The American Spectator : Gingrich Frames the Debate

Text Size

Gingrich Frames the Debate

By Peter Ferrara on 1.25.12 @ 6:09AM

Before this campaign is over, America will know who Saul Alinsky is, even if Mitt Romney does not.

Let me just say that I believe the debate we're going to have with President Obama over the next eight or nine months is the outlining of the two Americas:

Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic America that has provided opportunity for more people of more backgrounds than any country in history, or whether, in fact, we prefer to become a brand-new, secular, European-style, bureaucratic socialist system.

The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the America of weakness in foreign policy.

In so summarizing his South Carolina victory speech last week, Newt Gingrich framed the debate against President Obama with a clear vision that will sharply clarify the choice the American people will have to make this year.

Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky? One TV commentator indicated that most Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way, because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his campaign, every American will.

President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky, and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN.

The American people need to know this, and all about Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection of America, and all it has stood for since 1776.

America has long been the land of world leading prosperity, a true workers' paradise. But the real point of Obama's State of the Union last night was that all of that has to change now, because America is "unfair," in the Alinsky/Marxist worldview.

Let's give the President credit where credit is due. Obama is a very sophisticated Marxist philosopher, combining the highly advanced social manipulation tactics of Alinsky with careful, long developed insights in how to craft a modern, neo-Marxist message to sell to a majority of modern America. This is what we heard in last night's State of the Union. The real question this year is whether this generation of Americans can be duped into trashing the greatest, most prosperous, most successful nation in the history of the world, for a retrograde Marxist vision that thoroughly failed throughout the last century, and which the rest of the world has learned through hard experience is confused to the point of practical silliness. This only indicates how much deep trouble America is in, with Obama as President, and his philosophy and worldview having taken over the modern Democrat party.

What Gingrich indicated in his South Carolina victory speech is that he understands what Obama is really all about, and the fundamental challenge he represents to the future of America. And he intends to reveal the truth of Obama's carefully crafted neo-Marxist message to the American people.

Gingrich is the only candidate remotely capable of carrying the flag for the true, original, historic America in this fundamental, existential battle for national survival. He so rightly identified the public mood in his South Carolina speech, saying, "The American people feel that they have elites who have been trying for a half-century to force us to quit being American and become some kind of other system." He further identified the pending danger, "If Barack Obama can get re-elected after this disaster, just think how radical he would be in a second term."

Gingrich recognizes the central importance of the economic issues in this campaign, and has proposed the most specific, most bold, most comprehensive supply-side economic recovery program of all the candidates, which I have discussed in this space before. He very effectively dramatizes that by saying, "President Obama has been, historically, the most effective food stamp President in American history…. If you want your children to have a life of dependency on food stamps, you have a candidate, it's Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independence and paychecks you have a candidate, it's Newt Gingrich."

Gingrich recognizes another component of his long-term economic recovery and prosperity program is an American energy policy, unleashing producers to maximize production of American energy from all sources. He adds as another central component: "Since I am the only Speaker of the House in your lifetime to have helped create four consecutive balanced budgets, I think I can tell you, as President, I will work very hard to get back to a balanced budget as rapidly as possible, and then to run a surplus to pay down the debt so no Chinese leverage exists on the United States by having our debt." Indeed, as Speaker, he left a legacy of paying down $560 billion in debt with four consecutive record budget surpluses.

Gingrich rightly touts his proven leadership and success on these policies, saying, "I worked with Ronald Reagan to create jobs, and 16 million jobs were created by the American people in the 1980s. I worked with Bill Clinton, the Democrat, to create jobs, and 11 million jobs were created by the American people during the four years that I was Speaker." His goal in sharp contrast to Obama: "I would like to be the best paycheck President in American history."

He also recognizes that "One of the key issues is the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites." He served as one of the most faithful, highly effective leaders in modern history on social conservative issues while in office, from pro-life, to pro-gun rights, to pro-family and traditional moral values issues. Most intriguing, he has proposed in this campaign a comprehensive, truly original, historically and legally based strategy to counter liberal activist judges, who have implemented from the bench in recent decades the social liberal agenda. (See Newt.org).

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (286) | Leave a comment

Richard Baker| 1.25.12 @ 6:34AM

Good article. I believe Rush has said that Romney is 9-16 in his electoral record. Not a particularly successful candidate, is he? What I agree with strongly is Romney's inability to defend the system which made him wealthy. If he can't defend the system he wants to lead then he's nothing more than yet ANOTHER perfectly coiffed and dressed vacillator who doesn't know what he believes when he grew up. Newt is coming on because his boldness is still typically American if not as prevalent as once in our history. He is NOT, look at him, perfectly coiffed and dressed but he isn't a vacillating kinda guy. Another American Spectator article said that Newt believes in "Go big or go home". Stay tuned, sportsfans.

Hobbes| 1.25.12 @ 9:56AM

Want to make sure Obama is re-elected in a landslide? Nominate that whackjob Newt. Mission accomplished.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:19AM

And who told you he is a whack job?

Dick Nome| 1.25.12 @ 11:25AM

Rube Paul is the whackjob, an old crackpot no less.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 11:54AM

I would take any Republican, or for that matter anybody picked at random from the phone book over the Marxist/Communist interloper currently occupying the white house.

And seriously, Gingrich a "whackjob"? Hardly. By saying such a thing, you reveal the depth of your ignorance.

Crawler| 1.25.12 @ 12:40PM

If Newt's the that last "R" standing come November 6th, 2012, he'll be the next president because the majority of voting Americans will not be voting for a presidential candidate of their choice, they'll be voting to remove an ideologue and incompetent from the White House.

Don't believe me? Go ask Jimmy Carter what happened to him in 1980...

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:03PM

As opposed to that Bradley Manning fan ne plus ultra, Ron Paul, and his Ronulan army.

Fred Farkel| 1.25.12 @ 6:13PM

I like that. A Ronulan Army of Paulbots.

John Barleycorn| 1.25.12 @ 7:30PM

Actually, the term "Paulistinians" is much more apropo.

Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 4:10PM

Sadly, AmSpec's own editor, RET has now joined the Republican establishment. Pretty soon he'll be doing a Peggy Noonan on us, talking about how "disturbing" Newt is, just as she insulted Sarah.

It's sad to see all these former conservatives in their declining years. They so much want repectability from liberal media, they canibalize their own.

NoMoBO| 1.25.12 @ 5:17PM

Newt IS NOT a whackjob. He is an articulate, knowledgeable historian and astute problem solver and big idea man and the true conservative that will put America back on track. Obama, Pelosi and gang are terrified that Newt will get the nod. They want to pick our candidate for us but that's not gonna happen.

GO NEWT. GO NEWT. GO NEWT.

Trish| 1.25.12 @ 6:58PM

Spot on every point. The Dems want weak Romney because they know he won't fight tough. They don't want the fraud up against a bulldog.

steve| 1.26.12 @ 7:23AM

When Candidate Gingrich offers us a series of either/or metaphorical propositions, void of any real meaning, not only is he introducing a set of false logic dillemmas, but showing he is a demagogue of an unscrupulous nature.

Declaration of Independance vs Saul Alinsky really? Gingrich would have been a Tory and Alinsky - Samual Adams...so what ever!

Surly Curmudgen| 1.26.12 @ 7:03PM

To our communist/socialist wannabe masters someone who lies, cheats, steals or murders to advance their agenda is a hero. Saul Alinsky articulated how lying, cheating, stealing or murdering can best be used to further their agenda and Obama was #1 student with Hillery #2 student. You aught to be ashamed of comparing Samuel Adams to Alinsky.

Surly Curmudgen| 1.26.12 @ 7:16PM

Control; Romney you are the second string. You will only be put in the game if the varsity breaks his leg. You will not attack him in any way. The only time you will us his name is if someone attacks him in your presence, then you can say Obama is a good man. Is that understood.
Romney; (in a craven McFly obeisance) ye...ye..yes sir I understand sir.

Surly Curmudgen| 1.26.12 @ 6:50PM

It's not just Obama, Pelosi and gang that are terrified, included are the Republican establishment types. they all are as terrified of Newt as they where/are of Palin.

irish19| 1.26.12 @ 2:31PM

So we should run the guy who lost to the guy who lost to zero?

irish19| 1.26.12 @ 2:32PM

The comment is directed to Hobbs at the top of the thread.

runningdeer| 1.30.12 @ 1:21AM

I'm not sure that is true. IF speculating it would seem that the Democrats have been planning on the Mitt Romney / Obama agenda for all these years and they have their video's and media folks ready to attack . From the noise from the Democrats it seems that they would like to try to convince folks that Newt isn't man enough to take the White House and that they know so much. ( Personally I don't believe one word that comes from them now.)
Either of the candidates would show vast improvement over the man in the Presidents seat now,but neither of them have what the media and the folks really want to see. ( It isn't about how intelligent or good a man they are. It isn't about their knowledge of tax's and how to make the Economy better. It's all about that big smile and how well they can hold an audience. It's about if they have talent enough to get the youth market talking in a good way. If they appeal to the masses- since the majority of American's know little or nothing about political matters and the Tax's or anything that the Republican's talk about.) If the Republican's could learn to project themselves as stars and winners, Idols, then they can overcome this president. If they can sing a line from a hit song and swagger in a way that isn't offensive or stupid. IF they have the ability to act like the next American Idol and kiss every other woman who is in the audience as they walk into a room. If they can learn how to talk much while saying little and while doing that, say words that are simple but that sound powerful. If they can tell the folks what it is that they know they need and point to how there are those folks who have the solution's for that need and then tell them if they elect them that they will get it for them, they will be able to defeat this president. Or at least they can compete with him on his playing field because he's got it down to a fine art. ( That's all he has ) But it's enough to get him in the White House .

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:14PM

"Before this campaign is over, America will know who Saul Alinsky is, even if Mitt Romney does not."

Alinsky is getting our boys killed in Vietnam! We'd better send in the hardhats to club him next time them Communists do a demonstration...

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:18PM

when Alinsky pauses to light a marywanna cigarette at the next Weathermen bombing, get Joe to hit him with a wrench!

Tim B| 1.26.12 @ 3:43PM

I didn't know who Saul Alinksy was - perhaps because I'm British. I've just Wikipedia'd him and I must say he doesn't sound that bad. Could somebody maybe give me a quick run-down on what made him so evil? The only specific charge this article makes against him is of being a Marxist, but the Wikipedia article I read said that he refused ever to join the Communist Party because he was against doctrinaire thinking. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:49PM

Before Newt Gingrich dominated the South Carolina primary, a so-called super PAC supporting him spent millions of dollars savaging Mitt Romney in negative ads and fliers.

A driving force behind that super PAC is Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino tycoon who has translated his deep friendship with Gingrich into a financial bonanza to buoy his candidacy. Adelson gave the PAC, Winning Our Future, $5 million just before the South Carolina primary, and this week, his wife gave the group another $5 million.

The Adelsons make Mitt Romney look like Tom Joad. Adelson, the eighth-richest American, is worth more than $20 billion. He built the iconic Venetian hotel (and another in Macao to match) and has given to a host of Jewish causes — in addition to funding a nonprofit group that led to Gingrich's presidential run.

Adelson met Gingrich when he was the speaker of the House, and they bonded over their dedication to support Israel as Congress debated passing a bill that would encourage the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to be moved to Jerusalem, the capital. Since then they've been friends, with obvious benefits.

"He admires and likes Newt for his intellect and his creativity, and those are two traits that are very strong with Sheldon himself," said Robert List, a former governor of Nevada who was Adelson's legal counsel when he acquired the historic Sands Hotel. "It's no surprise that he's liked Newt from the beginning."

In October, Adelson attended a fundraiser for Gingrich at a Las Vegas restaurant owned by George Harris, a former political consultant who worked for the casino baron for years and ate lunch with him every day. They raised $60,000 for Gingrich.

Next week, Gingrich is due back at the restaurant, and so is Adelson, Harris said. Nevada's Republican caucus is Feb. 4.

"Sheldon Adelson — if he said he's going to do something, he does it," Harris said. "He's a humongous supporter of Newt. They're friends. They're buddies. It's a true relationship."

The money that the Adelsons have given to Winning Our Future is double what the super PAC has already spent to support Gingrich, which is just over $5 million as of Wednesday. It's unclear how much money the group has ready to spend, because super PACs aren't required to report how much they've raised until the end of January — after the four first primary contests.

Lifted by the donation from Adelson's wife, Winning Our Future is placing a big bet on the Florida primary, spending $6 million to run a TV ad that demonizes the health care plan that Romney led in Massachusetts.

The plan is awfully similar to what happened in South Carolina, where Romney's lead over the other candidates shrank by the day as the pro-Gingrich super PAC crowded the airwaves with anti-Romney commercials. Now the PAC is spending much more in Florida, though the Adelsons are said to have asked that the ads be positive.

"He wants to advance Newt's cause," List said. "He'll do what he can to help."

Gingrich was seen as a serious candidate only recently, months after Adelson first attended that Las Vegas fundraiser for him in October. The headlines were about Romney, and Gingrich was being called a long-shot. In some ways, Adelson's friends saw a parallel to a meeting with his senior staff when he was describing his vision to build a "new Las Vegas strip" in Macao.

"At that time, it was just a dream, and huge, involving billions and billions and billions of dollars," List said. "People were sitting around the table saying, 'Do you really think this could happen?' You know? And it did."

In an alternate universe, if Gingrich had never befriended Adelson years ago, the super PAC supporting the former speaker would probably have a significantly diminished effect. Perhaps South Carolina would have gone Romney's way, all but crowning him the nominee before January is over. Or maybe Gingrich's victory would have just been smaller.

Either way, Adelson reportedly doesn't expect anything in return from Gingrich. "Sheldon doesn't need anything from anybody," Harris said.

And those who know Adelson well say that despite his loyalty to Gingrich, he'll be quick to reopen his checkbook for Romney if the ex-governor wins the Republican nomination.

"I don't think there's any doubt that he would support Romney, absolutely not one doubt in the entire world," said Fred Zeidman, a Romney fundraiser who speaks often with Adelson and who was the chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (the Adelsons have donated profusely to the museum). "This is all about beating Barack Obama."

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:04PM

Sheldon is MY HERO! A GREAT force for good.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 7:55PM

His wallet is very attractive.

steve| 1.26.12 @ 7:29AM

A Vegas Casino Tycoon and Force for Good just seems odd for a values based conservative party.

Like saying Larry Flynt was a force for good by fighting for free speech with money raised from porn

TrueBlue| 1.26.12 @ 1:27PM

Better a Vegas casino tycoon than the Native American lobbyists (who also donate to Democrat candidates) that push to ensure legalized gambling doesn't spread anywhere else. They take our money in federal funds and don't pay taxes. At least the Nevada establishments pay taxes.

Wayne Anderson| 1.26.12 @ 3:35PM

One of the most important issues being rasied by Newt is the subject of Saul Alinsky! If you have NOT read 'Rules for Radicals' you MUST do so! Alinsky was also from Chicago and, in my view, was one of the first 'Community Organizers'!

Another 'reader' and 'follower' of SA is none other than Hillary Clinton!

thecolonel

aware| 1.25.12 @ 6:39AM

Sociopath for president!"Conservative" mainstream media working overtime to rehabilitate the image of megalomaniac into "Reagan's Shadow" and "Lieutenant". Thus accelerating the lemming stampede to the cliff.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 8:29AM

Thankfully, this article has helped to define who the actual lemmings are.

Claypoole| 1.25.12 @ 9:17AM

"Sociopath." "Megalomaniac." You're referring to Barack Obama, right?

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 9:52AM

I guess that you're Unaware of our many plights. Or, you just pretend that you are. Just as you pretend that there is a " Conservative" Main Stream Media. That's because you're a LIAR.

Are you even aware of what a "Sociopath" is?

A Sociopath is characterized, primarily, by a Lack of Empathy and Remorse.

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Hussein Obama voted 3 TIMES, to Deny Medical Attention to BABIES, who had survived the Abortionists' Knife. He saw no reason to change how things were already being done: Throw the LIVING BABY, in to a dirty Maintenance Room, where it can Die, ALONE, and in the Dark. SOCIOPATH & PURE EVIL.

One of his 1st orders of business, when he assumed Office, was to TAKE AWAY the Private School Vouchers, from the Young Black Single Mother, in D.C. and Force them back in to the same Failing, Filthy, DANGEROUS Public Schools, that he claimed: "Do not meet my Daughters' standards". SOCIOPATH.

He played one Golf round, after another, as the Deepwater Horizon BURNED in the Gulf. He had one Hollywood Party, after another, as the Oil headed for the Gulf State's Shores. He went on Vacation, after Vacation, as the Gulf became inundated. As their Livelihoods disappeared. SOCIOPATH.

A Sociopath is "Egocentric" and "Deceptive".

"I Won." "I killed Bin Laden." "I Created or Saved all those (Union) Jobs". I, ME, MINE, but only if things turn out okay. SOCIOPATH.

The Economy? That's the last guy's fault. The guy that left 3 years ago. It had nothing to do with Both Houses of Congress being run by the Democrats from 2007 til 2010. No. The Buck stops with the President, just as long as it's a Republican President.

He's been in charge for the last 3 Years, He had Super Majorities for the first 2. He got EVERYTHING he wanted. Everything is WORSE. " I Blame Bush." "I Blame the Republicans in Congress, for My cancelling the XL Pipeline." SOCIOPATH.

A Sociopath displays "Glibness and Superficial Charm."

Look at his Speeches. Look at his Rallies. He never meets with his Cabinet Members. Never talks to them. He never talks to Congressional Leaders. He goes against the Recommendations of every Commission that he, himself, puts together. He doesn't NEED anyones' input. He doesn't CARE what others' think. He is THE ONE we've been waiting for. He is the Light and the Way. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

He will be making his Acceptance Speech, for his Party's Nomination, from another STADIUM. No walls can Contain HIS ESSENCE. No mere HALL can contain All That He Is. All that he has become.

Does that make him a SOCIOPATH?SOCIOPATH? No. I'd say he's gone way past that. He has become a Delusional Psychopathic Sociopath with Visions of Grandeur, who's willing to do ANYTHING to keep his hold on Power.

He's starting to become: DANGEROUS.

Mike 3/505| 1.25.12 @ 9:58AM

"Starting?"

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 10:08AM

Touche'.

albert constantine jr| 1.25.12 @ 2:02PM

You left out narcissist.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:05PM

Tim: you just get better, and better, and better, my friend.

Deborah D| 1.25.12 @ 10:03AM

Excellent, Timothy! I keep wondering if he is so blinded by his own wonderfulness that he doesn't see the coming crash or if he does see it, but it's just so much fun to "bring it on" while duping all of his followers. I'm thinking "B"...

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 12:03PM

Timothy,
You should be writing your own column. I rant, but you rant with style and flair.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 11:59AM

Once again, Mr Pennell, you have hit it out of the park. There is simply no meaningful comeback possible by Unaware or anyone else. Well done, sir.

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 12:29PM

Outstanding "brother"-----------made my day.

HarryS| 1.25.12 @ 12:38PM

Amen Timothy!

Hired Hand| 1.25.12 @ 12:54PM

Consider the Hare PCL-R model of psychopathy Checklist:

Personality: "Aggressive narcissism"
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release

I think anyone who has read Rules For Radicals detects that old Saul was a gifted writer, very well versed in classical lit and history, but also he had a classic psychopath's twisted personality that would like to see the world burn just for the enjoyment of the spectacle. Think of Nero or Hitler.

Look over the checklist and think about whether this represents the worldview and personalities of hard leftists, the OWS mob, and many of the current leaders of the Democrat Party.

obadiah| 1.25.12 @ 7:37PM

your psychopathic "aggressive narcissism" personality sounds like newt to me. obama is much more subtle. he combines "aggressive narcissism" with "salvation narcissism" and "governmental narcissism." people get tired of the "same old thing" pretty quick these days.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:20PM

Rove and Cheney were president 2001- '09.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:21PM

"Personality: "Aggressive narcissism"
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Is that why they drive pickups with Rebel flags in the rear window?

junkyard infidel| 1.25.12 @ 3:38PM

hey look everyone, brooks made it home from the fisting party he went to last night at kevin jennings house !

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:51PM

You Southerners know more about fisting than I ever will.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:07PM

Alan: I was a Psychiatrist in rural Alabama for 7 years. No one there knows about fisting. Sorry, that's a Yankee big city thang.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 7:58PM

"Alan: I was a Psychiatrist in rural Alabama for 7 years. No one there knows about fisting. Sorry, that's a Yankee big city thang."

Southerners like "pulling trains", though. I was visting kin down theere, and a guy said, "we get a firl into a room with us five guys and..."

Sounds like fun- you probably tried it when you were in HS, eh?

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 7:59PM

girl, not firl, but you woud prefer a gangbang to fisting, surely..

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 3:48PM

You no doubt prefer Denzel in TRAINING DAY????????

Tom| 1.25.12 @ 3:51PM

Well put sir. I do believe that Newt Gingrich is the best one to carry the fight to Obama, and I can't wait to see what Obama does when he loses. Do you think he'll go gracefully?

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:52PM

But our govt. is ALREADY bigger than any in Europe-- they don't even have a Freddie Mac Fannie Mae.

aware| 1.25.12 @ 4:02PM

Deflection, just like Newt. If you're trying to say Obama is a sociopath, no shit! All the political class scum are sociopaths, Tim. It's a "career" that only attracts sociopaths, deviants, megalomaniacs, kleptomaniacs, and more than a few genocidal psychopaths. Before it was a "career" it used to draw genuine citizen/legislators, they say, but I suspect this is a myth too.

Timmy boy. I'll bet you right now that Newt is going to make you sorry you are defending him. And sorry you voted for him, if you do. Been in his district since he first ran and he made me sorry many times.

I don't have to convince you or anybody else, Newt will do that himself. Mark my words. Call me names, but you can never say I "support" any of these globalist douche bags.

Face it, there IS NO CONSERVATIVE in this race. It's just a question of who can sound the most "conservative". Only by comparing to Obama can a coherent argument even be made any of these is "conservative". They ALL have stabbed you in the back more than once. Think about it! Nobody can ever make silk purses out of these sow's ears, except to the gullible.

The Ruling Elite has already got this sewn up tight. All their bases are well covered. That's what pisses me off.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:10PM

Let's assume Newt is an homonculus and a pimple on the behind of a suffering humanity. OK, fine.

Will he: overturn Obamacare. Yes.
" lower taxes. Yes.
" kick Iran's ass. Yes.
" reduce regulation. Yes.
" drill, baby, drill. Yes.

Otherwise, I don't care if he screws sheep like Ron Paul does, daily.

aware| 1.25.12 @ 4:35PM

I'd get my crystal ball polished, Doc. Bet he stabs you on at least 3 of your items.

And I notice no where on your list was the paramount issue, cutting spending. Wise to leave that out when talking about any of these floaters.

Bet they will play the same game the Commiecrats do with "cuts", always in "the future" and always actually "reductions" in projected increases.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 6:56PM

Actually, I do draw the line at screwing sheep.

NoMoBO| 1.25.12 @ 5:23PM

"Starting"????? He is like a cornered Scorpion and has been since day one. As the election draws nearer and nearer, watch out. I would put nothing past him and his obsession of being reelected. His presidency has been a nightmare.

Dave M.| 1.25.12 @ 6:17PM

Yes, Gingrich is a sociopath as well as a megalomaniac and so are you, judging by your frothing manipulative comment. Just a few too many capital letters, my friend.

Guy | 1.25.12 @ 4:24PM

You can thank us "lemmings" when we've saved you and your like from the cliff. Praying to god the ignorant, dependent, socialist masses don't do this country in for good.

aware| 1.25.12 @ 6:44PM

Hey, Guy, it ain't the "masses" giving you socialism, it's your "government". And it's been doing that since before you were born, under the Red team and the Blue team. All "branches", too.
You think you can have your Garrison State without the "war socialism" that supports it?

I won't be trusting anyone who can be duped by Republican snake oil salesmen, any more than I would Democratic messiahs, to keep me or this nation from a Brodie over the cliff.

Fred Farkel| 1.25.12 @ 6:41AM

As RUsh said, the Republican base is fed up with the weenie moderates who are still stuck on the Goldwater loss and their false reasoning as to why. The base is cheering Newt because he is articulating what we think and the Republican leadership won't. The party of Alynski vs the party with the leadership of Casper Milquetoast. Casper and Obama have to go.

Mr ED| 1.25.12 @ 7:32AM

The base is cheering Newt because he is articulating what we think and the Republican leadership won't."

And that pretty much says it. Is it so difficult for the entrenched Ruling Class schlubs to understand that their feckless, self-serving accomodations to Liberalism, rather than challenging its false premises and assumptions, is exactly the problem? I fully expect Romney - who I think is a decent person and probably a good family man - to instantly fold on just about every important issue if elected. In fact I would expect Romney (and quite possibly Gingrich too) to START any negotiations with the Libs by first accepting their premises, so any so-called negotiations start badly and go downhill from there.

But at least Gingrich has the ability to think on his feet and actually give voice to conservative principals, principals which the check-pants Republican party seems to have jettisoned except for those "principals" which let them loot the public treasury when they stumble into power.

VonMisesJr| 1.25.12 @ 7:58AM

If you listened to Romney in the debates, he already revealed his "duck and dodge" strategy.

- He can't stop the lies and personal attacks on Newt due to McCain Feingold. He is a victim.

- He passed RomneyCare because Massholes and their liberal Democrat officials made him do it. He is an innocent bystander.

- He could not appoint conservative judges in MA, so he went with the flow and appointed liberals to the bench. Not his fault, he was just being bipartisan.

You have just witnessed a blueprint of the potential Romney Presidency. He would have repealed ObamaCare, but Pelosi wouldn't let him. He would have cut spending, but the Levaithan has control of the Purse now. He would rein in the TSA and end SOPA; but ObamaCare repealed your citizenship, and as a subject you are subject to searches. He would have been so great if somebody had let him.

Deborah D| 1.25.12 @ 10:09AM

Excellent observation. This is what I fear from a Romney administration as well. He has no record of standing athwart the world yelling "Stop" (but that hasn't kept National Review from endorsing him.) I think he would fold sooner than George W when he signed the McCain-Feingold law saying that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional anyway. Huh? Don't sign it then!

VonMisesJr| 1.25.12 @ 12:31PM

Today, Norm Coleman, ex-congressman and Romney Advisor announced it will be impossible to repeal ObamaCare in total, even if the Republicans win the White House. Sounds like he is already lowering expectations?

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:23PM

Then ask Newt:
what does Alvin Toffler have to do with George Washington?

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 3:49PM

Both are insignificent, since one's a writer and the other is long dead!!!!!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 6:43AM

A rather one sided article that doesn't stand up to inspection.

You leave the impression that Newt Gingrich has a halo, and anyone who examines it, why they're playing gutter politics!

Yet, it was Newt who sounded like Occupy Wall Street with attack on Bain Capital labeling them vulture capitalists. Where is Newt's proof of that?

Bain Capital took companies in trouble and cut them up and made them more efficient or put them out of business. They performed a valuable service and they got paid well for it.

Bain had to report their operations to the S.E.C. and everything they did was out in the open except for their strategic plans. In fact, S.E.C. filings were used to prove that the King of Bain, put together by a Gingrich support group, was full of falsehoods.

Let's look at some facts. You claim Newt is some kind of conservative but his past is littered with liberalism. He's a climate change supporter as well as a supporter of amnesty.

Newt claims he's not for amnesty but that's what his VISA program would amount to amongst other aspects that's he promoting.

Also, your statement that Romney can't provide one shred of evidence on Newt's influence peddling is humorous. Of course he can't, it's all done behind closed doors with vague contracts. In fact, the contracts Newt released are purposely vague.

Polls show that Newt will lose by 9 percentage points to Barack Obama.

In a final show of irony, you bring up the budget surpluses again. Those surpluses are a myth and you know it. They were created by borrowing 160 million a year from the Social Security trust funds.

When Newt left the House the national debt had risen each year he was in office.

Newt then started playing the game. Call it lobbying, consulting or whatever. It's all played out behind the scenes and in Fannie/Freddie's case, the taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

Newt still hasn't shown any work product for that effort and he won't. Was it a payoff of some sort? What did they do for the payments? It would be interesting to see some examples.

I suspect the reason Newt won't release those papers is that they were very supportive of Fannie/Freddie for the 8 years leading up the housing debacle. Those papers may have been the result of consulting, but they could easily have used by Fannie/Freddie's lobbying group to influence members of Congress.

One last item. Your claim that Newt did nothing wrong in the House on an ethics basis is incorrect. Here are the facts from an article from the Washington Post that indicates Romney in actually correct and you are absolutely wrong:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....012297.htm
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."

House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday.

The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker's chair.

With so much at stake for each side -- the survival of the GOP's speaker and the Democrats' hopes of regaining control of the House -- partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.

chuck| 1.25.12 @ 7:12AM

BHO,

The question is who among the candidates would radically change the Federal government? Romney? No way. He'd just be a temporary care-taker of the beast. Yeah, he'd trim some stuff along the edges, maybe, MAYBE, Obamacare would be repeal, but someone in is campaign was backing off of that yesterday. But after 4 years, the beast would be alive and well, bigger than ever, and we all will feel like we've been screwed again by the GOP establishment.

Newt is the only one, besides Paul, who would work to radically reform the government, by cutting programs, and returning power back to the states.

Piss off the establishment GOP, and vote for Newt.

NoMoBO| 1.25.12 @ 5:26PM

Bravo. I agree 100%. Romney has no intention of scrapping the whole Affordable Care Act (the name itself is a LIE). All he wants to do is fix some parts . . . WE WANT THE WHOLE THING GONE.

CrackerHound| 1.25.12 @ 8:24AM

"Yet, it was Newt who sounded like Occupy Wall Street with attack on Bain Capital labeling them vulture capitalists"....

Bill, get over it! Everyone including Newt knows that was the wrong tactic. This is a strange season we are in. Every utterance is held up and stuck to foreheads for eternity. Is there no looking at the bigger picture (which is what this article does)?

You are being lead by the pundits and media as they trumpet these things over and over again. One day of harping on Newt's ill conceived attack is enough...let's move on.

One telling thing to me is that Newt is constantly challenged on his statements and ideas. Romney never even puts himself out there. He plays it safe and doesn't invite controversy....which is what he will do in the general AND as president.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 8:59AM

The hypocrisy is humorous.

Newt launches a phony unsubstantiated attack on capitalism. Oops! I shouldn't be held accountable so get over it. I'll say I'm sorry and come up with something else. I know! I'll nail Romney on his tax returns which is just another version of attack capitalism but since I will release my tax returns, no problem.

If anyone is being led by the media pundits it's the group who claims Newt is beyond any circumspection.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:24AM

If Romney does not even know who Saul Alinsky was then he is not fit to run against Obama. You must know the enemy. Obama will be using every Alinsky tactic against the GOP. Romney is a sitting duck.

scotchieguy| 1.25.12 @ 1:19PM

Everyone says Newt is Obama's dream opponent. I say it is Mitt. He is the perfect fallguy for the left's war on the rich. Think about it. This entire election will be about the 99% and their lemmings in the media going after the evil rich. That is exactly who Romney is, even though he gave more to charity ($7 mi) than he paid in fed taxes ($6 mil). This is not only all Obama can run on, it probably was part of the plan before he even got elected. The stuff he did, Stimulus, auto bail outs, cash for clunkers, Afghan surge were probably just a ruse to get people thinking he is a moderate and he really wants to get America going again. There is only one problem--he isn't that stupid. Even a blind squirrel gets an occasional nut. You are supposed to watch what one does not what one says. I say the opposite is true here. What he does are token measures at best to fool us all. Listen to what he says, or doesn't say. What he says is telling (clinging to guns and religion, police acted stupidly even tho I don't have all the facts, eventually you have enough, so I know who's ass to kick). What he doesn't say is also telling. When has he ever said one thing positive about America, about business, about successful entrepreneuers? For that matter, when has he ever said one thing positive since he became prez, except for his children? This guy is the biggest fraud in our lifetime, maybe in our history. I can't believe he is getting away with this!! Incredible.

Ted R.| 1.26.12 @ 3:13AM

Goddammit, are you deluded!

Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 9:18AM

I believe it was Perry who used the term "vulture capitalist." Vultures provide a useful function, but that doesn't mean we'd want to keep them as pets.

Stammon| 1.25.12 @ 10:26AM

Vultures can projectile vomit 25 feet and hit you in the eye. If Romney would do that in the debates he would win in November.

RustyG| 1.25.12 @ 8:25AM

Bill says "Polls show that Newt will lose by 9 percentage points to Barack Obama." I can show you polls from a week ago that show Newt losing to Mitt by the same amount in South Carolina and we know how that turned out.

Mitt is the candidate for the "long game". Get him in. Get the Majority in the House and the Senate and slowly start to turn this huge ship called the Government turned in the right direction. The problem is the American people aren't thinking long term game. We're pissed. I've seen it defined well in the last few days, but as usual Rush said it best. No one believes that Mitt will take the fight to Obama and it is a fight that we crave. It is a fight that we demand.

Analogy..... The GOP base is demanding a return to Classic Rock. The "GOP Establishment is giving us Vanilla Ice. Oh sure.... you put a ZZ Top beard on him and put him in some knickers like Angus, but we KNOW that's Ice up there. Newt's on stage playing every Allman Brothers song and the crowds are going wild.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 10:02AM

Actually there is a new set of polls which shows Newt ahead nationwide just this morning.

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 12:36PM

Iam pissed and want to get even no matter what it takes..........."take no prisoners".

Newt will take a gun to a knife fight.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:13PM

SUBVET: Yup. Thanks for your service, by the way.

To beat Obama will require a Magnificent Bastard, filled with self confidence and a willingness to play as filthy as filthy requires against a complete evil git.

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 8:03PM

"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding on anything except the enemy. We're going to hold on to them by the nose and we're going to kick them in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of them all the time and we're going to go through them like crap through a goose."

George S. Patton.....AKA Newt

scotchieguy| 1.25.12 @ 1:25PM

They have their Marshall's cranked to 10, and Duane is alive and kickin ass on slide on Statesboro blues. The crowd is going nuts. "Play all night!!!"

Tim the Enchanter| 1.25.12 @ 4:52PM

"These go to 11"

Rick V.| 1.25.12 @ 5:37PM

Let me know when Newt sings "Lord, I Was Born a Ramblin' Man."

Goldwaterite| 1.25.12 @ 6:16PM

"Polls show that Newt will lose by 9 percentage points to Barack Obama." That is the most important statement in your argument. Newt is a brilliant orator and think-tanker. (If prior GOP nominees had only half his political savvy & golden tongue! I weep when I think of the GOP players who never got off the bench this time. ) However, even if he's a redeemed "New Newt", what are the odds that the lapdog MSM will grant him a fair hearing and permit him to dig his way out of his polling deficit vs The Big O? You know the answer. My voting philosopher will be: ABO !!

jberg| 1.25.12 @ 11:46PM

The House republicans then are the same as the House Republicans now, they are scared to death of any negitive press. They wanted to get that over as soon as possible so they went along with the Democrats. The charge was that Gingrich used GOPAC money the fund a class he was teaching and that class was political. You mentioned the IRS, why didn't you go into their findings? You don't know what it was? Or you don't want to tell? I'll tell you what the finding was. Gingrich taped all his classes for distribution to different schools. The IRS studied these tapes and interviewed students to see if these classes were political. It took 3 years. What they found was that the complaint was completely false, the classes were not political. Your facts fall a little short.

Molly| 1.25.12 @ 11:58PM

The Washington Post article you link to doesn't include the rest of the story. Gingrich was exonerated of all of it by the IRS. Here is what happened after:
http://campaign2012.washington.....ase/336051

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 3:46PM

You're discussing another issue. The IRS has nothing to do with the House Ethics Committee, i.e., the IRS has no authority to "undo" a vote.

tj| 1.26.12 @ 10:15AM

I too read the wapo crap and then 9 others that said otherwise....ewwww the libs and repubs are coming apart...smell the fear! Obama one and done! We meet at dawn November 6th 2012. VOTE EM ALL OUT!

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 6:47AM

And I suppose that Gingrich, so much like Reagan, will carry New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey for starters? With Gingrich the possibility of equaling the Goldwater debacle may be only a few states. I don't exactly call that Reaganesque.

Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 10:38AM

There's still plenty of time for Obama to have a debacle in Iran. That would make the description of this as the "Second Carter Term" perfect.

Tommy Frisco| 1.25.12 @ 11:27AM

Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980 and 1984 running as a strong conservative. Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost the election.

scotchieguy| 1.25.12 @ 1:36PM

Rush keeps saying over and over and over again, "Conservatism works. Ever since Goldwater in '64, the repubs have been chicken-bleep, except with Reagan, to nominate a true conservative." Right now we are stuck with Newt. It is fourth and long, and our only prayer seems to be that--a hail Mary, unless someone else steps in.

Really, Newt is one odd duck. He must be ADHD. He sounds so brilliant and powerful and presidential one second, then he does something asanine like trash Bain (really just trashing capitalism), he has his affairs, then is stupid enough to tout family values, trashes big govt like Fannie, then works for them. He is a walking contradiction and a time bomb, but I still am drawn to him. He is like a train wreck waiting to happen--all eyes are glued. You just can't make any of this up!

MaryOk| 1.25.12 @ 5:01PM

Newt has the ability to screw up the future.

NoMoBO| 1.25.12 @ 5:31PM

Obama has "screwed up" our present, past & future. I'll take Newt any day. He has my vote in the primary and I live in a blue state that is becoming more and more conservative Republican every day because we HATE Obama.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 6:52AM

Rush Limbaugh,
" I guarantee you they are thinking, "With the wrong presidential candidate we could lose the House, not to mention lose the White House race." Well, they don't want to lose the House. They want to win the Senate. They think Obama's gonna get reelected and that's the best way to stop him is to have both houses: House and Senate."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Headed To A Brokered Convention.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 6:56AM

You are delusional.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 7:07AM

Tell It To Limbaugh, Mittens' Kitten.

As For Us,
The Pillsbury DoughBoy Serves As Our Useful Dupe To Extend The Campaign, Deny The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Enough Delegates And Head To A Brokered Convention.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Hobbes| 1.25.12 @ 9:59AM

The dems are salivating at the thought of running against the newt. Drooling all over the place. Please God, give us the newt.

Stammon| 1.25.12 @ 10:32AM

Here in the Midwest we will take either Romney or Newt, as long as Palin is their VP.

Ted R.| 1.26.12 @ 3:21AM

You're Hot Damn right about that! I also love it, how they have convinced themselves that Newt could get the better of Obama in any debate. Obama's five times as smart as Newton.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 3:51PM

Nah, he's just STUPID!!!!!!!

Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 10:39AM

You are aware that it's the Tea Party that put Newt over the top in South Carolina, and is likely to do so again in Florida. Whether you like it or not, right now Newt is the Tea Party candidate.

scotchieguy| 1.25.12 @ 1:39PM

Who said it wasn't the dems crossing over? Operation Chaos, anyone?

Dick Nome| 1.25.12 @ 11:24AM

Rush was talking about the Republican Establishment types Clint. You are editing his words. WHat are you trying to insinuate the said??? You are being misleading at best. Anyone can go to Rush's website and hear or read the whole monologue. maybe you should.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:25AM

Brokered is fine, but that won't help Ron Paul.

rightasrain| 1.25.12 @ 6:55AM

He declined to run again for Speaker because he knew he didn't have the votes. This "Gingrich took responsibility and did the honorable thing" meme is risible, transparently untrue and intelligence-insulting.

wodiej| 1.25.12 @ 7:07AM

Excellent article with facts and details easily comprehended for anyone who wants to see.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.25.12 @ 7:15AM

More facts for anyone that wants to see:
http://www.politifact.com/trut.....back-1990/
The allegations were largely adjudicated by January 1997, with Gingrich agreeing to pay a sum of $300,000 and admitting that he had "engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." He became the first speaker to be sanctioned in this fashion by the House. (Here’s a time line of the case.)

During this year’s campaign, Gingrich said that the investigation was conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." We rated that statement Pants on Fire. (Read our fact-check for more details.)

As we’ve noted before, Gingrich’s intensely partisan style and his heavy use of the congressional ethics process against others ramped up the level of partisan warfare during his investigation.

But, the investigation itself moved forward with bipartisan support. The ethics panel’s case had the consent of Republicans, including the committee’s chairwoman, and it was led by a special counsel who was not a Democratic partisan and who focused on substantive legal matters.

Most notably, when it came time to vote, the House -- including nearly 90 percent of voting Republicans -- voted to support the committee’s recommendation.

At any rate, the investigating subcommittee released its findings to the full committee on Dec. 21, 1996. It recommended "a reprimand and the payment of $300,000 toward the cost of the preliminary inquiry."

On Jan. 17, 1997, the full committee held nearly six hours of televised hearings, then voted 7 to 1 to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation. The full House went on to pass the ethics report 395 to 28 , with 196 Republicans voting for it and 26 voting against it.

Gingrich paid off the fine in installments, according to contemporaneous news accounts . At one point he was even going to borrow money from former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan. But by the end of 1998 Gingrich had finished paying the fine without Dole’s help.

Interested Conservative| 1.25.12 @ 9:12AM

Byron York reviews all this.

http://campaign2012.washington.....ase/336051

Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 2:23PM

York's article is a good place to start for all of you Newt-bashers. You don't understand just how Democrats hated him the same way they hated Sarah.

Interested Conservative| 1.25.12 @ 9:13AM

The final IRS action is interesting.

Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 10:40AM

I'm surprised anybody puts any credibility in the judgments of Politifacts, which itself has had quite a few trouser infernos in the recent past.

CrackerHound| 1.25.12 @ 12:09PM

Bill, your post just reminds me of why I want Newt and the Tea Party is supporting him. We like Republicans (as they exist now) slightly better than Dems.

Partisan warfare is what we need now the consequences be damned because what we have now is unsustainable anyways. If Newt is impeached for trying to shake things up than so be it. He will be our sacrificial lamb. What other choice do we have?.....Romney? That guy will NOT be making any waves.

I appreciate your thoughts and understand where you're coming from. But I think many of us are listening too much to the Democrats, Polls and the Britt Humes of the the world and as a result are getting the status quo....Mitt Romney.

Every time I start to lean towards Romney I step back and see McCain redux, I see the game the MSM and DNC are playing by trying to pick our candidates for us again. They will tell you who they want by who they attack the most. Pelosi and her compliant media are leaving a path for Mitt because they know they can beat him. The reason most DNC voters/activists want Mitt is because if he beats Obama they realize that it's not much of a loss for their cause.

Nemo| 1.25.12 @ 7:31AM

Excellent article. Remindsd us Newt is the one republican with brains.

One thing: Some credit for exposing Obama's Alinsky agenda should go to Glenn Beck.

P And Q| 1.25.12 @ 10:35AM

Exactly. Glad someone finally recognized Glenn Beck for the unrelenting effort he has made to bring to light the dark and sorted details of the Obama administration and Obama's evil past with which he now spits upon the blessed ideals of the American people and its founders. Don't like Gingrich by the way and don't appreciate the backup he's getting like a bunch of love sick puppies.

scotchieguy| 1.25.12 @ 1:50PM

As much as Beck has focused on Obama's radical past, he is not a fan of Newt in the least.

Vern Crisler| 1.25.12 @ 2:23PM

Beck is too much of a conspiracy theorist.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 1.25.12 @ 7:32AM

And the timid RNC is scared shitless of a newt candidacy and is actively looking for ways to sabotage him, trying to secure the nomination yet another tepid candidate ala Dole, McCain. The GOP politburo has already written off the presidential election and is concentrating on the House and Senate. James Carville is right- it's an absolute grade A #1 f****ng disaster for the GOP, look for leaks to undermine Newt coming from the right...Odd that the incumbency of the weakest sitting president in the last century-including Jimmy Carter- is going to face such lame opposition, an opposition further weakened by internescine treachery

Nancy in NC| 1.25.12 @ 9:16AM

The MSM will crucify Newt. They will drag out the disgrunted wives on a regular basis, and we will know everything Newt has every done or thought about in the bedroom.

Personally, I am so disheartened. There are too many people that will vote for Obama come hell or high water, because they are too stupid to see what is happening to this country. They fail to see that $15T in debt does matter, and taxing the wealthy more will destroy more jobs in this country.

They will believe the rhetoric coming out of the Marxists' mouth, and fail to realize that four years of his big government will only lead us further down the road to serfdom.

You see, they actually believe Obama...he's their Messiah.

Claypoole| 1.25.12 @ 9:32AM

Nancy, I don't believe it's that spiritual. BO is not their messiah, he's their sugar daddy. They understand that whenever he says, "Fairness" or "Social justice," he is speaking code for, "Vote for me and I'll take money from him and give it to you."

P And Q| 1.25.12 @ 10:37AM

Not to be spiritual or anything...but Amen, Claypoole!

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 12:24PM

Looking at the vote in South Carolina Nancy, I'd say people are already over and really don't care what angry ex-wife might have to say. The average middle class voter sees and understand that this Presidential election IS the make or break of the United States. If Obama wins we will become a truly socialist nation at best. If Romney were to be elected and have both houses controlled by RINO'S then the middle class will disapear and we will become a country of elites and lower class serfs. Until and unless a better candidate steps up Newt is the in the drivers seat. Middle class Americans have watched as the Republican party has compromised so much over the last 35 years that we know there is nothing left to compromise. The time has come for middle class Americans to dig their heels in and fight for ourselves because Democrats and the RINO's of the Republican party do not care one iota about the middle class.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 12:35PM

Nancy, the MSM will crucify whoever is the Republican nominee.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:16PM

So we might as well put someone up who likes to fight. I want our guy to resemble that friend of Harlan Ellison's in the bar---the one who had nerve damage in his hand and kept punching impossibly hard until bone began to show because he couldn't feel it. Fight won by the friend.

Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 10:46AM

I know Jim Carville, and I assure you, Jesus Christ himself could be running as Republican candidate, and Jim would still say he was unelectable. It's his job, for crying out loud.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 1.25.12 @ 11:03AM

WTF does that have to do with anything

Drunken Sailor| 1.25.12 @ 12:17PM

Emilio, I think Stuart is referring to dickhead, I mean Carville's statement of Newt being unelectable. Carville's opinion should mean squat to conservatives.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 1.25.12 @ 1:51PM

ordinarily that would be true, but this time the dickhead I fear is correct and that this a disaster for the GOP- not that Romney is any better mind you

Michael Tomlinson| 1.25.12 @ 7:44AM

This is the fruit of pandering to the Tea Party (that has consistently picked losers to run in races that were sure wins) and selecting a candidate based on debating skills -- Republicans looking to Gingrich, Romney and Santorum to represent them in a year that should be a 1980's redux.

Interested Conservative| 1.25.12 @ 9:14AM

"(that has consistently picked losers to run in races that were sure wins) "

Senators Lee, Johnson, and Rubio?

George True| 1.25.12 @ 12:39PM

Michael, had the RNC actually supported the Tea Party senate candidates in the Delaware and Nevada races and in the NY 23 congressional race, there might have been a different outcome. Instead, the RNC sabotaged their own standard bearers in these races from the get go.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 1:09PM

As I recall, Sharon Angle was ahead in the polls and was only defeated by Dirty Harry's chicanery at the end.

Douglas Fletcher| 1.25.12 @ 5:48PM

Michael: Bullcrap. The Tea Party was the basis of the history 2010 elections and the Tea Party is going to regain the Senate for the Republicans, whether or not the Republicans even deserve it.

About the only thing Romney has going for him at this point is cash and the conceit by so many elder Republicans that he's the most electable. So how electable is he going to be if he can't actually win some elections?

tj| 1.26.12 @ 10:26AM

guess the 2010 losers that took 66 senate and house seats was a fluke? Tea Party On....We meet at dawn...VOTE EM ALL OUT 2012. Again no reasonable argument

martin j smith| 1.25.12 @ 7:45AM

I totally agree with you that the debate should be framed as you have put it. I would only add the word Socialism versus Free Market Democracy to the issues at hand

JimH| 1.25.12 @ 7:52AM

I'm starting to think that Pelosi's dire hints about Newt are an attempt to discourage Republicans from voting from him. If they really had something they’d keep quiet and spring it during the general election. I think they would rather face Mitt who can best be portrayed as the enemy of the workers by kamrade Obama.

oldfart| 1.25.12 @ 8:26AM

I think Miss Nancy's botox treatments have paralized her brain.

Richard Baker| 1.25.12 @ 7:57AM

Alright, rightasrain. What are the "facts" as you suppose them to be?

rightasrain| 1.25.12 @ 9:18AM

I'm not sure what you're unclear about. Gingrich didn't seek reelection to the Speakership after the 1998 election because he and everyone else knew he didn't have the votes to be reelected. His current claim, which Ferrara repeats here, that Gingrich honorably fell on his sword because of less than expected gains in the House is self-serving, history-rewriting hogwash.

oldfart| 1.25.12 @ 8:17AM

I think it is too early to call a winner in this. But I do know one thing, there are a lot of really pissed of people who are tired of the 'entitlement' generation.
So the question is: who has the 'lobes', and the skills to kick the 'entitlement' generation in the back side?

R Martin| 1.25.12 @ 8:28AM

A more objective analysis of Newt's conservative credentials can be found in a piece by Elliott Abrams in today's NRO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ott-abrams

RustyG| 1.25.12 @ 8:58AM

Sorry R Martin, but I'm still giving NRO a Timeout. They Poo Poo'ed in their Post Toasties with me.

Sparky| 1.25.12 @ 10:42AM

Me too. I've had it with the over-the-top ruination of Newt, particularly with the cover of Newt the Manic Martian. I guess they're upset because passion beats punctuality, every time. As Ann Coulter said, "we are the party or decorum and rules and sitting silently. We don't do a hootenany!" In my mind, Jen Rubin, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry and the rest can go sit in silence while Newt and we try to passionately explain to the rest of the country the stark choice we have before us. The Republican establishment wants to tinker - we want to strip away whole broad swaths of this behemoth government.

Tanguera| 1.25.12 @ 8:30AM

The prospect of Obama's ideology being part of the presidential campaign is the most uplifting thing I have read since Obama got elected. I don't see how we can hope to defeat the opposition if we don't boldly and accurately identify the problem.

I've always felt that Glenn Beck's popularity derived from having long ago provided a context for the administration's policies that didn't otherwise make good sense. Hence, I think the GOP establishment and its Republican Guard in the media are playing a dangerous game with the base if Obama's ideology is not front and center of the campaign.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:39AM

In fact I would say that McCain ran interference for Obama. He made Obama credible. It is a big part of the reason we don't want another McCain (perhaps even a lesser one at that).

oldfart| 1.25.12 @ 8:45AM

Hey - I got a good one.
How about Romney as President and Gingrich as Vice-President.
If the Dems retain the Senate I can't wait to see Reid's face as he has to address Gingrich as 'Mr. President' when Gingrich is the presiding officer of the Senate. LOL

Douglas Fletcher| 1.25.12 @ 5:44PM

If the Dems retain the Senate is a big if. I wonder if Harry would even stay on after a Dem loss in the Senate, though from what we've seen of him lately, I have my doubts he would even be aware of what happened.

POST American| 1.25.12 @ 9:08AM

----The Carolina primary is looking almost
as dubious as Gingrich himself.

Meanwhile, an informed voice from the
airwaves---

"----OH, I think we ARE headed for
receivership to RED China to bring in
Marksism here. And I mean physical
takeover. People say 'Oh, but the Chinese
aren't that way --you know 'conquering
imperialists' ---but they don't realize,
China's been changed. MAO was western educated
---and a psychopath. On top of
that this is what the Globalist agenda
calls for. So it wouldn't be 'imperial conquest'
----just the next stage of a business plan.
From theri point of view very mudane and
CON-servative."

SO vote for the Globalists 'ROME-knee'
or 'Getting-RICH' -----or, just as good,
keep Bar-Rockefeller Obama on the job.

------------Just keep a goin' folks!

-------------------Playoffs, wampum n' porn

-------------------------Just keep a goin'

Brian Mc| 1.25.12 @ 1:16PM

Just a side-note. I skip past everything you write.

albert constantine jr| 1.25.12 @ 5:11PM

You're missing out on some entertainment. If you hit the mute button in Apocalypse Now as the PBR pulls into Col. Kurtz' Cambodian camp, and Dennis Hopper appears, read the post aloud and it will make perfect sense.

Brian Mc| 1.25.12 @ 6:17PM

I'll give it a try! Thanks for the tip.

Anthony| 1.25.12 @ 9:09AM

If Gingrich is truly up for this fight, and is willing to continue to expose the Muslim Marxist for what he is, and what he is doing to this country, then I'm all in.
This is the bold talk we've been waiting for, no, begging for, yet many so called conservatives are still in the nit picking hand wringing game over Newt's personal foibles.
Like I said the other day, when you're being assaulted by a thug, you don't ask the responding cop if he went to church on Sunday before he opens fire. Focus folks, focus!!
If the SOTU didn't convience you that Obozo is dangerously delusional, you will indeed end up on your backs, sooner rather than later.
And when Obozo steps over your carcass, he'll say I said America is back!!

Ward Bond| 1.25.12 @ 9:56AM

Anthony, amen.

rightasrain| 1.25.12 @ 10:03AM

I don't think it's exactly picking nits to believe that Newt, with his sky-high negatives, will be crushed by Obama in the general election.

R Martin| 1.25.12 @ 10:49AM

Those negatives are clearly an issue and a very big deal. Likeability ranks high among them. Yes, Newt does inspire conservatives with his firey rhetoric and his entreaty to "Charge!", but too many voters do not like him, will not vote for him and are unlikely to change their minds.

Consider the disaster that is Obama, yet half the country seems still to like him. Accordingly, they may be inclined to vote for him. Ditto Bill Clinton, a certifiable creep with an odious little wife, yet people still liked him and did, in fact, continue to vote for him. Newt just does not rise to that level.

I'm not advocating Romney, and I'm still in a "Merry Minuet" mood. I just don't think Newt has a presedintial personality and he has demonstrated an inability to sustain goal-focused leadership. That being said, I still think Newt can be a critical factor in the Republican strategy to defeat Obama.

Anthony| 1.25.12 @ 3:08PM

Newt's "sky- high" negatives are a function of a predatory media, and the willingness of some folks, like you, to fall for the media's trap of holding our high standards against us, so as not to focus on the fact that Obozo is destroying America.
The media and the left love nothing better than to see Rs and conservatives eat their own, when the left have no problems electing true reprobates, like Bill Clinton and John Edwards.
Yes Newt has done some bad things, no question. But the real question you and others falling into this trap have to ask yourselves is, do I help Obozo get another 4 years to finish off America, or will I vote for a decent, articulate conservative, who believes in America as we know it and want it to remain, with his flaws, but is NOT OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA!!
That is the real question at hand, my friend.

Sparky| 1.25.12 @ 3:21PM

Newt had "sky high" negatives many years before anyone ever heard of Obama. They can easily be overcome.

rightasrain| 1.25.12 @ 3:43PM

You see, I think it's you who is falling into the trap of magical thinking that Newt could beat Obama. I'm focused on getting rid of Obama, not indulging in revenge fantasies against the media.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:18PM

Right: I think Newt can galvanize Conservative voters, without incentivizing Dems to go to the polls.

DRed| 1.25.12 @ 4:59PM

Newt is hugely unpopular. People like Obama. Obama would barely have to campaign to give Newt a serious drubbing.

albert constantine jr| 1.25.12 @ 5:16PM

For the most part, Newt is highly unpopular with the left, and those moderates who rely on Time or Newsweek covers to tell them how to think (i.e. post 1994 "the Gingrich who stole Christmas"). To the extent that Obama may be liked by the same crowd, it is in no small part due to the absence of any such scrutiny in main stream media outlets.

This is not to say that Newt's critics from the right should be ignored, but unpopularity numbers by themselves mean little.

rightasrain| 1.25.12 @ 5:41PM

Albert, I'm as conservative as they come but I'm only half kidding when I write that I believe every word Newt Gingrich says is a lie--and that includes "the" and "and." That's why I'm going with Romney--woefully imperfect as he is--as the one who can defeat Obama. As far as Gingrich's favorability ratings are concerned, if you can think of any successful presidential candidate whose f.r. hovered in the 20s let me know.

DRed| 1.25.12 @ 8:18PM

Newt is popular with very conservative republicans because he says what they want to hear. The rest of the country laughs when Newt calls Obama a Marxist, because they know it's stupid. You have these fantasies of Newt crushing Obama in a debate, but when most of the voting public sees a rational sounding, pleasant guy on stage against a fat, raging old fella who is talking about colonizing the moon they're not going to come away thinking that Newt is the one they want to vote for. And Newt's record is, shall we say, a bit uneven.

RCV| 1.25.12 @ 10:05PM

Are you kidding? Nothing would energize the Democratic base more than Newt as the opponent. I would work full-time day and night to defeat him.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 10:00AM

There are way too many people living in the past (the '80s & 90s) and not focused on the present.
This is present time 2012. Wake up!

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:33AM

You have it. The people have gotten way ahead of the party. We want a warrior leading not a wimp.

gearjammer| 1.25.12 @ 10:01AM

Mitt is the democrats biggest worry. He can win NH and half of Maine. That alone can sink O. Mitt can create more problems in the mid west-not just regaining Ohio, but PA. and Michigan. He is far tougheer in Nevada and Colorado. Wiscinsin is there for the taking. Did not the 2010 senate races with right wing extremists with much baggage prove anything to you ? The debacle in Nevada ? That lunacy in Delaware ? 2 issues and just 2. The courts. Romney will offer up Roberts and Alioto types. Money. the democrats are broke because the government is broke-they need a trillion a year plus just to stay barely afloat. They will implode unless they get " all the money", and that will just forstall Greece a decade or so. But, you peop-le do not understand that they are still well entrenced and have big gus-yet you still insist it must be one big Pickett's charge or nothing. A charge ordered by General Limbaugh who will be safely stationed in the rear. Women alone will sink your Newt.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:32AM

He would represent the 1 percent against the 99 percent. Mitt would be easy fodder for Democrats. Worse yet Mitt would fail to inspire the base. He is just another Mc Cain. What states did McCain take?

Sparky| 1.25.12 @ 3:25PM

I hate to keep bringing this up - but don't forget about the Mormon thing. By the time the MSM is done, every person standing in a grocery store line will know all the little strange things about the Mormons, and they will wonder, Mitt flip-flops on everything, except his religion? Where did Joseph Smith get his decoder glasses?

Mimi| 1.25.12 @ 10:01AM

Thanks Peter for another informative article.
We PRIMARY voters need all the info we can get,
with the seriousness of this VOTE this election year.
Newt's support from me began in the fall...when I heard him on Hannity's radio show. He said what he plans to do the very day of inauguaration...to dismantle the Obama nightmare by executive orders! Not one of the other candidates has been that BOLD, or DECISIVE or DETAILED or CLEAR!!! I say go with it...give the guy a chance...he is our BEST hope .!

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 10:06AM

The only good thing about the fat, vile, hispandering Newt is that he stands no chance against Obama. I would prefer the confrontational atmosphere where we have somewhat real Republicans in the House and the Senate opposing BO as opposed those same Republicans signing off on every bad idea Newt has.

For God's sake, he pushed for Puerto Rico statehood. He wants to amnesty illegals. Have the freaking Republicans lost their soul?

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 10:33AM

One of us needs to change our screen name. While, like you, I hold Newt in low regard, our motivation differs.

1ConservativeUSA| 1.25.12 @ 10:35AM

Apparently, the the intelligence level also differs between the two Mike's, as well.

Tanguera| 1.25.12 @ 11:26AM

"...where we have somewhat real Republicans in the House and Senate opposing BO...?? Like Boehner on the debt-ceiling debate? Like Boehner being so timid and unable to muster the skill and courage on the payroll tax debate that he is viewed as losing even though he proposed a longer timeframe for what Obama wanted?! Can't be seen as racist, Boehner. We.need.someone.to.call.out.the.racism.card. Pathetic. With "leaders" like Boehner, we must have a bold, articulate, candidate.

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 5:09PM

"Have the freaking Republicans lost their soul?" Yep, they lost it when they elected Bush 1. That's when internationalism went viral and American corporations started their free for all. Romney will just continue that, he doesn't see what its done to the country because he's an internationalist, he doesn't understand borders or culture.
Newt is probably less conservative than JFK. I like to use JFK as a meter for Republicans. There may be one or two republicans left that are to the right of JFK. Newts as close as we have as a contender for President right now. I'd like to have someone more conservative but it doesn't look there's anyone left in politics that is. Newt believes America has a place in destiny, you can tell by the way he talks about this country. He knows and understands its history.
Romney on the other hand probably doesn't eat fried chicken or watermelon with his hands. He most likely uses a fork or knife. Southerners will understand what that means, for you northerners it means he doesn't understand or know what its like to work for an hourly wage. You wanna beat Obama, you need someone that knows your fingers get greasy when you eat fried chicken.

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 10:29AM

Mr Ferrara,

You are apparently unaware of the fact that Dick Armey uses the works of Sal Alinsky to train his people at FreedomWorks. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:34AM

We better use Alinsky ourselves. We better become well versed at it, because that is the way to beat Obama.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:21PM

Please note that I have already called for going feelthy on Obama, including the dirty Sanchez.

Boys, when we hit Obama's campaign, go straight to the crotch. Everytime. Start with the "pals around with a cop killer," and go from there. Find out if the gay bathhouse story has legs, and run with it. Aim low.

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 4:32PM

Since you rightwing nuts have no ideas of any value to offer, you have little choice.

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 8:07PM

Don't forget Reggie Love............

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 4:26PM

Heretic. How dare you embrace someone who has been denounced by the Newt? Off to reeducation camp with you.

1ConservativeUSA| 1.25.12 @ 10:33AM

I agree.

It is Mr. Gingrich's confidence and conviction in his belief in America's founding principles, and his ability to articulate these principles, that is fueling his surging campaign.

It is, by contrast, Mr. Romney's lack of ability (and willingness?) to frame the debate between conservative and liberal principles that is harming his campaign.

I believe Mr. Romney is a good man and I do not wish to demonize him, but he needs to understand the real enemy and real problems we face, like Newt Gingrich does.

(Mr. Romney would do well to read this column and Ross Kaminsky's column, of today).

Finally, Mr. Christie is doing a wonderful job as my governor, but he is out of line with his "disgrace" remark about Mr. Gingrich. I call on you, Mr. Christie, to issue an apology for this remark.

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 5:28PM

Mr. Christie just went Romney. He is putting gay men in his states courts. We conservative need to get through 2012 and then dump the whole republican party and start a new one with vested candidates. We've allowed the RINO's to allow this country to go to crap just because they want to "get along" with the Democrats. I'm only 50 and I look at how it was when I was a child and how it is now and I'm sickened by it. No one seems to have any balls anymore. No one has the guts to say to CBS, "no, you're not going to have a Victoria's Secret progeam on at 7:00P.M. you have to wailt until 11:00pm to do that". No one wants to remind the Supreme Court of their own ruling that says a community has the right to deem what is beleives is "decent" or not.
What I' getting at is these so called conservative republicans in Washington keep compromising away not only our rights, but our beliefs and common decency.
We need to be stand up people and try to do whats right, what we were all taught was right when we were children. Like our momma's taught us, just because others are doing it, it doesn't mean you should.
I know, i'm a tad off subject, but I'm already looking beyond 2012. We need a new, better more conservative paryt that actually stands for something other than "we're slightly better than the Democrats". We need to be that beacon of light, there are a lot of hurting people in this country and they need a party that isn't afraid of the perv. Democratic party. A party that isn't afraid to say, "gee, sorry, you're not a citizen so no freebies for you!" I could go on, but I know you folks understand where I'm coming from.

gearjammer| 1.25.12 @ 10:35AM

10 years ago when I watched simpsons a bit, they had an episode where a snarling mob at the mall was about to riot for who knows what reason. anyhow, Kenny G showed up and the mob got all happy and calmed down. It is like that with Newt and the nut job, suicidal right. They do not totally calm dow, but for a while at least they are not a threat to do bodily harm to those who are not 100 per cent in accord with their " conserrrrvvvvvvvvvvvvvatism.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 12:19PM

The 'nut job suicidal right'? Really? Really?!?! You must be joking. It is and always has been the LEFT that threatens bodily harm, riots, looting, massive property damage, etc if they do not get their way. It is what they are known for. Witness the OWS movement with murders, rapes, assaults, looting, etc. Witness the unions (aka Obama's goon squads) busing in agitators to threaten and strong arm anyone who disagrees with THEM.

By contrast, those eee-vil conservatives hold peaceful tea party rallies and leave the place cleaner than it was before.

Methinks you are calling evil good and calling good evil. Which is, of course, what leftists do.

Brian Mc| 1.25.12 @ 1:19PM

Beautiful

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 5:38PM

George,
He's halfway right. The right is fed up. We've had enough of this liberalism shoved down our throats over the years. Republicans have compromised with the Democrats so mush there is hardly anything left to compromise. Those of us that still believe in The United States of America and what she stands for are not just going to lay down and take it if Obama gets re-elected and keeps up with his pissing on the Constitution. Boehnor might, hell who am I kidding, he already is. We know this election IS the fight for our way of life and we're tired of seeing our Constitution perverted so everyone has rights but Citizens, Christians and White males.
All its going to take is the National Guard being called out and shooting a peaceful demonstrator, or another march by the illegals and a shot being fired and the whole country could be engulfed in a very violent revolution. Yes, those of us on the right have and do obey the law. We are still naive enough to belive this is still a country of laws. Well it must not be because Obama just keeps pissing on the Constitution and no one, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, Not the Joint Chief, no one who has sworn to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States has kept their oath. Well their are plenty of citizens that will. You are encouraged to stand up and Defend the Constitution when the shooting starts.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:05PM

Conservatism will save America. Unless of course you are like Mr. O and think its shameful that America is a super power (for now) and a very wonderful place to live. Don't apologize for America. Thats JUST NOT AMERICAN!

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 10:36AM

Obama without a doubt IS the weakest sitting President since Carter, but he was going to win New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and Illinois anyway, and against this current field mauling at each other, and the desperate potential of a brokered convention, he will win even more. BTW there is evidence that a falsehood has raised expectations that not as many young will show up this time to vote for Barry Sotero is also wrong. The so called analysts in the know had better survey Twitter with a fine tooth comb through November.

Stuart Koehl| 1.25.12 @ 10:51AM

I don't know about that assessment. While most of New England and New York is a lock for Obama, New Jersey is definitely moving into the swing category (you may have noticed they have a new governor). California, too, is likely to go for Obama, but Illinois is so deep in . . . odure that it might prove quite competitive. Add to that the likelihood of losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, as well as Texas and all the South, and I think you are looking at a pretty solid Republican victory in November--unless, against all reason and expectation, Obama can get unemployment down to six percent, invent cold fusion, solve the Euro crisis and end Islamic terrorism between now and then.

Mimi| 1.25.12 @ 11:31AM

I'm from "liberal" N.Y.......But for some strange reason you pull into your local convenient store at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and all the Trucks and cars in the parking lot have RUSH blasting from the radio...including ME! Noticed this since Obama was elected!!!

Ted| 1.25.12 @ 11:56AM

There are two New Yorks: the metro NYC area and the rest of the state. The rest of the state is sane and a wonderful place to visit with wonderful people. Unfortunately they typically get outvoted in Albany and elsewhere by the NYC area.

You must be from outside the metro NYC area.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:06PM

I have been a fan of Rush Limbaugh for 20 years. And yes, I lived in NY and know the NY folks love RUSH.. :)

Lets make NY a RED STATE.

shirley jean dobler| 1.25.12 @ 11:05AM

Peter Ferrara gets it. The central most important issue in the upcoming election is this: "Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky?"

Romney and establishment republicans do NOT get it. This is why I am supporting Newt Gingrich, because he knows who Saul Alinsky is, Obama's 'mentor.'

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legend, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer.” Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:24PM

Yes. And like everyplace Obama touches, Lucifer's kingdom is hell.

Goldwaterite| 1.25.12 @ 6:25PM

"Romney and establishment republicans do NOT get it." I believe Romney truly "gets it" but his presentation is timid and vapid: "Obama wants America to become a European-style welfare state." He's won't even say "socialist". Newt knows how to frame the anti-Obama argument perfectly.

Bulbul| 1.25.12 @ 11:06AM

Gingrich has shown that he possesses courage, conviction, charisma, statesmanship, and leadership to coonect himself with the voters. It worked well in SC. FL is a Southern state, too, and it cannot go wrong. Romney's private sector experience sounds like Herman Cain telling people that he spen 42 years in the bussines. Who cares? Presidency is not just running an institute, it's about leadership and is running a nation with 300 million people. Gingrich was the speaker and accomplished many things that matter to public.

shoebox57| 1.25.12 @ 11:19AM

Well said, that's all!

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:29AM

Coming from the southwest side of Chicago, I certainly know who Alinsky was. I am already seeing dis-information coming from CNN. They somehow missed that photo of Obama at a white board with Alinskys rules for radicals. Obama is married to those rules. Alinsky was a Marxists bent on the day when power can be in the hands of the radicals. They will use it. The GOP does not know what will hit them yet. It looks like only Newt understands. This is no election as usual and there is no 2016 election if the GOP loses in 2012.

The GOP would become as the Chicago GOP - powerless.

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 5:41PM

"and there is no 2016 election if the GOP loses in 2012" BINGO, you win the cupi doll. You sir are exactly right. Wake up people.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:07PM

please read "roots of Obamas rage" by D'souza and you will see you are correct and that Obama does indeed hate America.

nathan| 1.25.12 @ 11:31AM

Let's make sure we all know who Newt is. He's the man who said and it bears repeating at the New Jersey freedom concert that no new mosques should be allowed to be built in this country until Saudi Arabia allows Christians to worship freely there. Again, since when are the rights of people in the country, especially First Amendment rights conditioned on the actions of people and governments abroad? Find a quote from Madison who wrote the amendment supporting Newt on this. Newt also supports the McCain amendment to the NDAA which basically eliminates the Fifth Amendment from the Bill of Rights and probably most the rest of the amendments too. Know what you're getting with this man.

Newt said, seriously that he believed anyone caught importing two ounces of marijuana should be executed. Still with him here?

How about quotes from Mona Charen's column? He told a friend that his first wife wasn't young or pretty enough to be the wife of a president. Like he's Brad Pitt? That was one of the reasons he divorced her while she had cancer. The man who would be president . . . .

When he was cheating on Marianne, and remember he claimed he had found God only to conveniently lose Him again and Marianne asked him how he could deliver speeches on family values while cheating on her, this is what he said:

"It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

It doesn't? And there are thousands of people if not tens of thousands who can say what he says. Regarding the family values in question, there are ministers every Sunday doing it from the pulpits better than he was without the baggage. The horrendous arrogance of the man, all so very without merit. Smartest man in the room indeed.

Whatever he did as Speaker, and that 300,000 dollar fine tells us a lot? that was so very many years ago. His work for Fanny and Freddie, his ad with Nancy, his shilling for the Medicare drug benefit, his absolute horrible personal actions, is he remotely a conservative any more?

Four years ago BHO made it clear in no uncertain terms before the election who he was and what he was. It was all there for any one who was interested. No one had any excuse for not knowing. Elect Newt and no one will have any excuses four years from now.

What we have here is a person who has ghastly personal values, who is a statist in every sense of the word, who doesn't respect the Constitution any more than Obama does and maybe less. Dictatorship from right is no more acceptable than that from the left. What you have with Newt and Obama are two sides of the same coin.

Elect this man and the McCain provisions in the NDAA will get used, and get used by this guy. Is there any real doubt? Is this a man who really allows any disagreement? Or criticism. Elect this man and you put freedom at risk. And he's already told us that. Death penalty for two ounces of marijuana? You really want someone like this in the White House?

Not me thank you.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:35AM

Don't pick Newt and Obama will have 4 more years.

Bulbul| 1.25.12 @ 11:51AM

Don't pick Mitt and Obama will have 4 more years.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 12:31PM

You are truly delusional. NOTHING was known about Obama in 2008 by the average person because the Mainstream Media Super PAC suppressed it. We know the journ-o-listers conspired to deep six anything that might remotely be harmful to Obama while at the same time presenting him as the Second Coming.

So it didn't matter at all that Bill Clinton was a serial philanderer and rapist, but now it suddenly matters that Gingrich cheated on his wife? How very selective of you.

George True| 1.25.12 @ 12:51PM

And by the way, Nate, I absolutely agree that NO new mosques should be allowed in the U.S. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. It is absolutely alien to everything that Western civilization is based on, and it seeks the overthrow of our constitutional republican government. If Gingrich does in fact agree with this correct assessment of Islam, then that is one more reason to support him.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 1:17PM

Totally agree, in fact I would outlaw its practice as it advocates genocide and the killing of non-believers.

Imissbuckley| 1.25.12 @ 2:34PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

To paraphrase Charlton Heston, "You can have my Bill of Rights when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

Our liberties are way too damn important to be throwing them out the window. We are facing an out of control government already tearing the life out of our constitution, and you people wanna start putting tearing down the first amendment. I ask you, what is the point of getting rid of Obama or opposing the left's infringements on liberty when you people are endorsing it from the other side?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. "
- Ronald Reagan

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 3:03PM

I suppose that was written to make me think that opposing a 7th century, oppressive, political ideology masquerading as a religion is against the Constitution.

George S| 1.25.12 @ 4:39PM

The Constitution was meant to protect our liberties. It was not meant to protect the liberties of those who would use the rights upheld in the Constitution as a foundation to wage war on those it meant to protect. Denying recognition of religion on the grounds that it threatens our life, liberty and property will not insult the Constitution one bit. Especially if that religion refuses to assimilate to OUR culture. Because it's our Constitution, not theirs.

Dmac| 1.25.12 @ 5:51PM

The government can and should deem Islam a cult and take away its status as a religion. Christians, jews, hindus and other religions practiced in the U.S. do not intermingle with the laws the way Islam does. It is more than religion, and it is less than religion. Islam has no fit place in western culture.
Remeber, the jusry that convicted the bombers of the Murray Buildfing in Oklahoma City were a majority of Christians. Do you think a majority of Muslims would ever convict a Muslim of terrorism? I have not faith that they would becuase they are taught its okay kill the innocent. Christians are taught not to ever kill except in self defense.

MaryOk| 1.25.12 @ 4:47PM

Newt is trying to make his "Monica" the FLOTUS. Callista part of the image problem too.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 4:26PM

Nathan:

have you reviewed Churchill on Independence for India? His rationale for Gallipolli? His stand on Edward VII abdicating? All very serious errors that put Newt's screwups in the shade.

I seem to recall that he sucked very badly when he got to be Prime Minister, with Hitler parading through London before going on to beat Stalin. Right?

tadcf| 1.25.12 @ 11:39AM

You'd think from this article that the US would be hands above European 'socialist' economies in upward mobility. But, the fact is were not. We're above some, and below others---we're not exceptional.
http://www.verisi.com/resource.....bility.htm

David| 1.25.12 @ 11:57AM

Hey folks, I like Gingrich a lot for what he has done and for the way he explains conservatism. However, I think we all can agree he is a "live wire". He should not be president, but should hold some other position in the next repub admin.

I posted here yesterday what his second wife said that he told her: "People do not care what I do. They only care what I say. And I can say things better than anyone else can say them."

Sounds quiet a bit like our current planet healer in chief...........no? Gingrich is an arrogant opportunistic politician who has an ego that equals Bam Bam's.

Then today, I heard on Glenn Beck's show that they have copies of scribbles that Gingrich wrote some years ago. He wrote things about himself such as "I am the definer of civilized society" and "I make the rules for a civilized society".

A little scary, don't ya'll think?

David| 1.25.12 @ 11:58AM

Don't pick Santorum and Bam Bam will have 4 more years.

David| 1.25.12 @ 12:04PM

Well said, Nathan.

Santorum does not have the baggage (political and personal) that Newt has; he does not have the baggage (political) that Romney has.

Santorum is the one who can draw a clear contrast with Bam Bam.

Gingrich and Romney are chameleons. Global warming, amnesty for illegals, supported bailouts. Gingrich is arrogant as one can be. And Romney has flipped on homo marriage, abortion, etc..

Santorum is the true, principled, consistent conservative in the race.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:04PM

Any of the GOP is far superior than Obama. Seriously. I would vote for whoever wins the primary. And support them. None are perfect, but we aren't going up against The Messiah, because Obama is not the messiah.

David| 1.25.12 @ 12:09PM

Santorum says and believes the same things Gingrich does about America. The only difference is that Santorum does not say them as LOUD as Gingrich does.

Something else was pointed out on Beck's program today. Among Pelosi, Reid, and Gingrich, Gingrich has the highest NEGATIVE rating by far. How do you folks expect him to win the general election?

Bulbul| 1.25.12 @ 12:52PM

In the NBC debate in FL, Gingrich was caught blinded by the Romney's barrage of baseless, untrue, cohesive attacks, and gave no good answers to them. On Thursday night, Gingrich will rebound and destroy Romney in the debate, playing the same tricks from Romney's playbook-Be dirty, nasty, and ugly.

Who Knows?| 1.25.12 @ 1:16PM

“Gingrich is the only candidate remotely capable of carrying the flag for the true, original, historic America in this fundamental, existential battle for national survival.” So writes the reliable humorist, Peter Ferrara---always good for a laugh.

The “ONLY”? I guess you didn’t get any SAT larnin’, about using extreme words like “only” and “none”.

Maybe Ferrara is the ONLY writer remotely capable of telling the truth. NOT.

Gingrich epitomizes the hoary saying, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” How many LOOOONG years has he been in the public eye now? Back when he shot into the limelight, he was FRESH and so deliciously desirable, in a political way---and today, he’s overstayed his welcome, along with having spent those many years PERSONALLY acting in very UN-conservative ways.

Those, like Ferrara, who continue to be enthralled by his admittedly brilliant words, need counseling. They resemble the willing victims of wife beaters---always coming back for more.

(A joke---What is a sadist? Someone who is kind to a masochist.)

The truly EXTREME thing about Newt is that he is a living example of hubris, deservedly reaping the nemesis his previous actions lawfully bring. Never forget, my friends, that the real LAW nobody can escape is the supply-demand one.

Newt has supplied us all with a plethora of remembered BAD actions, admittedly along with happy ones. What a tragedy he is, for himself and America!

Imagine a human with Romney’s personal straight arrow attributes, with great character, AND Gingrich’s great ideas---we’d have to temper his “grandiosity”, though. Maybe Bachman was on to something, when she paired them as Romney-Gingrich.

Too bad we couldn’t have a “president” Romney-Gingrich. Yuck yuck.

I try to never forget, indeed to ever keep in mind, that life is ALWAYS a learning experience---now, there’s an EXTREME truth, that’s regularly ignored! It’s not bad enough that Americans are ruined by public “education”, coming out dumber and dumber every year. Probably the greatest “bad” result of such “schooling” is that AFTER the rush of escaping the drudgery of it, after high school or even college, most people are so turned off by the need to learn lessons, they spend the rest of their lives in a sort of dull closed mindedness---learn anything new: no way!

From nowhere, the memory of some forgotten movie about cavemen, who still didn’t use language beyond grunts, came to mind. Their great sine qua non was---FIRE.

As they wandered around in search of food, the essential humans carried an ALWAYS burning piece of wood. Had to keep the fire going, because they could never be sure of HOW to start a new one!

Well, folks, America, despite the wildest material progress from those “dark” times, sure seems to me to be in much the same kind of condition. The “fire” of individual freedom, guaranteed by agreed law, known as the Constitution, has certainly been going out all over the place!

Indeed, the Democratic Party is the leader of this DARK thrust.

Oh well---maybe Gingrich will serve his purpose, and rekindle the still flickering freedom “light” in enough dumbed down Americans, that Romney will himself “see the light”, and learn from Newt, fast enough, to beg, borrow and steal the latter’s best points and qualities---to beat Obama and start a BONFIRE of freedom.

Me—I’m a cynic, having lived too long during the accelerating DARKNESS of non-being, to be anything like hopeful. It can ALWAYS get DARKER!

David| 1.25.12 @ 1:17PM

George True, to anyone who paid a little attention to what was going on in 2008 knew exactly who Bam Bam was. We can't help it if people are morons.

We had his 2 books. After reading extensive quotes from them, I knew at the time that he had serious identity problems.

We knew about the church he and his family were members of for almost 20 years.

We heard him say that when he becam prez the earth would begin to heal itself and the waters would begin to recede.

We heard him say if he is elected prez our energy costs would necessarily skyrocket.

We heard him say he wanted to fundamentally transform America.

We heard him redistributing the wealth is a good idea.

We knew he has no experience running anything.

We knew he had been in the Senate only 2 years.

Brian Mc| 1.25.12 @ 1:25PM

And the Nazis had "Mein Kampf" that laid it all out for those with eyes to see and the German Volkstrum ignored it at their peril.

Americans ignored the warnings that came from the alien's mouth and will do it again, I'm afraid...whether there are elections, or not.

Marc Jeric| 1.25.12 @ 1:37PM

Romney's mind is a small one - no large-scale philosophy there. Mullah Obama and his system of local soviets (that's the Russian name for "community organizations") will bury him with the MSM propaganda and will perform a gigantic vote fraud.

DaveD| 1.25.12 @ 1:44PM

This nation is at a crossroads and needs to make a decision about what kind of country we want to have. Is it to be cradle to grave socialism or a return to American individualism and excellence? This is the choice that is before us.

Barry will try to run away from presenting that choice. I cannot see Romney as being able to articulate that choice. Newt, on the other hand, won't let Obama run and hide from it, and even if he has to do so alone, Newt will make the need to choose loud and clear.

For that reason alone, I prefer Newt to Mitt. I also think Newt wins if he can drive the issue home.

David| 1.25.12 @ 2:27PM

DaveD, what about Santorum? Do you ignore all the negative things said about Newt?

Newt will get one or maybe 2 debates with Bam Bam. He won't get 20+ opportunities like he has in these primary debates.

Newt is a live wire. He can short-out at any moment.

calvin| 1.25.12 @ 2:34PM

We need to be less pessimistic.
Conservatives should be cheerful in the knowlege that bad ideas will fail. Good ideas, argued well, put Reagan in office for eight years. Who has the right idea for this time? Who will argue it most cheerfully and convincingly?

MissouriConservative| 1.25.12 @ 3:35PM

Newt, you got us Romney's taxes and that is fine. NOW I still want to see more than a contract for work at Fannie/Freddie. These were public funds (taxpayers) used to buy your services. We the people paid for these. We can look at Santorum's, Romney's and Pauls work records, but NOT yours. Let's level the playing field. During an era when so many politicians were pocketing gains from Freddie/Fannie including Obama, you expect to say "I was different, take my word on it."

I want to see a body of work for my 1.5 million plus!

David| 1.25.12 @ 3:53PM

Calvin, I suggest to you that Santorum is the one to argue our case "most cheerfully and convincingly".

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 3:56PM

This is just one more reason why many of us enjoy Peter's articles. He simply nailed it! The Democrats are in utter fear of Newt and his in-your-faceisms. Again, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! If we don't succeed in November in taking back this country, we are lost forever. This ain't no typical elections, folks. The gig will be up if we don't pull the right lever, It's do or die, and Newt's our best shot!!!!

Trish| 1.25.12 @ 4:00PM

The Dems are baiting the repubs to nominate Romney by acting as if they are afraid of him. Pelosi let the cat out of the bag with her manipulative 'I have the goods on him' b.s..

Drunken Sailor| 1.25.12 @ 4:23PM

Newt called her bluff and she quickly backtracked her statements.

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....71941.html

It's about time somebody got in their face and called their bluff!

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 5:35PM

The only thing that this old bag 'knows' is the private phone number of her cosmetic surgeon [obviously MORGUS THE MAGNIFICANT]. It just a shame that she 'knows' so much about Newt, yet doesn't know squat about what was in the WELFARECARE legislation that the Democrats forced upon the American people [since they'd have to read it to know what was in it]. What a CROC of putrid liberalism she sadly is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trish| 1.25.12 @ 3:58PM

Norm Coleman, Romney advisor said Obamacare will not be repealed. Is this Romney's idea of the shot heard around the world? More warmed over pablum from the Rinos. NO THANKS!

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 5:39PM

One way or the other, it'll never make it to 2014!!!!

Douglas Fletcher| 1.25.12 @ 5:40PM

Yeah! Repeal is the most important point of throwing Obama out. Enough with wimpy republicans.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 7:18PM

Methinks Newt will be making good use of Coleman's statement in tomorrow's debate.

Tom| 1.25.12 @ 4:06PM

Here's the real thing to look at. Did you see the turnout in South Carolina? A record number of voters by far. Newt has brought people into the process who don't normally vote. Extrapolate that over a national election and you not only have a blowout over Obama, but you get the House and the Senate too. Romney, on the other hand, just doesn't generate that kind of excitement. People would vote for him while holding their noses.

ncatty| 1.25.12 @ 4:17PM

The American Spectator is schizophrenic. Anybody read R.E. Tyrell's column today?

Drunken Sailor| 1.25.12 @ 4:24PM

Glad I wasn't the only one. Seem R.E.T. doesn't like Newt but many of his contributing editors do.

Odd way to run a conservative site, wonder why R.E.T. didn't post his article here?

albert constantine jr| 1.25.12 @ 5:32PM

I enjoy it. Some contributors support Paul (Reid Smith and Antle, I would think), some Santorum (RS McCain, Hilyer), some are sort of Pro-Newt but mostly anyone but Paul (Lord), and Kaminsky's piece today is kind of pro-Romney. I come here to read what others think (and occasionally express myself). If I wanted to be told what to think, I'd go to HuffPo.

dbt3| 1.25.12 @ 4:28PM

What a joke. Anytime anyone, including Obama, raises the mantra of unfair because, for instance, hard-working Americans pay a far higher tax rate (and thus contribute far more to the nation) than financiers like Romney, those people are called socialists and Marxists.

How hypocritical can you get? I pay a higher tax rate than you because you have the money and thus the lobbyists/political power to get a lower rate, yet when I cry crony capitalism you say I'm a socialist. The idea of equal contribution - see, equal tax rates for all work - is not SOCIALIST in the slightest. Indeed it is far more capitalist than the current system that you and others defend, because it takes the government out of the role of picking winners and losers, and lets the free market decide.

Douglas Fletcher| 1.25.12 @ 5:38PM

Your math is way off, bilbo. And Obama doesn't want equal tax rates, he wants confiscatory rates against people who invest the money in companies that provide all those jobs your occasional laser-wielding idiot president claims is his most important concern.

Purp| 1.25.12 @ 5:49PM

YOUR math is way off, Chuckles. Since the Bush tax cuts were extended and the wealthy are doing just fine - were are the jobs, if tax cuts for the upper crust produces jobs? Tax cuts for the rich never produce jobs, never have, never will. A few hundred thousand or even a few million wealthy cannot spend enough money to buy all that businesses can produce. It takes tens of millions, 200 million even of customers spending money on goods and services to absorb all that businesses can produce - and then businesses will hire more people to make/do more for the business. Anything that puts more money in the hands of the middle class and economically disadvantage improves the economy, period. Investment in roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects is one proven way government can put money in the middle class hands by giving them jobs. Private/Public partnerships go a long way to providing wealth in this country, vis a vis, the Interstate Highway system.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:02PM

The rich pay more than their fair share. Am I rich. No, I am lower middle class, but I don't have the rich/envy that so many of you liberals have.
vote conservative

Purp| 1.25.12 @ 5:49PM

dbt3| 1.25.12 @ 5:55PM

No idea what a bilbo is.

Regardless, you've missed the point entirely. Your counter, reformulated into some legitimate talking point rather than whatever tripe you've posted, is that these particular investments NEED a lower tax rate to be competitive, because if the tax rate is higher presumably those investments will go elsewhere.

Assuming that to be the case, why not adopt the Ron Paul (or hell, even Newt Gingrich) point of view - fine, keep those lower rates for these investments, but why on earth are the rest of us paying 30-40% for a hard day's work? Since when is investment MORALLY more valuable than general work?

And the answer is, it's not. It's absolutely clear that the reason we have such a complex tax code with loopholes for corporations is because those very groups have access to government (through lobbyists) that ensure they do not pay their FAIR (see, equal) share.

VBMax| 1.25.12 @ 7:27PM

I don't know what a bilbo is either and maybe I shouldn't ask.
I don't believe there should be an income tax at all and that would solve the problem you have presented.

Purp| 1.25.12 @ 5:02PM

"The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the America of weakness in foreign policy." - Correct - but I'm sure he's meaning Republicans in a good light, which obviously is false.
1) The Declaration was a document of separation from a tyrant, a King, not a document to support the rich, elected and connected.
2) Saul Alinsky/Ayn Rand all the same - radical extremists that have little to do with reality
3) Foodstamps/Paychecks - more people used food stamps under GW Bush than under Obama, but even that were not true, the reason food stamps are even needed under Bush or Obama is all Bush's fault anyway.
4) Dependence/Independence - As the middle class disappears and the poor grows, Republican policies increase poverty and create even more dependence. The difference is that the poor and their needs are ignored by Republicants and are not ignored by the Democrats.
5) Foreign Policy - That dog don't hunt - Even IF it were true that Democrats don't believe in a strong foreign policy, which they do, President Obama put that canard to bed by killing Bin Laden (Bush kept missing), and Al Qaeda top lieutenants all over the world, piracy on the sea, and ended the Iraq war. Bush played war, but didn't know wth he was doing ... NOW we have a real Commander-in-Chief.
So, Newt bloviate all you want, the American people know the truth.

Fred Farkel| 1.25.12 @ 6:07PM

You are Drinking lots of the Marxist Liberal Koolaide we see.

tj| 1.26.12 @ 11:11AM

Why do you "people" come here and comment? You really, really show your ignorance....libs and pubs we smeLl your fear. We meet at dawn November 6th 2012! VOTE EM ALL OUT!

hfj1| 1.25.12 @ 5:08PM

Just Google Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - Crossroad

You will easily recognize which Alinsky Radical Rule Obama uses. Obama had 4 years' experience in Chicago as a community organizer. That is the experience he brought to the White House.

According to Alinsky, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

According to Alinsky, "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

Even Alinsky's son congratulated Obama. "Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Purp| 1.25.12 @ 5:35PM

The son is not the father and carries no weight whatsoever. Does Ayn Rand's son carry any weight in any matters she wrote of? Oh, maybe she was a lesbian, that's right.

Douglas Fletcher| 1.25.12 @ 5:33PM

These comments sections on AmSpec are getting almost as weird as Hit & Run. Danger, Will Robinson!

dbt3| 1.25.12 @ 5:57PM

Just be sure to make generalized, contentless statements and wallow in your own self-appreciation and correctness. No room, or need, for debate.

MissouriConservative| 1.25.12 @ 5:34PM

Newt, you got us Romney's taxes and that
is fine. NOW I still want to see more than a contract for work at
Fannie/Freddie. These were public funds (taxpayers) used to buy your
services. We the people paid for these. We can look at Santorum's,
Romney's and Pauls work records, but NOT yours. Let's level the playing
field. During an era when so many politicians were pocketing gains from
Freddie/Fannie including Obama, you expect to say "I was different, take
my word on it."
I want to see a body of work for my 1.5 million plus!

Albin| 1.25.12 @ 5:50PM

Would have been great for John McCain to run against Alinsky, but Obama will have been in office for almost four years and if anything broke UN rules to murder Osama, and if anything has gone too easy on the bankers who murdered the Reagan fantasy.

Purp| 1.25.12 @ 5:51PM

What? this is gibberish.

vivian cohan| 1.25.12 @ 6:00PM

Newt will be the one to bring this one home. Obama is not a leader, he is the food stamp prez.

sc| 1.25.12 @ 6:09PM

Mitt talks a good gave but kissed Dem A when he was Gov. I don't give a D if Newt is an AH, that's what we need, and a wealthy corporate raider like Mitt is the perfect foil for Obama class-warfare rhetoric.

David| 1.25.12 @ 6:39PM

What about Santorum? He does not have the baggage of Mitt or Newt, and can debate with the best of them.

Buck Ofama| 1.25.12 @ 7:23PM

we must exterminate the rat vermin infestation from the white houuse ASAP.

Fredfilopek| 1.25.12 @ 10:59PM

Why. Are you allowed this user name?

Fredfilopek| 1.25.12 @ 10:59PM

Why. Are you allowed this user name?

Glenn Koons| 1.25.12 @ 7:26PM

If a miracle happens, and Newt wins Fla., this debate-education effort can go on . But, it appears that Mitt is going to win Fla. with his huge 200,000 early votes ahead. But, if Newt rallies, this will be a hurricane of info for voters who think Newt is nuts or weird. He may actually inspire many voters who just will not stand for 4 more years of Obama.

Frank Gerber| 1.25.12 @ 7:28PM

You, my man, are a moron. Please climb back in your hole.

Glenn Koons| 1.25.12 @ 8:19PM

Frank, I suggest you modify your comment. I have taught and worked politics, polysci for 48 yrs. I have been dealing with real pols, unlike you who apparently haven't a clue as to political reality. I doubt if you could pass my college courses. Modify my man, because you sir, must be a Berkeley grad ...if that.

poyman| 1.25.12 @ 9:57PM

There will be only 3 Presidential Debates with Obama.... The question that folks have to ask themselves is "what happens after the Debates?"

I can't even imagine Gingrich as President.... He's disorganized, impulsive and in constant search for shock value on something.... There are few things that are unanimous in Congress, but it appears that everyone who served with Gingrich believes him to be a Poor Leader..... I haven't seen one Congressman come forward and tell us that he had good Leadership Skills... If ever we need good leadership Skills it's now..... I have heard dozens testify of Romney's good and solid Leadership in both the private and Public Sector...

The guy has never really been a CEO in either a Private or Public Setting.... In many ways, he is just like Obama was 4 years ago.....

I don't think there is a chance that he could beat Obama and even if he could he has a zero possibility of fixing this Economy.... Romney can do both.... He can beat Obama and he has the skill base to fix the Economy and getting Government running efficiently.... In fact, Romney is the only candidate on either side of the aisle that can fix this Economy....

janvones| 1.25.12 @ 10:11PM

Wow. Best article yet I have read defending Gingrich. Get yourself on Beck and Rush and Levin and Fox and Hannity and spread the word. Shout it from the rooftops.

Fredfilopek| 1.25.12 @ 10:56PM

The flies are still buzzing this load of rubbishj

Fredfilopek| 1.25.12 @ 10:56PM

The flies are still buzzing this load of rubbishj

POST American| 1.26.12 @ 12:08AM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

MAO was a psychopath ---and so is
Gingrich.

----Seamless continuity you can believe in
--------------like GMO rotting your rectum
-------------------and injections destroying
------------------------your immune system.

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

NEWT 2012!| 1.26.12 @ 12:23AM

Romney is the befuddled Perfumed Prince of the guilty rich.

Obama's thugs will eat him alive in the general election.

Ted R.| 1.26.12 @ 3:39AM

Well, this is shaping up to be one of the worst years for the Republican candidate since '64.

A year from now, people will really be scratching their heads wondering, how the Republicans thought they had a chance against the President, with the pack of jokers they put up during the primaries.

And once he's re-elected, it'll be time for him to stop negotiating with the enemy (that's YOU), and do what we elected him to do.

First thing, is to use the Nuclear option to end Republican Obstruction in the Senate...

Jabber3| 1.26.12 @ 5:17AM

Peter, your defense of Newt is indefensible and quite frankly you are over reaching. The time to make the Obama Alinsky connection has long passed regardless of the merits and most conservative voters concerned about our economy and jobs do not care that much about who Alinsky was and what he represented.

GARY K| 1.26.12 @ 12:21PM

The time to make the Obama Alinsky connection is not long passed. It is NOW. There are millions of people who were totally unaware of that connection when Obama ran for president. They are still unaware of that connection while he is using Alinsky's radical rules to "community organize" our country. They don't even know what a community organizer does and who Alinsky was. Instead of writing off the Obama Alinsky connection, people should be bringing it out in the open. After all, Obama is a candidate for president, so his background and experience should be fair game and questioned the same as the other candidates. Obama's beliefs and use of Alinsky's rules are behind a lot of the jobs and economic problems we are facing.

777denny| 1.26.12 @ 5:26AM

All big thinkers and shakers are grandiose in their ideas, and many don’t mind telling you about their grandiose ideas. Ronald Reagan had a grandiose idea of calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Now the Establishment Republicans and the Democrats didn’t like this idea, but Reagan didn’t want to live with this threat, instead, he wanted to ELIMINATE IT! And so he set out to convince as many people as possible of this grandiose idea, and was able to get elected and build up our military — even through the Democrats’ nasty campaign against this idea with their name calling and frightening people into thinking Reagan was a “war monger.” But Reagan prevailed because he could communicate to the Public his ideas well enough that they accepted them.

Newt Gingrich had grandiose ideas back before the 1994 elections. He wanted to win the House of Representatives back from the Democrats, who had held it since 1952, forty years. He convinced a great deal of Republicans and voters that his ideas were better than the Democrat’s ideas. And what happened? A spectacular, historic victory! His strategy with the content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, the Republicans only capturing it two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution failed to achieve that!

Then Newt led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928 — an astounding almost 70 years!

And once in power, Newt Gingrich actually delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. working closely with Conservative Activist Groups on every one of these issues. He carried out the Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, with most of the items passing. Newt maintained a RECORD of unswerving loyalty to pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax issues.

Under Newt’s leadership, the total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by a whopping 12.5%. This equals about one-eighth of the size of the economy in just five short years!

As a result, those nasty $200 billion annual federal deficits that had prevailed for over 15 years were instead transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998. They peaked at $236 billion in 2000.

Mr. Gingrich also led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of almost 30% in 1997. It went from 28% down to 20%, the largest capital gains cut in U.S. history! And BECAUSE of that cut, capital gains revenues went up a whopping $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before Newt’s rate cut.

RINO Romney ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy, governed like Ted Kennedy, voted like Ted Kennedy and then ran for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination as a Conservative WITHOUT a record of conservatism! Go Newt!

Mike Rogers| 1.26.12 @ 8:31AM

The most interesting thing here is to look at who is for, and who is against Newt.
Actual Reagan era conservative footsoldiers like Ferrara and Lord are hugely in favor.
Sneaky turncoats who tried to water down conservatism and lost at Newts hands, like John H (gnome) Sununu, and congressional RINOs hate him. From their enemies ye shall know him - Shame about Coulter and RET, but I'm in.
Let me put it another way: Romney, like HW Bush lacks "the vision thing", is timid about fiscal reform, and if he dared say it, probably thinks Newt practices voodoo economics.
Newt thinks and speaks in bold colors, not pale pastels - his only problem is that the bold colors occasionally resemble a Picasso, but I'll take a slightly distorted conservatism over socialism-lite, any day!

John| 1.26.12 @ 12:58PM

Newt or Romney, or another white knight coming to the rescue-it wan't make any difference now. Obama's going to win and win easily, like it or not. Why? Because the big lie that has been sold to America that Obama has destroyed the economy is quickly being exposed as such. Under Obama the nation has created 3.2 million new jobs, the stock market is up 60%. corporate profits and liquidity are at an all-time record high, and even the housing market is recovering. These are the facts and they will be widely known by November. The Obama second term will show even more progress than the first three years because the Republicans won't be obsessed with keeping him out of office, and he will get even more done.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 8:49AM

"Psychopaths LOVE power, and
worship those in power. They run on PURE ego
and NO conscience ----NONE. They are superb
actors and liars who can greenlight the weaponization
of food and meds ---tour a nursery
--and sleep well that night. Psychopaths can
read and know you better than you know yourself.
They can also recognize other psychopaths and
work with them. They can also smell the wind
and turn on a dime while all the while having
nothing but disdain for those below. Learn
to recognize psychopaths. Teach your children
how to recognize psychopaths. We're living
in a psychopathic system, brought into
being by psychopaths ---complete with a
psychopathic culture that rewards and
celebrates psychopaths. Finally, don't be
sad if you haven't made it big in this system,
because it probably only means you yourself
are NOT a psychopath."

------------------------------------THANK YOU!

Sweaty Federalist| 1.27.12 @ 10:16AM

Even George Soros blurted that there's not much difference between Obama and Romney. Pretty awesome that our GOP establishment sides with a creepy one-world government advocating billionaire.

Newt may be a bundle but he's a conservative change agent.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 11:04PM

-------------------TRUTH OPENED---------------------

---'New 'IT' Getting RICH' --is a PSYCHOPATH.

--------------------CASE CLOSED------------------------

The American Spectator

Political Hay