthusiasm for a single one of them. In an election that should be a cakewalk for the Stupid Party, there is a very real danger they will lose. Time to focus like a laser on the House and Senate.
Appleby| 1.24.12 @ 7:05AM
I don't actually like Romney. There is something wrong with him that I have not sussed out yet, but I know it's there.
Especially I don't like Romney because he demands that I do.
steve| 1.24.12 @ 8:23AM
Who cares, you live in Canada.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 9:29AM
steve,
Please! This is a forum for opinions. If one had to apply for membership, a lot of trolls would have nothing to do.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 11:13AM
Appleby actually has a point. Brett Stephens in todays WSJ defines it best. "For Romney convictions are a veneer... the voters usually prefer a man who stands for something".
Sometimes those outside the arena have a clearer view. Just as immigrant citizens have a deeper understanding of why America is best, so Appleby may have a better perspective on this election.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 12:40PM
Al Adab,
I happen to agree with Appleby's point which is just a valid coming from a Canadian as not.
I read Brett Stephens article earlier and was a little put off. He seems to think the Republican nominee will lose. He may well be correct - we'll know on Nov. 7 (hanging chads permitting). But his premise that the candidates are losers seems to come more from his personal disenchantment than from anything he posited.
I just want to meet the Newt supporter confronted with having Romney as the nominee, or vice versa, deciding to vote for Obama, or sit the election out, for disappointment. Does such a person exist? Does that person seen no substantial difference between any potential Republican nominee and Obama? If so, we should just pick the President by lottery.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 2:13PM
John:
In point of fact I too am beginning to wonder if it would not be better for all candidates to drop the primary efforts and go with someone not even in the mix. A Pawlenty, Walker, Kyl, DuPont or some such to mention only those that come right to mind, might be a better path than to continue to kill each other off through this destructive process. It may be that the primary system has run its course and that a return to meaningful conventions would be best.
My Appleby comment was for Steve who seems to have an issue. Thanks for your reply.
John Navratil| 1.24.12 @ 2:20PM
Al Adab,
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
What seems missing to me is the acknowledgement that the very existence of a "non-Romney" faction is testament to the civil war in the Republican Party. The Old Guard gave us the profligacy of the 'W' years (completely eclipsed by the Obama years, no doubt). Conservatives want to get out of the fire, not back into the pan. The Republican Party status quo ante is not selling well. I, for one, think it a very good thing.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 2:30PM
John:
Like I said below, 2/3rds of GOP voters want someone other than Mitt. Romney needs to admit it and get out. That is one reason it may be a return to the convention process instead of damaging primaries might be in order.
W| 1.24.12 @ 2:37PM
Al Adab and John
I don't believe the supporters of Newt, Mitt, or Rick will sit out the election or vote for Obama. Some of the Paul supporters on this site such as Jack will sit it out if not vote for Obama since they seem more interested in proving some point, which is not clearly stated, than in beating Obama.
Steve's objection should be not that it is a Canadian opinion but that it just says she doesn't like Mitt but does not know why. No analyis of the issues, she just does not like him. People who vote on whether they "like" voted for Obama or Bubba because they are so likable.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 2:48PM
W:
Giants and Patriots. In an election year we must all back the Pats. Of course given two east coast teams, oh well.
I doubt as well they will sit it out although, as you know, I reserve questions about the efficacy of electing a DEM lite since the policy changes will not follow and the ultimate collapse will be wrongly blamed by History. Too many voted for Obama as likable, but all too many voted for him because of his race perhaps to prove to themselves a lack of personal prejudice or to participate in "this historical event". How long before we reap the whirlwind?
W| 1.24.12 @ 3:07PM
Al Adab
At least we were accurate about the Pats and Giants. Glad the Niners lost, they have 5 Super Bowl wins, as do the Cowboys, but Steelers lead with 6. I don't know yet about Pats or Giants.
I absolutely agree Obama got many votes because of his race. Hillary made a mistake in not competing in the states with a caucus system thus allowing Obama to accumulate delegates. She made a big mistake in not attacking Obama on Wright/Ayers. She won the big primaries, like Pa, but it was too late because Obama led in the delegate count.
Then McCain repeated Hillary's mistake in not attacking Obama on Wright/Ayers. And McCain rushed back to DC for the big meeting on the bailouts and allowed Obama to steal the show.
I think both Hillary and McCain were afraid to touch the Wright issue because Obama and Wright are black. Hillary would have destroyed a white candidate who attended a bigoted church like Wright's church.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 3:32PM
W:
Many of us who watched the replay think the Ravens touchdown that wasn't, actually was.
Republicans always have a difficult time playing rough. They seem to prefer a proper, civilized, well mannered treatment of the "honorable opposition". It costs them every time. That is one of the reasons the Newt rage went over so well with the voters. Voters would like to see candidates who take the matter as seriously as they, the voters, do. The stakes are so high it is time to "take off the gloves" and defend the liberties and values of this nation.
Vern Crisler| 1.24.12 @ 9:44AM
Probably you don't like Romney because he's superficial. He responds with conservative sounding generalities, but with no real substance. Romney may say he is a conservative but he doesn't really know why. His defense of capitalism should be his strong point but he merely mouths platitudes about it; he doesn't show any understanding of Adam Smith, Mises, or Hayek, or why Keynesianism is wrong. He's the same way with conservatism. It's doubtful he even knows who Saul Alinsky was, or why Newt even mentions Alinsky in connection with Obama. It's this sort of vapidity that turns off conservatives, and maybe why you and a lot of others don't trust Romney.
In the meantime, the Republican establishment, along with National Review right wingers, and Ann Coulter, are going the way of Peggy Noonan -- selling their political souls for the ever elusive "new found respect" from liberal media, or kow-towing to the protean notion of "electability" as their ultimate standard. It's time for these Republicans to move on, and allow a new generation to take charge.
John Daniel| 1.24.12 @ 7:21AM
There's a wide difference between corporate management and political leadership. The first goes to the bottom line on a ledger sheet and the latter to passion. Romney apparently doesn't get it.
POST American| 1.24.12 @ 7:55AM
Romney = Gingrich
BOTH = 4 more years of Rockefeller-CFR
Globalist TREASON and ever more aggressively
deployed ---EUGENICS---.
The NAFTA destruction of American
sovereignty --MORE handovers to RED
China ---and NO redress, much less turnaround
of our unpunished 6 decades on capstone
directed ultural degradation.
Whoever you are, wherever you are,
whatever you are ---close with your family,
with the aged, with the unborn, with your
locality---
Clean out your churches ----or leave and
start your own.
DO NOT despair.
"Two people make a universe."
D H Lawrence
(letters)
----------------THIS IS the 11th HOUR----------------
Two people make a universe.
Meet another's eyes.
Hear the words -------'STAND WITH ME'.
------------------YOU ARE THERE---------------------
Tim the Enchanter| 1.24.12 @ 5:02PM
Huh?
Gregg| 1.24.12 @ 8:43AM
You are correct, Mr. Goldstein. Furthermore I would say that if Mitt cannot battle and defeat Gingrich's attacks on him be CERTAINLY has no chance against Obama.
Willard is wrapped very tightly and bristles whenever he's pushed out of his comfort zone. he wants to win the election without opening up and connecting. I suspect he simply does not know how.
martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 9:42AM
Rush Limbaugh has stated in his view the RNC has given up winning the WH. They want to win the Senate and the House. Thus the Romney nomination. That is why I do not support Romney.
And yes Aaron I would not vote for Romney because he is behaving just like the other loser John McCain.
I also believe Romney's choice attack Newt is a losing strategy his better be would have been to show he can beat Obama. He is failing to inspire and is not really selling his candidacy. He is being given bad advice and or his thinking is warpt.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 10:26AM
Mitt needs to understand that 2/3rds of GOP voters want a nominee other than him. He can continue to gain a plurality and maybe obtain the nomination to no avail. It is time to put country above ego, get out and let the GOP coalesce around someone who can defeat the incumbant.
JimH| 1.24.12 @ 10:44AM
On the GOP side of the aisle at least, the MSM scrutiny combined with opposition research make the prospect of being a candidate an extremely difficult prospect. I doubt if there is any potential worthwhile candidate who has zero baggage and who has never altered an opinion on any meaningful issue in their life. To subject oneself and one’s family to this ordeal requires either a tremendous ego, great sense of public duty or great naiveté in thinking that the past will not be uncovered. As has been said before, if one candidate walked on water he’d be criticized by the others for not being able to swim. One question, for which I don’t have an answer, is: is the cause of liberty and limited government best served by electing a wishy-washy Republican president or nominating a strong spokesman who might not win the general election and focus on gaining the Senate and increasing gains in the House?
Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 11:32AM
Newt' s records:
-Engineered the 1994 GOP revolt
-Balanced the budget 4 straight years without raising taxes
-Reformed the welfare system
-Passed the Crime Bill
-Impeached Bill Clinton
After his retirmnet from the Congress, he remained a voice for conservative movement, prompting liberty and the Constitution.
Newt is no perfect. But He is the most viable candidate in the GOP field. He is the "Shadow of Ronald Reagan."
Mike| 1.24.12 @ 11:50AM
This is the perfect example of how Gingrich is able to manufacture facts around which he builds a history to support an ideology, in this case the ideology of naked opportunism and cynicism. Once it has taken root in the minds of some, it cannot be debunked even by those who served with Gingrich when he was Speaker. Oh, well.
Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 2:31PM
They are facts, not fiction.
Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 11:35AM
Mitt looked ugly and proved that he is the "dirty player" in the GOP race. His vicious attacks on Newt generated no appaluse, the audience were tired and became impatient of Mitt's reneltless burking on Newt. Mitt lost the debate.
Mike| 1.24.12 @ 11:46AM
Joe Scarborough made it perfectly clear on Meet the Press that Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. Google him, exhorted Joe. I'm sure this will be enough to earn Mr. Scarborough his RINO-CINO creds. He is right. Gingrich is an opportunist who knows how to play to the angry, hateful and ill-informed in the party like a fiddle.
The cloistered Mr. Romney, on the other hand, has not a clue about what these people are like let alone how to address them. From what I observed last night, Mr. Romney can throw a very genteel fit.
David| 1.24.12 @ 12:09PM
Hey folks, look at what Bam Bam's crowd can throw at Romney when he starts bringing up Reagan and and trying to convince the voters he is a conservative.
Read other articles about Newt and what Bam Bam can throw at Newt.
Now, look to Santorum, and what can Bam Bam say about him? Very, very little.
Newt is an opportunist. I recall the last prez election cycle when Newt was toying and teasing about running in the primary. I remember him making amends with the Jerry Falwell and James Dobson folks. THEN, when Dobson came out and said he would support Newt if he ran, Newt did a gotcha and said it would be illegal for him to run because of the organizations he we involved with at the time. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER WHAT A MANIPULATOR, DECEIVER, AND OPPORTUNIST HE WAS TO PLAY DOBSON LIKE THAT?
David| 1.24.12 @ 12:11PM
Hey bulbul, I guess that is a nickname for b_llshitter!!! Get your facts straight. No applause was allowed at the debate last night.
Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 12:48PM
It's okay and appropriate for each of you to have your preferences concerning these candidates, but please keep in mind/perspective the ultimate thought that IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 2:31PM
Romney can go as negative as he can, but yet he cannot win in FL. A New England moderate has no place in deep south, FL. Romney's records:
-RomneyCare
-pro abortion
-pro gay marriage
-pro gun control
-pro climate change
Romney is a "dead man walking." It's Gingrich in FL, all the way to the end.
David| 1.24.12 @ 4:41PM
Forget about Newt asking his wife for an open marriage and the 3 wives stuff. I like what the 2nd wife reported he said when she admonished him about things he does.
Newt said: "People don't care about what I do. They only care about what I say. And I can say things better than anyone else can say them".
Whoa. THAT SOUNDS EERILY LIKE OUR CURRENT PLANET HEALER AND RECEDER OF OCEANS.
And because I absolutely believe his wife on that, I think Newt is an arrogant opportunist with an ego at least as big as Bam Bam's.
We better get behind Santorum while we still have the chance.
cicero| 1.24.12 @ 4:41PM
May I suggest a come back line for Newt when Romney attacks him with the half truths and non-truths, in the next debate? "There you gop again."
PCP Smoker| 1.24.12 @ 8:50PM
Author looks like that kook Cramer from MSNBC
POST American| 1.24.12 @ 11:08PM
---------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
Remember---
Even two people make a universe.
In the eyes you show it:
-----------------'STAND WITH ME'---------------------
Unaccountable, debt serf generating,
psychopathic USURY is fundamentally
TREASONOUS.
Itself an instrument of capstone control,
its sole cultural aim is ---EUGENICS.
Ultimate EUGENICS, down through
'his-story' --is GENOCIDE.
YOU ----are marked.
"And when your time comes ---WHAT WILL
YOU DO?"
-'IKIRU'
Akira Kurosawa film
1952
(the year we saved --some--
of KOREA from the RED Chinese
Halocaust)
------------------------WHAT WILL YOU DO?
-------------------------------WHAT?
In your soul -----------------------WHAT?
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 1.25.12 @ 12:47AM
It's obvious that Romney is now running scared. The sputtering and defensive ex governor who led Mass. to adopt the first failed government healthcare, is, apparently, now, attempting to "poison the well" and take the focus off who would be more effective as the GOP nominee.
Remember ancient history? After the Shepard boy, David, slew Goliath, he was lauded by the common people. They praised his valiant and triumphant efforts by saying: “[King] Saul slew his thousands; David, his ten thousands.”
The reality remains: While Romney may have created some [meager] thousands of jobs in the private sector, Newt Gingrich was part and parcel of a much larger (national and grandiose) enterprise, helping to create millions of American jobs.
America now needs a new president who has been successful on the federal / national level. Gingrich is that personality. He has the wide breath of knowledge and national experience to begin to unravel all that extremist Obama has done in his efforts to dismantle traditional America.
Oh, - that's right – this week, Rasmaussen Polling has Gingrich up by 9 percentage points. No wonder Romney is stumping in the mud.........