The American Spectator : Newt's Rubio Rumble

Text Size

Newt’s Rubio Rumble

By Ross Kaminsky on 1.27.12 @ 6:09AM

A rising star puts the Gingrich candidacy in its place.

(Page 2 of 2)

Republicans’ focus on “electability,” despite that term’s driving many conservatives to distraction, explains Thursday’s Rasmussen Reports poll results showing a huge swing among likely Florida GOP voters: In a survey taken Wednesday night, after the Rubio Rumble, Romney led Gingrich by 39 percent to 31 percent, this just four days after Gingrich stormed out to a 9 point lead over Romney following the Speaker’s remarkable comeback victory in South Carolina.

The poll shows a similar reversal in Floridians’ views of the candidates’ electability, with Romney now 15 points ahead of Gingrich in that measure, whereas Gingrich had a 3-point lead on the same question four days ago. Rick Santorum comes in at 12 percent, with Ron Paul at the end of the line with 9 percent. Unlike what we saw in prior contests during this campaign season, a surprisingly small seven percent of those surveyed are undecided.

As tremendous as South Carolina’s primary victory was for Newt Gingrich, his momentum is fading rapidly and without another unforced error from Romney (such as his amateurish response to the debate questions about his tax returns), it is not obvious that Gingrich can or will recover.

Marco Rubio may like and respect Newt Gingrich, but the young senator from Florida may have just ended the former Speaker’s chances of winning the Florida primary or the Republican nomination.

————

^* The idea of self-deportation is not the fantasy that Gingrich suggests, with compelling data, even accepted by the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, showing that “the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009” and that “the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home.” More recent data confirm the dramatic reduction of illegal immigration into the US and increase in illegal aliens, particularly from Mexico, returning home. To be sure, the primary driver is economics rather than enforcement, but it proves the basic point that with the right incentives in place illegal aliens will “self-deport.”

Page: < 12

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (199) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Mike Hawk| 1.27.12 @ 6:31AM

Marco Rubio needs to take the Senate Majority Leader post away from McConnell when Republicans regain the Senate. No linguini in Sen Rubio's spine.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 8:17AM

I think (not sure) Jack is correct, Ron Paul is the finest candidate in the race. However as many of you have pointed out, his chances of gaining the nomination are utterly negligible, and becoming present are nonexistent.
If it were merely his age and withered appearance, it wouldn't matter, yet as an NR writer mentioned a few months ago, Paul is 85 percent normal, 95 percent conspiracist.

That 15 percent is too high a number when combined with Paul's wrinkles. Sorry, Jack, nice guys finish last.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 8:19AM

"becoming present are nonexistent."

President.
Paul's chances of becoming president are zilch. Palin has a much better chance, even if she comes in at the last minute.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 8:25AM

"95 percent conspiracist."

15%! Apology for the typos, but Jack, let me take this opportunity to write that you are too much of an idealist: there has to be a balance between idealism and pragmatism- running Ron Paul for US president is no more practical than running Gacy for president of Chicago's Jaycees! you are sincere , but you've got to pick your battles more carefully, Jack.

Moe Blotz| 1.27.12 @ 2:29PM

What kind of sausage are you trying to peddle?

KateS| 1.27.12 @ 6:19PM

Everyone to the left of the far right (mosteveryone) dislikes Palin and sees her as a lightweight. I'm concerned about how little voters understand reality.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 8:40AM

What if he's got Viagra? Would that Get Him Up, in your in your Opinion Pole? Would that Raise his chances, with you? Or, it it just Too Hard?

Cause it sounds like you're making your decision on the assumption that it's not Hard Enough.

You start out telling us how 'FINE' he is, and then you turn around and tell us how Wrinkled he is? I don't get it.

Women.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 10:14AM

"You start out telling us how 'FINE' he is, and then you turn around and tell us how Wrinkled he is? I don't get it."

What does wrinkles have to do with character?
Sheesh, Southern girls; Saturday night they are clusterboinked, next morning they go to church. Masochist, you.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 10:38AM

...PS,
would you deny, Tim, that redblooded Southern girls like to try at least once having their train pulled by four or five guys? after all, you have been around, Tim, betcha did a gangbang or two, right?-- and she wasn't a Yankee...

Alan Brooks| 1.29.12 @ 10:10PM

..and they like that song by Cee Lo Green- you know the one..

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 8:57AM

Ron Paul the finest candidate in the race? Mr. Blame-America at every opportunity? Now he blames American for South American socialism.

Sheesh, if he's got no chance of winning, why do you Paulistas keeping bringing him up incessantly.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 12:01PM

Well, considering who we have in office right now, even Paul's foreign affairs couldn't do worse. That said, I will not be voting for him in the primary, excepting of course if it's down to him and Gingrich by the time it reaches my state.

Jack in Wi.| 1.27.12 @ 10:03AM

Rubio is just another pretty boy like Quale. All hat and no cattle.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 10:19AM

Exactly, looks count to the celebrity conscious American public. Ron Paul is a great guy, but he doesn't have a quarter the filmstar charisma of the really important guy his age had: the Gipper.

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 11:08AM

JAck, you are all gas and no bag.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 12:02PM

He can't help it. Gingrich has the market cornered on gasbaggery.

Moe Blotz| 1.27.12 @ 2:32PM

Dan Quayle was spot on concerning his Murphy Brown comments, but suffered because of the potatoe fiascoe.

Soljerblue| 1.27.12 @ 7:04PM

No -- he's an empty bag, and all of his 'gas' ran out a few miles back.

Skywalker L. | 1.27.12 @ 10:23AM

Ron Paul will save us! Ron Paul will save us!

R2D2

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 10:30AM

Jack probably met Ron Paul and saw what a great guy he is-- but so was Jimmy Carter! smarmy, yes, but the majority of charismatics are.

Point is: Ron Paul is too good a guy for the brawling ugly nasty lowdown dishonest but S&M- fun of political manipulation-degradation. Nice politicians finish last.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 12:07PM

Ron Paul is many things, and while I admire his stance on a number of domestic issues for which he has proven nearly prophetic, "nice" is not one of his primary qualities. Mind you, "nice" is about as far from what I want in a presidential candidate as "compassionate".

No, I am not in the tank for Paul. Were the job only domestic in scope, I would have far less problems. It's not that I approve of W's handling of matters, but Paul's take on Mohammedanism is naive at best.

Alan Brooks| 1.27.12 @ 12:14PM

I wrote great, not nice.
Alexander was Great, not nice.

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 3:00PM

Charisma?? Jimmuh and Rube Paul?? Togther they've go all the charisma of a baloney sandwich.

Jack in Wi.| 1.27.12 @ 9:42PM

I met Quale at a fundraiser and have a picture of myself with him. I looked right in his big blue eyes and saw the vacancy sign on the back of his head.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 11:54AM

Ah, Mike's post was about Rubio in the Senate. Just sayin'.

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 2:15PM

ObamaBoy israel Firster Brooks Is Scared Of Dr. Ron Paul Running Against Obama.

" In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.

A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 1.27.12 @ 3:43PM

Clit, give it up as you're STUPIDLY becomeing more and more insane with your untruthful propaganda. Did you attend the Barack Obama School of Lying by chance? Everything you put forth is simply lying bullexcrement. Tell the truth, and if you can't do so, the STFU!!!!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 1.29.12 @ 10:14PM

"ObamaBoy israel Firster Brooks Is Scared Of Dr. Ron Paul Running Against Obama."

I don't care who is president next Jan. 20th, just as long as it isn't Gingrich- am always thankful for small favors.

Quartermaster| 1.27.12 @ 7:55PM

When it comes to immigration, Rubio is as out of touch as the Republican and Chamber of Commerce elite. If calling an illegal immigrant "illegal" (exactly what they are) is dehumanizing, then so be it. I'm tired of the left's foolishness and screaming Raaaaacist when we want the law enforced. We either have rule of law, or we might as well become the Nazi country the left seems to wish we had.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 6:43AM

I see Rubio as President one day. The ultimate American fantasy.

rnd| 1.27.12 @ 8:22AM

Dream on. And every time people like you write that Rubio's head swells bigger than the county prize winning watermellon.

Stop it. He is an as yet untested and really uknown person. Just being latin, relatively good looking, relatively okay when he speaks.....um, so what? Countless C-rated actors can do likewise.

What weird pride do you take in standing back and assessing a man whom you haven't a clue as to his real self in this life?

Marco Rubio has to do something. Has he? Has he been a leading voice in the nation (why not THE leading voice) in repealling Obamacare? No. Did Rubio speak out against gays in our military? What special trick/tactic has Rubio come up with to put front and center our daily into the millions of $$ of government mindless accumulated debt?
How has Rubio changed Washington, D.C.? (Oh, right he'll tell you and you believe like sheeple that he'll need at least two or maybe three terms to actually "make some enroads to change."

Get off the silly Rubio is great nonsense.

Could he do some very worthwhile things for those in Florida AND the entire nation? Yes. But the proof is in the deeds. Not the sound bites and 14,000th media appearance.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 8:48AM

Living negativity!

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:35AM

Rubio is an attractive politician in many ways. I'm glad he's not a Democrat. BUT, because he has an Hispanic name he is judged on lower standards than the ordinary white Senator. It's as if people are saying--He's great AND he's Hispanic. A twofer!

Rubio is an establishment Republican. Good enough but he's not the second coming.

BTW, Rubio is a "native born" citizen of the US because his parents were not yet US citizens when he was born. He is not "natural born" and thus does not meet the requirements to be President of the United States. That's a fact.

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 11:06AM

The law says differently. See US COde 8 Section 1401.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 12:14PM

I await to see his accomplishments in the next few years. Even so, he's a darling not so much for his being of Hispanic ancestry, but rather for his Tea Party victory in '10.

In the meantime, the 2016/2020 potential candidates may be a difficult choice for the opposite reasons as this year's. Once Walker is done tearing down the gub'mint-union goons in Wisconsin, he may be the ideal choice.

jo blo| 1.27.12 @ 6:46AM

Rubio's pissed because Newt did an interview with Univision. So he appears to support a worse-than-RINO, Romney, putting America that much closer to a 2nd Obama term. Between his DREAM Act support and his involvement in SOPA, not impressed.

Great job, senator.

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 9:01AM

Yeah, I just don't get Rubio (or Ross's) infatuation with Romney -- a boring and vapid candidate. If Romney wins, and then loses to Obama in the general, we have "conservatives" like Rubio and Ross to thank for it. Nice going guys.

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:38AM

How can Mitt win?? In 2008 he lost to McCain who went on to lose to Obama.

Would the GOP elites hold their noses and vote for Newt if he were the nominee? I doubt it. Why are we, the constitutional conservatives, expected to hold our noses and vote for Mitt? I'm not doing it.

rightasrain| 1.27.12 @ 11:48AM

Mitt can win because he will attract enough independents and disaffected Obama supporters to put us over the top. Newt will not attract these people and like it or not we need their votes to win. But to answer your question, I will absolutely vote for whoever is our nominee. Will you say the same?

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 11:58AM

We'll have to think about it rightasrain....

Med Student| 1.29.12 @ 10:41PM

If Romney is the nominee, I plan on writing Donald Trump name on my ballot......or worse, I may write in the name Barack Hussein Obama!

I will never vote for Mitt.

1972Patriot| 1.27.12 @ 3:17PM

I'm not sure who made up the audience this morning in Miami where Newt and Mitt spoke to at the National Hispanic Endorsement Event (broadcast of CSPAN) but Newt maintained a level of energy and applause from the audience that Mitt couldn't appear to capture.

e track from saq| 1.27.12 @ 6:49AM

The great thing about Newt is he seems to be a dog that will hunt.An asset to the party.As VP can you imagine the comical mismatch between him and "Bite me" in that debate.But up against the beast the poor mutt wouldn't really have a chance.

Marco2| 1.28.12 @ 11:03AM

Moonman as VP? Of what, Freddie Mac or his actual Jurassic Park? The old philandering gasbag needs retirement, and lots of therapy.

jo blo| 1.27.12 @ 6:51AM

@ e track from saq

Nah, that dog would tear the dog's throat out, figuratively speaking. He had one so-so debate performance. Maybe he was tired.

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:41AM

Newt's been slammed by Romney's PAC's nasty commercials. Of course he's tired. Newt's so-so debate performance still shows he has more ballz than Mitt.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:36PM

One nasty turn deserves another.

1972Patriot| 1.27.12 @ 3:22PM

Agreed! I keep reading comments about Newt looking tired, or the grumpy old man with a scowl, or angry... He is a far better person than I. If I had an ankle biter that I couldn't kick off, I'd soon stomp on it with no mercy. Newt's composure and restraint has been impeccable. I'm with him... stop the personal attacks and focus Mitt.

jo blo| 1.27.12 @ 6:52AM

stupid

that dog would tear the beast's throat out, figuratively...

albert constantine jr.| 1.27.12 @ 7:03AM

In my experience, illegal aliens start to self deport right around the time their legal troubles here mount to the point that they think they're going to jail (or "yale", since in Delaware we all like to amuse with our comic foreign accent voices).

let's get real| 1.27.12 @ 8:32AM

We'll never fix illegal immigration until we ruthlessly go after emloyeers who have illegals working for them.

It's that simple. Saying (as all these turd politicians do) that we'll "sanction" the employers when we find illegals in their employ is akin to saying we'll slap them on their little pinky finger.

There needs to be jail terms -- mandatory -- and fines on a scale rapidly moving upwards from $75,000 for very small businesses to into the millions for those businesses that are large.

It is the very same for someone who has an illegal as a housekeeper, lawn mower, or nanny.

Until these strong disincentives are rigidly in place (AND we have the first morons who get shown on national TV trooping off to their 2 year jail terms) we will have the rampant -- everywhere you look -- illegal prescence of hundreds of thousands of illegals in nearly every county in America.

The moment these real and draconian (immutable) punishments are in place for US citizens who knowingly (or looking the other way) employ illegals, self-deportation will ramp up month after month. It will become so commonplace as to take care of itself.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:41PM

You are a first class idiot, one that has swallowed Democrat bait. Has it possibly occurred to you that most illegals have false documentation if they want any job besides "day laborer"?

Secure the border, kick out the criminals, and block the welfare. In time, the problem will cease with just these three things.

let's get real| 1.28.12 @ 5:17AM

Patrick, please.
Think like a man instead of a moron.

What? Are you an employer with a dozen or more illegals? Is that what has you nervous?

(doubtful. You haven't the cranium capacity to be enough of the successful entrepreneur)

Democrat bait? There is not a Democratic Party member anywhere that would allow my simple plan above.

These remaining 4 GOP candidates and others are ALL CORRECT when they say that: When income/funds dry up for those here illegally (doesn't matter, on fake, forged, or whatever kind of documentation), when they cannot obtain jobs and accrue income, they'll go elsewhere.

You would do the very same.

Everybody needs to eat. Everybody needs a roof over head and some gas in the tank.

Think for a second, Patrick.

Our illegal immigration problem is very real and very, very large. It is still massive in a now 4- year down economy.

The only way to fix illegal immigration is to punish employers who disobey the law. That has teeth.

Some might be a little slow on the uptake, but most employers can easily sniff out "illegals" trying to apply for a job. Please, don't be so naive. Most employers who are employing illegals are well aware of who they have working for them.

No border of the USA can be truly secure. Not possible. We have so much coastline and small estuaries. There are still many places to just walk across so easily from Canada southward.

(Example: Spain has a fraction of the coastline to deal with -- and every square inch of this coastline is inhabited. Yet "boat people" make it almost nightly into Spain. Sure a fraction always get caught, but third rate boat pilots/coyotes still have a great success rate of bringing thousands of illegals (from Middle East and Africa) into Spain and Portugal -- daily.

It is the same for the Italians. Just examine the success rate of Albanians coming over into southern Italy. Almost daily.

One should do more on our southern border, for sure, but our borders are emensely long and emensely porous. Give me $500,000 and I'll bring 12 - 20 illegals into Philadelphia's, Savannah's, or New York's harbor any given night of about 90 - 110 in any given year.

As to what you mention about the welfare, I don't have to worry about, as you write, blocking welfare if there is no one (no illegal) here to falsely try to obtain it.

Don't think that American employers are dumb. Many of them may have very questionable inner ethics, but, once they see the first dozen American employers who violated the law by employing illegals being held on bond (in jail awaiting trial), the rest of America's employers with illegals in their labor force, these employers will get the illegals off their rolls immediately.

Where's your brain, man? (Or are you a pseudo, wanna-be thinker here on this blog acting like ya hot stuff?)

Bumr50| 1.27.12 @ 7:09AM

It's Rubio that needs to learn his place.

He's not endorsing, he's just going to attack Newt?

For the record the immigration thing was the SECOND thing that Rubio attacked.

SOPA.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 8:46AM

Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist? Really? Cause I thought that Charlie Crist was helping Romney, in Florida?

Was he, Ross?

I see that you've Lowered the Bar, some, when it comes to your Boy. "Republicans are more interested in beating Obama, than in nominating the PERFECTLY PRINCIPLED Candidate".

Have you heard Romney's WORDS, from his Campaigns in Massachusetts? "I'm not a Reagan Man". "I'm a Moderate." "I'm a PROGRESSIVE".

He has a Single Payer GOVERNMENT Health Care System, in Massachusetts, that is KILLING the State. His people GLADLY went to the White House, to help Obama's people craft their Socialised Medicine Plan. He preferred to nominate Liberal/Progressive Judges, to the Bench, when he was Governor of Mass.

You're right. He's not very PRINCIPLED. He's not very CONSERVATIVE. And, when he says that an Ad that his Super Pac put out, and that ends with Mitt Romney saying: "I'm Mitt Romney, and I approved this ad", is not his Ad, well, he's not very HONEST, either, is he.

And, who do you think Gives a Sh*t, that Elliot Abrams doesn't like Newt? Or that Susan Molinari doesn't like Newt? Or, Joe MSNBC Scarborough? Or any of the other Bought and Paid For, friends of Mitt? What's next? Al D'amato doesn't like him?

Newt Gingrich, for all of his blemishes, Resurrected the Republican Party from oblivion. 40 Years in the Wilderness. 40 Years of the Democrats controlling the Purse Strings. He cleaned out the CROOKS, on the Democrat side. Jim Wright, and the Check Kiter from Illinois. (The Pollack) He got the House Bank SHUT DOWN, and forced Congress to Obey the Laws that they write for the Rest of us. He got Welfare Reform, and he got us a BALANCED BUDGET.

WTF did Mitt Romney EVER do?

Ditto - Marco Rubio.

While we're at it? Who'd YOU sleep with, to get this gig? And, is that Fire Island behind your head, in the picture?

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:43PM

And that whore, Newt, is the answer? LOL!

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 7:12AM

Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist? Really? Cause I thought that Charlie Crist was helping Romney, in Florida?

Was he, Ross?

I see that you've Lowered the Bar, some, when it comes to your Boy. "Republicans are more interested in beating Obama, than in nominating the PERFECTLY PRINCIPLED Candidate".

Have you heard Romney's WORDS, from his Campaigns in Massachusetts? "I'm not a Reagan Man". "I'm a Moderate." "I'm a PROGRESSIVE".

WTF did Mitt Romney EVER do?

Ditto - Marco Rubio.

While we're at it? Who'd YOU sleep with, to get this gig? And, is that Fire Island behind your head, in the picture?

Jeremiah Smirking| 1.27.12 @ 7:41AM

Sweeeeeeet. Best response, period!

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:42AM

TLP has done it again! Thanks.

steve| 1.27.12 @ 11:47AM

TLP is insane and a racist. Why encourage his rants?

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:58AM

Only liberals throw race cards around so casually.

Mickeybutane| 1.27.12 @ 1:35PM

Because he's not a curt little ass like you

1972Patriot| 1.27.12 @ 3:36PM

This comment needs to be a lead on Drudge.

Might I add... Mitt hides an awful lot behind a "trustee" when it comes to talking about his blind trust. The Huff Post has an article posted that is titled, 'Mitt Romney's Struggle With Truth Continues'.... it claims that Romney's Fannie and Freddie's holding were not in the blind trust as he publicly claimed and he would have had knowledge of them. I have not fact checked as of yet. Maybe his comment that we'll learn taxes are confusing when we see his was a jumping point for spin.

greater scrutiny | 1.27.12 @ 8:42AM

Mitt Romney is significantly less credible person also because every time he gets asked a pointed question about something specific in his campaign he says, "Well, I dunno. I haven't seen it."

How many times will the media, other candidates, voters, and the nation allow him to deflect responsibility?

Yes, it is about responsibility.

Either you are responsible or you are not.

Either you are or you aren't running. And, if you are running, Mitt, then you are in charge all day long of your campaign. Every thing it does in any county or burrough in the nation.

And that OBVIOUSLY includes all your campaign TV, web, and radio ads.

So....is this how Chief Executive Romney works? When asked a tough question (and he knows what is going on), he'll have set up fluky plausible lines where he has "contracted out" things that won't let his $27 million per year hands get sullied, things that allow him to say, "Well, I don't know. I haven't seen them."

(Note to all: This is how mafia dons work. You contract it "out." So plausible deniability is always on your side)

Except: It is on tape -- for eternity. "I'm Mitt Romney and I endorse this message."

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 10:03AM

Timothy,

First, Romney is not "my boy". My primary goal here is to beat Obama. If I think Romney is most likely to do so, I'll support him. That's what I've thought so far, though I have to say I was hoping Newt could make me think I was wrong to think he couldn't win. That said, I wish Mitt were a lot better. (Note my hypothetical Mitt advertisement a few days ago, for example.)

Second, I reported poll data and betting odds, not my opinion. Pretty silly of you to get angry at me for poll results you don't like.

Third, as for what Elliot Abrams said about Newt, I ended that paragraph with two links to two big names (both named Reagan) who supported Newt. Hard for you to say that I didn't offer some degree of balance there.

Fourth, separate from this particular article, I'm inclined to believe Romney when he says he's become more conservative over time.

Fifth, regarding your pathetic last line, you do recognize that my writing is better than yours, right? The land behind me in the picture is near the Etosha National Park in northern Namibia. In particular: http://www.ongava.com/

GOP follies| 1.27.12 @ 10:13AM

Mr. Kaminsky, what we need is a writer to be about not just beating Obama. That's relatively speaking, easy.

What we need is a writer to help us unearth and bring to the fore a far better candidate for the presidency than anything we have now in Romney or Gingich.

Help us find that person. We need that man now.

Otherwise, for you, me, and all of us the days of amassing a little wealth and being able to splurge on a South Africa vacation are over. All these "freedoms" we enjoy will either be trampled our just simply lost because you'll spend (and I'll spend) most of the day grovelling to get by. That might be under a Chinese master. It might be under some other master.

But you won't be the master.

As a writer and thinker about these things, help us find the right person. There's nothing codified anywhere that says the only person eligible to be the president has to be an elephant or an ass.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:56AM

I think Ross is more fore beating the Tea Party than for beating Obama. Why else would he be siding with the DC establishment against the Tea Party. Without the Tea Party no candidate will beat Obama.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:01PM

"follies",

There is no point in daydreaming about another GOP candidate for this race. My pick was Mitch Daniels. I'm sure you have people you like far better than this crew, and I don't blame you. But no amount of hoping and praying will change the fact that the field is the field, and it's not going to change in this election cycle.

If there were more to be done in the presidential race than beating Obama, I'd be for doing more. But none of these candidates is anything more than just that. None of them is inspiring and none will ever be. We're stuck with this for 4 or 8 years. I don't like it any better than you do.

As for your suggestion of a third party, I think that our experience shows us (1) that it's almost impossible for a third party or independent candidate to win the presidency and (2) when they try it helps the Democrats.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 2:45PM

So if Newt is the GOP candidate what are you going to do? You have been doing a good job of making sure nobody votes for him, which for many includes the November election. That then means you may be helping Obama win.

Jeff Perren| 1.27.12 @ 10:38AM

"Fourth, separate from this particular article, I'm inclined to believe Romney when he says he's become more conservative over time."

May I respectfully ask why?

Apart from the general unlikelihood of a man in his 50s changing his views much, what in Romney's actions or character suggest he is telling the truth now, after so many times of contradicting former statements?

Note, I'm not saying he's lying; it seems more likely he simply has no core beliefs. He's a pure Pragmatist, from all the evidence. So, he, like Obama, can make an assertion one day and contradict himself the next - and sincerely believe both statements, because to such a man there simply is no such thing as the truth.

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:45AM

Kaminsky is lying. Romney is "his boy." He might vote for Romney for Prez but I won't.

RCV| 1.27.12 @ 11:41AM

...and we Democrats thank you, loulou.

steve| 1.27.12 @ 11:49AM

You can have loulou, we don't want her.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:57AM

He can have you also, since we don't want you.

JmsA| 1.27.12 @ 2:58PM

Divide et impera. RCV, you must have a grin from here to there witnessing all of this internecine warfare.

RCV| 1.28.12 @ 12:34PM

To be frank, JmsA, I'm utterly astonished what GOP conservatives have done to one another in this campaign. They have taken an ideal opportunity year for their cause and wasted it by utterly devastating each other. Even in the midst of the bitterly-fought Democratic primary in 2008, Democrats kept focus on the main goal of defeating Bush and did not personally savage one another the way Republicans have done this time around. President Obama could not have written a better reelection script for himself if he'd been given the opportunity.

RCV| 1.28.12 @ 12:35PM

Obviously, I meant "Bush's successor" although in fact they were running against Bush.

Examine what you read| 1.28.12 @ 3:14PM

Democrats were working in 2008 to defeat Bush? Really?

Aha, you don't seem to remember the Clintons and the Chicago Machine for Obama going very, very bitter month after month in Spring and early Summer 2008?

Amnesia? Old age? Losing gray cells.

None of the above; you are using very selective memory. For examples of campaign trail savagery just ask that guy Wesley Clark about being savaged by fellow Demoncrats in the late fall 2007 and in the early primaries.

(How do you run against Bush when he's incapable of being the election year opposition?)

You're giving the Demoncrat array of characters then, in 2007-2008, far more credit than those stooges deserve.

Some had some real fun with that Senator boy of yours John.....John....John whatshisname in North Carolina. Naw, that wasn't no savagery. You know, the one who knocked up his campaign staff babe.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:07PM

The real proof that Romney is "my boy" is the two articles I wrote for AmSpec, one entitled "Mitch over Mitt", and then another where I wrote about how Pawlenty was saying better things than Romney was.
http://spectator.org/archives/.....strategery

I will vote for Romney or Gingrich if either is the nominee, but not for Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. I'd rather have the GOP lose than have either of them in the White House.

W| 1.27.12 @ 11:42PM

Mr. Kaminsky

Why not vote for Santorum instead of Obama?

GOP Follies| 1.28.12 @ 5:33AM

Whoa, dude, Rosso Kaminski! Been smokin' a little too much of that weed in Boulder, eh?

Let me get this right -- you'd support Romney in a final duel with Obama but not Santorum?

All kidding aside, are you nuts? Please answer W.'s sincere question above.

Reading you now for some time (and all too often very dismayed at what I read) I think you really are at "home" in Boulder. Really? If so, very sick. Very sad. Note: I'm not referring to the nice views westward.

Jeff Perren| 1.27.12 @ 7:37PM

Agree with his favoring Romney or not - I don't, but given our choices this time around I can't blame anyone for choosing Romney - but you are very unlikely to see an article from Ross Kaminsky in which he lies about his views.

Like Ross or not, as you choose, but he's a man of integrity. He tells it like he sees it.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:04PM

Jeff,
My role here is not to apologize for Romney. Despite the claims of some of the commenters here, I don't have a vested interest in the guy despite close friends here pushing me hard for months to endorse him. I have not done so, nor contributed to him, whereas I did endorse and contribute to Giuliani last time.

As for why I think he's gotten more conservative, it's because if you look at the "contradictions" you describe, I do think there is a trend there of his newer views being more conservative than his older views.

Some may argue that it's pure political opportunism, and indeed it may be. My gut feeling is that there is some of that, but there is also some real degree of his living through an experience in government and some other business experiences which have made him more conservative. I'll never be able to prove it, and I'm not saying I think he's now a highly principled conservative. I do think he's mostly a pragmatist, just a more conservative one than he used to be.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 12:53PM

You think you write better than me?

Why do you ask THEM?

"I'm inclined to believe Romney when he's said that he's become more Conservative over time."

Really. You believe him, because he says it's so. NO EVIDENCE. He hasn't done a G*DD*MN Conservative thing in his life. But you believe him. PATHETIC and WEAK.

So, I'll ask it, again. "Who'd ya have to Sleep with to get this gig?"

Don't answer. I already know. I saw your Boss' last Column, and I heard him on the T.V.

You're right about one thing. Romney's not your boy.

You're HIS.

TommyFrisco| 1.27.12 @ 1:42PM

Well written, Timothy.

You see, Ross, it's not so much how you write, it's what you write. You are just as much of a wh*re as Ann Coulter.

Yes, I'm angry. I don't like having the deck stacked against us. We're trying our best to save our country from bankruptcy and ruin. All you and your colleagues can think about is your own self-interests.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:13PM

Tommy,

How am I protecting my self-interest with this or any other article?

You think I don't want to save this nation from bankruptcy and ruin as much as you do?

I bet you don't do one tenth of what I do (and almost all of it for zero money) to try to encourage Americans to think about our Founding Principles, liberty, free markets, and so on.

Some of you clowns sound like Democrats, which is to say you take political disagreement as a personal insult.

Take a deep breath and start thinking about how to beat DEMOCRATS.

scotchieguy| 1.28.12 @ 1:26PM

Well stated, Ross. I have always had a problem with the commenters who are so thin-skinned on this site. They behave exactly like the immature, naive dems they claim they are superior to. Unless you agree with them 100%, you are a sell-out, or worse. I experienced this a few years ago when Palin was as much a threat to the status quo as Newt is now. It was almost sacrilegious to trash her even though she trashed herself in that embarrassing interview w/ lightweight Couric.

GOP Follies| 1.28.12 @ 3:27PM

Scotchieguy, you make good comments here and you are new here, I think. Maybe I am wrong? I don't much recall your moniker.

Either way, your comments in this thread are good. More of the same!

But you and me and all of us have to read close some times. And then task our craniums to inspect and chew on what we're reading.

Like:

"Take a deep breath and start thinking about how to beat DEMOCRATS."

On the surface, this sentence looks okay.

Nope. Not at all. We know how to beat Democrats. Or has everyone forgotten what was historical -- a totally historical flogging - in November 2010. There is no precedent for what occured in November 2010 in modern American history. Emphasizing state legislatures -- a place the media will never emphasize. More state legislative houses flipping to Republican in November 2010 than any party has ever achieved.

Nope. Mr. Kaminsky, we know how to defeat Democrats. Mostly, by word and actions, Demoncrats defeat themselves in the age of YouTube and everybody able to fact check on Google for themselves.

Scotchieguy and everybody else, our mission is a lot tougher than defeating Democrats. Our mission is to sort out lame, loser, fake, fraud, huckster, spend-along-t0-get-along Republicans as well. Those Repubs trying to hide in Conservie Sheeps' clothing.

That's a tougher mission. And that is what all are trying to convey here to Mr. Kaminsky. We are not fooled by Mr. Mitt Romney. We are dismayed; we are greatly troubled. We are saddened at his stances and his lack of soul values.

He, too, sadly, is our enemy. He is the enemy of a vibrant, functioning, and free America that will not just survive but also get itself right.

Your lot in life will not measurably improve under Mr. Romney; America will continue to the dustbin of history -- on your, my, Mr. Kaminsky's and all our watch.

I don't want my grandkids laying that real and undeniable blame on me.

People here wish that Mr. Kaminsky would also be so honest with us as to offer these kinds of assessments. He lives in Boulder as we learned last week. So he has no excuse. He knows the follies of man; they surround him in the Peoples Republic of Greater Boulder.

TommyFrisco| 1.28.12 @ 7:47PM

Ross,
"How am I protecting my self-interest with this or any other article?"
It is clear, from reading your earlier articles, that you are in the tank for Mitt Romney. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I expect full disclosure. This particular article seems innocent, taken by itself, but there is a pattern of you parrotting what many other pundits are saying, including Ann Coulter. This article is full of negativity for Newt Gingrich that is copy and pasted from one pundit to the next. Upon digging deeper, I find there are connections that help explain the "self-interests." For example, Bain Capital owning the communication network that the Drudge Report is on, Matt Drudge lives in Florida, and may be a member of GOProud. If true, that could explain the coordinated attack on Newt on the day of the most important debate in the primary which helped a candidate (Romney) who has been known to support gay marriage." You have written articles discussing the good things Bain Capital has done, but you neglected to write much about the companies that failed. Were dividend recaps involved in those failures? Did Bain Capital lose money on those failures? If Bain Capital can be guaranteed a profit whether or not a business fails, is that truly free-market capitalism? The most important question I have for you is, what has been your involvement with Bain Capital? Have you made investments with Bain or is Bain Capital affecting what you post here at AS?

"You think I don't want to save this nation from bankruptcy and ruin as much as you do?"

I don't know that. I do know that "conservative" pundits and talk show hosts make more money when there is a Democrat in office. They make more money when conservatives are angry and involved. Voters have been known to vote with their own pocketbook in mind. Certainly those in the media would be willing to promote a candidate who would most help them make a buck and console themselves by saying the country will survive because we've been through tough times before.

"I bet you don't do one tenth of what I do (and almost all of it for zero money) to try to encourage Americans to think about our Founding Principles, liberty, free markets, and so on."

Yes, you are in a position to influence more people than I can. That's why it's so important that you provide unbiased information to us who are seeking truth. What I want is investigative journalism that gives us facts. I despise hidden agendas and undisclosed associations. I resent the amount of time I have to spend seeking facts and truths. I know most people do not take the time to do that.

"Some of you clowns sound like Democrats, which is to say you take political disagreement as a personal insult."

So, now you call me a clown and sound like a Democrat. Is that not a personal insult? Is that because I disagree with you? I am insulted by your non-disclosed agenda and I resent your thinking that your readers are too dumb to see through it.

"Take a deep breath and start thinking about how to beat DEMOCRATS."

Rush says conservatism wins everytime. Ronald Reagan proved that in 1980 and 1984. You guys are crazy to think we'll ever believe that Romney is now a conservative. Romney can't run on his political record so he has to resort to attacking his opponents which is the very same tactic that Obama has always used. I have voted a straight Republican ticket for 35 years. If I sound like a Democrat, it may be because I am so angry at the GOP establishment and anyone else that promotes the status quo in DC. I firmly believe Newt can inspire our nation to defeat Obama if the establishment will just get out of the way. Most of the baggage we've heard about Newt Gingrich is just garbage that has come from the Democrats and their is obvious resentment toward from established Republicans who resnted Newt's strong-arming for conservatism while he was in Congress. Newt's enemies are my enemies. They are our nations enemies. It's easy to see how Romney might not have so many enemies. He doesn't create waves and he buys off whoever he must.

BTW, what's your problem with Santorum? Does it have anything to do with Universal Health Services?

TommyFrisco| 1.28.12 @ 8:26PM

Come on, Ross,

Provide full disclosure. What's your beef with Santorum and why do you covertly support Mitt Romney? Romney has developed the conservative talking points, but what has he done for the conservative movmement other than to buy Haley's (South Carolina) and Rubio's (Florida) support?

Are you a proud member of GOProud? If so, you should be proud enough to disclose that you support Mitt Romney because of his past support for the gay community. Disclose that's why you would not vote for Santoum in November.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:10PM

Tim, I'm not sure who my boss is, since I'm self-employed and have been almost my whole adult life.

If you're talking about Tyrrell (which I'm just guessing because of his intensely anti-Newt article the other day), all I can tell you is that I've never met him, spoken to him, exchanged e-mail with him, or had any other contact with him.

Furthermore, nobody at this publication has ever asked me to write an article with a particular point of view. I choose my own topics 95% of the time, and my own opinion 100% of the time.

If you think you're such a good writer, give it a shot. Write an article and e-mail it to editor@spectator.org

Until then, your bitchiness is showing and it doesn't make you look good.

Moe Blotz| 1.27.12 @ 2:43PM

Anyone who is self employed still has to answer to someone. In my case, I must answer to those who give me tonnes of metal to deliver hither and yon. In your case, it is the patrons of TAS. Whether we like what you say or not, agree with you or otherwise, thought provoking commentary is your stock in trade. Whenever you have one of your essays out here, it seems to attract alot of attention and I suppose Mr.Tyrrell likes to see that. Keep it coming Ross.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:58PM

Thanks, Moe. Glad someone isn't beating the hell out of me today. ;-)

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 3:04PM

Brother Moe makes a good point and I agree with him.

Drunken Sailor| 1.27.12 @ 2:39PM

Just curious Ross,

"I'm inclined to believe Romney when he says he's become more conservative over time."

First,Why do you believe him when he has a hard time defining conservative principles ?
Secondly, why do you not believe Romney has changed but refuse to believe Newt is capable of it?

At least those were my perceptions. I'm struggling to understand how a self professed libertarian such as yourself seems to back a moderate canidate like Mitt.

Drunken Sailor| 1.27.12 @ 2:42PM

Ross, never mind. I saw the answers to my most of my questions in your other replies. Though I still didn't see why you believe Newt is incable of change.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:59PM

Sailor,

It's not so much that I think Newt is incapable of change, though there may be some of that. It's that Newt really hasn't claimed to change other than on an issue or two, nor is there any hint that Newt thinks anything about himself needs to change.

martin j smith| 1.27.12 @ 7:25AM

Rubio also has learned where the money is that is where he will go.

elephant in the room| 1.27.12 @ 8:53AM

Yes, mostly likely, like all politicians, the money will be in his pockets, bank accounts, and off shore bank accounts.

Rubio will be same, same.

I am for semi-annual mandatory release for all U.S. House Representatives, U.S. Senators, Supreme Court Justices, senior Federal judges, all top cabinet appointees for all of the federal agencies, even the financial statements of generals and admirals (to include the five to ten years after they finally retire)

We've learned a lot from being able to just see one year of Romney's tax information. (Was this done for John Kerry? I don't recall.)

Why is this not done for the senior 15,000 people who run this country? (correction: Run it into the ground) Semi-annually. And in perpetuity for those who are in government forever like the McCains, Hatchs, Lugars, Coats, and Bidens and Clintons.

Maybe just mandatory drastic strictures on the financial life would keep some of these politicians (like Marco Rubio?) on the straight and narrow road. Maybe...?

Let's get real: Unless we can monitor their wealth, income, sources of income, INVESTMENTS, overseas holdings, the money games will go on and on and on. (And that is why they fight like bratty children to stay in office)

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 7:52AM

---Capstone tupperware ---then and now.

MEANWHILE

-one and all should surely check out
yesterday's (Jan 26th) ALEX JONES
interview with Dr Mayer Eiseinstein
on the deadly vaccine hoax and the
aggressively unfolding EUGENICS
agenda.

Those who aren't convinced the stealth
weaponization of shots and meds has been
decades underway -----and that such acts
ahould not receive the warmest capital
crimes prosecution and the death penalty
----------are in for some wonderful turn arounds.

albert constantine jr.| 1.27.12 @ 8:07AM

Would Alex be related to Van, and do their families hail from the same part of Wales as Romney's father-in-law?

rnd| 1.27.12 @ 8:12AM

Above Ross Kaminsky states in a Marco Rubio quote that Rubio used the word "inflammatory."

Folks, sirens in your head should go off.

No good politician uses the word "inflammatory."

It is now a childish word that has lost (if it ever had) any meaning.

Oh, and, why, prey tell, is Marco Rubio a rising star? What exactly has he done?

He -- so far -- seems like one of those guys that for the umpteenth thousand time will talk of his penniless grandparents and their "struggles." (Doesn't that ever get old?)

Marco Rubio is a very young man who is probably already in worlds beyond his acquired knowledge and real wisdom in life.

Am I writing Marco Rubio off completely? No. But all this fawning over him endlessly is sick.

He's -- to this point -- just another guy.

Remember: Keep your distance from politicians. Ascribe to them greatness? No, never. Trust them? Uh, no, also -- never.

VonMisesJr| 1.27.12 @ 9:20AM

If Romney is such a shoe in, why did the statist in VA make him and Ron Paul the only choices on the ballot? Why is every RINO in DC singing "alleluia" to Mitt and making vague charges against Newt.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of a DC Republican Liberal Establishment that is almost indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialist in the Democrat Party and the EU. The RNC called me yesterday. What do you think I told them when they wanted a political donation?

GOP follies| 1.27.12 @ 10:03AM

Good for you, VonMises. So far the American Spectator writers completely ingnore the March 6th primary day fiasco in Virginia.

Long before we only had just these last 4 GOP candidates, the state GOP for Vigininia (out of Richmond and D.C.) declared that the pimary date vote ballots would only have "Ron Paul" and "Mitt Romney" on them.

The Virginia state GOP honked off Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. And the state VA GOP poohbahs declared that no write-ins would be permitted on primary vote day.

So you could choose between just Paul or Romney. Some choice!

This is still the situation today. (The state brushed away very legitimate legal challenges to this from the Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich campaigns, brushed away these legit attempts at justice within hours of them being filed.)

Oh, the state GOP poohbahs harp on silly nonsesical name gathering on required signatures, meanwhile you had the Lt. Gov. of the state of Virginia, Bill Bolling, personally overseeing the Romney effort. The governor, Bob McDonnell, voicing his support for Mitt Romney and only Romney.

State bias? Electioneering bias?

Where's the good writer that will lay this out for the American people? Here it is year 2012 and right in a state like Virigina we have electioneering manipulation that makes Putin's election day Russia antics look inexperienced.

Good of you to notice, Von Mises. Most want to look away.

The truth always hurts.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:52AM

Conservatives in Virginia should go out and vote for Ron Paul and stick it in the GOP establishments face.

steve| 1.27.12 @ 4:23PM

Your'e a real wizard Pete, vote for Ron Paul so Obama wins, that will stick it to the GOP establishment. Are you a Democrat or lefty,same thing.

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:47AM

Yes, the fix was in in VA. And now McDonnell endorses Romney?!

The RNC called you? They've stopped calling me. Sniff.

VonMisesJr| 1.27.12 @ 11:01AM

My friends, if people do not see their voting rights being nullified along with their citizenship, then one is not paying attention. But many are cowards and refuse to see what is staring them right in the face.

If ObamaCare (The Provisional Personhood and Annulment of the Constitution Act - PPACA) and Fwank Dudd "gimme access to your debit card transactions and ability to withdraw what Uncle Sam says you now owe him" Bills stand; then you are less than a EU subject. You will be a former free man in slavery. At least the French and Greeks have no idea what it was like to be free. They have been in socialist bondage for three generations and no one alive remembers.

John - TMF| 1.27.12 @ 11:14AM

My suggestion for both of you is to vote a Blank. I doubt that the write-in angle will hit the courts, it will be dismissed with the other challenges.

Just put the card in, skip the ballot page, and vote blank.

Also did anybody notice that the Presidential Primary is in March, and the Senatorial and Representative primary in June? Why not do it all in one and save serious money?

Oh? I know! Then the real Presidential Challengers would actually have time to get on the ballot!!!

The fix is in... it is an ugly fix... we are getting jobbed.

r/TMF

GOP Follies| 1.28.12 @ 5:53AM

John - TMF, this is not possible in Viriginia, to my knowledge. One cannot vote "blank." There is now almost exclusively electronic voting. On these electronic machines, one must use a stylus or one's own finger (like on an ATM screen), but the machine doesn't register a vote unless the voter gives it "input" that the machine recognizes.

These machines are/will be programmed on March 6th to only accept "Paul" or "Romney." All other inputs will result in an error -- with nothing counted.

(This is to my knowledge)

And, if one tries the old paper ballot method (assuming any would be available, on hand), my understanding is that these will be set aside. Counted individually, any "input" on these hand written ballots that is not "Paul" or "Romney" will be placed in a "didn't vote" or "flawed ballot" container. They certainly would not be counted.

Simply put, the GOP wallahs in Richmond, VA denied us all choices except Paul or Romney.

If one wanted to write-in Palin, DeMint, Pence, Huckabee, Bachmann, Daniels, or even a Huntsman, well, no can do.

John, you are seriously right about the stupidity of a GOP Senate race primary in June with a presidential primary date on March 6th! (This is why the truth is that the Commonwealth of Virginia is still flat broke -- regardless of the lies from Richmond coming from McDonnell and Bolling.)

You said it right: the fix is in.

And, as I write this now, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is trying to prove his chops by stomping (literally) around Florida shilling for Mitt Romney.

Bob McDonnell a conservative? Hopefully Virginians are watching him very, very closely.

Things stink in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I will be one very angry individual come March 6th primary day.

I will be just as angry in June; there is full scale GOP Establishment effort to return to the U.S. Senate George Allen. All other U.S. Senate GOP/Repub/Conservative candidates are being dissed at every turn in Virginia.

Rigged elections indeed.

Paul from SA| 1.27.12 @ 12:00PM

VonMisesJr,

Spot on. Keep up the good comments. I read them all.

I'm seeing he emergence of a one-sided, Republican media that works very much like the liberal media. They collude to destroy conservatives. They say I'm stupid. They want my vote and my money and my support. They keep saying I'm stupid.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:24PM

I don't like what happened in Virginia, but they were not new rules, and there is no indication that this was a conspiracy of any sort.

kerry| 1.27.12 @ 3:27PM

rules were changed in November, and also the redistricting of our state wasn't finalized until after the signatures were due.
There are definitely serious issues with Va. election laws and they will be reformed if hte tea party has anything to say about it!

VonMisesJr| 1.27.12 @ 3:28PM

The bulk of regulations presented on Stossel Show the other night (that was either last year or the last few years) was as large as a cord of wood. Average people understand that they will not enforce a cord of wood worth of regulation immediately. So when does it become an old law abandoned, an old law never enforced or a new law by some subjective standard. All I know is that the people of VA have to choose between two candidates, not four; and one of the two leading candidates, not both. What choice is that?

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:24PM

By the way, isn't there a similar problem in Missouri?

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:49PM

Between Romney and Newt, the choice fore the Beltway was who had better hair.

Here's a vague charge: What kind of jackass rips his own party while on the couch with that gorgon, Nancy Pelosi? What kind of jackass wants to rape the producers in this country for idiotic "Green Jobs"? What kind of jackass wants to ruin my car just so he can suck down some fat ethanol money? Newt is a jackass, and crypto-member of Team Jackass (known as the Democratic Party).

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:50PM

I could go on about Mitt too, don't get me wrong, however, he's at least honest about being a spineless wimp.

Brian| 1.27.12 @ 9:50AM

Wish someone would expose Rubio the Rino. He was the best friend liberals had. As Speaker he moved liberal legislation from the fever swamps to the floor then claimed clean hands when it passed minus his vote.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 9:56AM

---Keep takin' them thar shots kiddies!

------And keep a countin' that cancer inventory!

-----------Just KEEP A GOIN'

-----------------------Yessssireee!

JimH| 1.27.12 @ 10:20AM

Rubio is telegenic with a good back story. Changing demographics makes Hispanics are the ethnicity du jour. He got elected to the Senate by running as an outsider to the Florida GOP machine. But other than getting elected what has he accomplished?

loulou| 1.27.12 @ 10:48AM

Rubio is working the system. He's bright, attractive and HISPANIC!! But he's not a natural born citizen.

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 11:09AM

The law says differently. See US COde 8 Section 1401.

kerry| 1.27.12 @ 3:32PM

His father wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth. What do you not understand about the law? The SCOTUS has ruled more than once on this issue, there is precedence going back 100 years.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:22AM

I have heard Romney may not be eligible for the same reason.

TommyFrisco| 1.27.12 @ 10:49AM

"A rising star puts the Gingrich candidacy in its place."

Conservatives should put Rubio in his place. He doesn't have the gonads to officially endorse Romney, but he's willing to claim Romney is a conservative and he's willing to attack Newt Gingrich. I pray that all conservatives, especially those in Florida, see this as what it is: pure corruption and cronyism politics from Rubio because Romney helped Rubio get elected to the Senate in 2010. Romney supported Rubio's campaign only because he knew he would need Rubio's support in Florida 2012. Romney has used his money to buy Tea Party support.

Yes, Rubio can deliver an inspiring speech, but I am shocked by so many conservatives begging him to run for POTUS or become VP even though he's only been on the national stage for one year. Gov. Perry got hammered for his support of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants if they've been a resident of Texas for three years and were on a path towards attaining citizenship, yet everyone is overlooking Rubio's support for Harry Reid's Dream Act. It should be no surprise to anyone that Rubio would be so weak on illegal immigration since he is a direct descendant of illegal immigrants. That's exactly why our Fore Fathers included the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution...to help ensure that our VP and POTUS would be loyal only to the USA.

Rubio may turn out to be a fine, conservative Senator from Florida. That remains to be seen. I don't like what I've seen so far.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:48AM

Notice how the Republicans have come out in mass to attack Newt since he won South Carolina. I assure you if Santorum would move up to challenge Romney he would get the same treatment. The GOP establishment is making me ill.

TommyFrisco| 1.27.12 @ 12:10PM

Pete, I am also sick to my stomach at what the GOP establisment is doing, again, to support another RINO. Sarah Palin knew she would get no support from the GOP establishment which is why she chose not to run. Yes, Newt's win in SC made the GOP establishment realize that they had to send out all the status quo supporting RINOs in their arsenal to attack Newt in hopes of preventing Newt from winning Florida.
The only way to stop this madness is for voters, and especially those in Florida right now, to see through all the lies and distortions. I hope they send the same message back to DC that South Carolina sent last week.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:26PM

The explanation for this is clear, Pete: Republicans across the country are scared to death of losing their own races due to Gingrich being at the top of the ticket.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 2:49PM

And in the process have dismissed the will of the voters in South Carolina. Newt was able to inspire them while Romney could not. So these Republicans will resort in lies and innuendo to make sure Romney gets elected. Now why again should we be Republican? Sounds like a nasty bunch of people to me.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 3:00PM

I disagree, Pete. There is nothing about any one state which makes it inherently special. Politics can be a nasty game, but I continue to believe that our side is less nasty than the left.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:20AM

Sorry, but its too late. You have been found out.

GOP Follies| 1.28.12 @ 6:07AM

(reference Mr. Kaminsky's "scared to dealth " comment above) Dumbest logic yet on this page. Most voters don't always see a "connect" between their local congressman or the one running for congress and the guy at the top of the ticket.

Most all voters in my neck of the woods knew this in 2008 when McCain topped the ticket. I'd say same for when it was Dole.

Mr. Kaminsky, why do you agree with the FOX News Britt Hume tripe that a New G. on the ballot will tube GOP candidates across the nation?

Warning bells, folks. Ross K. just wrote (above) a typed talking point for the GOP Establishment.

to wit: "If Gingrich tops the ticket, GOP will lose seats in the U.S. House of Reps and will not gain a majority in the U.S. Senate."

Oh? Really? Who says?

And by the way: Why exactly would we want more GOP candidates winning in November? Have Boehner, Cantor, or Mitch McConnell inspired anyone lately?

Is the waywardness of the GOP led U.S. House of Representatives a big reason Mike Pence has decided to run for Indiana governor and abandon the wayward U.S. House ship under Captain "Schettino" Boehner?

RCV| 1.28.12 @ 12:40PM

Pence is running for Governor because it places him in a much better position to run for President in 2016.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:52PM

I've been attacking Newt since the moment that he was even so much as whispered. He's beneath contempt.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:53PM

I have also made it rather clear my distaste for Romney. Even so, a loathsome, leftist toad is worse than a moderate.

Anthony| 1.27.12 @ 10:52AM

As much as I like Rubio, it appears Mitt got first dibs on him early.
Then, the R establishment took Rubio aside and "got his mind right".
Let's hope there's an America left for Rubio to govern when his day arrives.

Mimi| 1.27.12 @ 11:56AM

His day is far into the future!
2 things to ponder....
1. GRASSFIRE POLL...29,000 folks
Newt-48 Rick Santorem 24 MITT= 14.5
2. Florida began the pre-vote on Sat. Jan. 21 day of the S.C. PRIMARY...also it's GOP only, in a closed Florida PRIMARY....Newt also is a great supporter of Israel, also has supporters with more Passion.

HarryS| 1.27.12 @ 11:33AM

Rubio is another backstabbing Cuban politician. I grew up in Miami and I've seen Rubios in at least three incarnations. Always talking up a conservative, but as soon as they're in forget the conservatives. And the Cubans don't even wait or act subtle about it. As soon as the election is over the knife goes in the back. What do you expect from people who never experienced true liberty.

JmsA| 1.27.12 @ 1:13PM

Hey, genius, if it weren't for the Cubans in Miami, and specifically in Dade, you'd had Al Gore as president. And I have bad news for you, they're not going away.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 11:46AM

Romney is no conservative, and the Newt Legacy is something we probably won't see in Rubio's life time, a balanced budget. The hyperbole that I am seeing on conservatives by so-called conservatives is frankly making me sick.

Paul from SA| 1.27.12 @ 11:54AM

Pete, I agree. We have so-called prominent, famous, conservatives supporting the liberal candidate, telling us he is the most conservative candidate, telling us we are stupid for not supporting him.

It's similar to when Hollywood celebrities attack me, and say I'm corrupt and inferior, stupid, evil, racist, sexist, bigoted, un-American, homophobic, violent, Nazi,.... It's doesn't induce me to watch their movies. It's makes me hate them.

When Republicans (Ann Coulter, Karl Rove) attack me and say I'm too stupid, it doesn't induce me to support their candidate. It's the opposite.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 2:51PM

And Ross fails to understand that he is part of this. They assume that us teaparty supporters will just go along since we have no choice. That is a foolish assumption. A very foolish assumption.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 3:56PM

Yet you pin your hopes and dreams on Gingrich of all people!?

Demagoguery and sophistry aren't dead after all.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:16AM

Demagoguery - you must be referring to the hit pieces but the Romney PACs.
Sophistry is what Romney is doing by splitting hairs distinguishing RomneyCare from ObamaCare.

Romney will lose to Obama, because he is the loser who lost to the loser to Obama.

rightasrain| 1.27.12 @ 3:58PM

I must comment on the assumptions you and many others here are making about who the so called elites and establishment support and who the tea partiers supports. I am an avid tea party supporter. I have gone to numerous tea party rallies both at home and in DC. I'm pretty sure I went to the first such rally held in my state in early 2009 and I support Romney--- for the simple reason that I believe that only he can beat Obama. Winning the election in 2012 is my only goal--not winning a debate, not slapping down the media. I know that Newt's your choice but your assumption that he's also the tea party candidate is mistaken.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:14AM

You're not winning anything with a big government republican. The only winners will be those out of work republicans in DC that miss there cozy government jobs.

Becka| 1.28.12 @ 10:03AM

Then, I hate to tell you this, but you aren't a tea party conservative. A real tea party conservative supports Santorum.... previously supported Bachmann.... previously supported Cain. You ain't no tea party conservative - you are a moderate. Period.

Marco2| 1.28.12 @ 11:24AM

There is no Newt Legacy. The old coot's a mental case, and virtually everyone who's watched him or tried to work with him over his decades-long suckling at the public teat, knows it.

Paul from SA| 1.27.12 @ 11:47AM

I disagree. This makes Rubio look bad. It makes him look petty, dirty and like a Romney supporter.

Romney's establishment insiders got Nikki Haley, Bob Dole, Tom Delay and now Macro Rubio. He succumbed to the party pressure.

It's a mistake for sitting pols to take sides in this heated nomination process.

I'm still waiting to be impressed with Rubio, the supposed rising star. Republicans think highly of him because he's hispanic. That's it.

Becka| 1.28.12 @ 10:04AM

I lost respect for Rubio over this, big time. If I also see him being offered the VP slot by a Romney campaign - he is toast in my eyes. It will explain everything. It will deem him a phony and a liar. I will let time show me the truth.

rnd| 1.28.12 @ 3:49PM

Becka, I'm not disagreeing with you, but a certain sittting Virginia governor who will be jobless in early 2014 due to Virginia rules for governors, this certain Bob McDonnell is now running all over Florida to make sure Mitt Romney does not forget him AND to make sure that Mitt keeps Big Bob McDonnell the No. 1 pick as Vice Prez.
It would be very interesting to see the dynamics and interplay if Rubio and McDonnel are in the same room somewhere in the next 48 hours.

Virginia's patriot conservative voters are not happy that McDonnell is in Florida. Every month he loses more of the good will (and the huge sweat effort) that got him into office.

randyinrocklin| 1.27.12 @ 11:57AM

Rubio dropped a couple of notches in my book. first Dream Act, now SOPA. I think he's being co-opted by the Establishement like the rest of the tea party politicians that got elected. What a shame.

Greeneyeshade| 1.27.12 @ 12:01PM

In 2008, it was the left's time to elevate a politician into a god.

Since then, the right seems to be emulating this lunacy. It started with the political version of Kim Kardashian -Ann Coulter's chubby-chasing crush on Christie, but it continues.

Rubio is a politician, worse he's a lawyer and a lawyer with a Harvard JD. He didn't traverse that territory without having titanic ambition. He's a politician, not a Messiah.

Politicians are imbued with instinct to prosper under any circumstance. They are parasitic by nature.

If you see Rubio selected as VP, you'll know he was hitching his wagon to the winning horse, who happened to be a man (Romney).

Get it out of your head that politicians stand for principal. They can all give soothing speeches to assure or distract you-but ultimately, your acquiesence or support is just a rung on their ladder.

Paul from SA| 1.27.12 @ 12:47PM

Kim Kardashian has a body. Plus everybody knows Kloe is the smart one. (I swear I've never watched the show.)

Ann Coulter got new some big new boobs, but she is a skeletoid.

I would compare Ann Coulter to Bill Maher or Janeane Garafolo.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 2:52PM

I was think Chastity Bono.

JmsA| 1.27.12 @ 12:51PM

If you're so unhappy with the present GOP candidates you should vote for the One. By the way, Rubio's JD is from the University of Miami, not Harvard, and his B.A., from the University of Florida. He's no eastern establishment elite, but I suspect you wish he were.

gf| 1.28.12 @ 6:19AM

Greenyshade - above, best post of the day. Better than the article itself. Better than all posts beneath.

This line:

"Get it our of your head that politicians stand for principal. They can give all the soothing speeches to assure or distract you-but ultimately, your acquiescence or support is just a rung on their ladder."

Best line of the day. Very, very true.

(One should wonder/mistrust mightily about anyone who attends Harvard, especially in the political, social, and legal schools)

David| 1.27.12 @ 12:06PM

As I said before, Romney correctly played his cards. He has been supporting early on the Tea Party candidates in primary races with his money and his words. All those conservative candidates now FEEL obligated to support Romney......just like Palin supported McCain over JD Hayworth.

gf| 1.28.12 @ 6:24AM

Yes, David, your observation is quite correct. And Mitt had the money in 2009 (Fatso Christie in New Jersey, Bob McDonnell in Virginia) and 2010 to buy the allegiances of political neophytes like Nikki Halley of South Carolina.

Boy, has she been handed a knifed lesson in the last four weeks.

A lesson in modern politics 101 delivered by silver spoon in mouth Mitt Romney: How to win and how to do it on the 6-year planning plan/timetable

And we are all betrayed.

Joe D.| 1.27.12 @ 12:19PM

Ross, we will just forget the Romney started the negative adds in Iowa to Gingrich. He probably was the one that went after Cain and Perry as well. He is the one that went into the gutter first. Because the RINO establishment told him 4 years ago it was his turn now since he took an arrow for the party last time. That work well didn't it, Ross.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 2:27PM

He (or his Super-PAC) did indeed go quite negative before anybody else. Politics ain't beanbag, even though I don't love it any more than you do.

Pete| 1.27.12 @ 2:53PM

Then quit throwing the bombs.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 3:02PM

Pete, sometimes a small bomb is good reading, and sound analysis. I don't think today's article has much in the way of bombs. It's much more reporting than opinion.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:12AM

"even though I don't love it any more than you do."

This then seems contradictory.

VonMisesJr| 1.28.12 @ 9:27AM

This is a first. The author of the article is also the leading troll of the day. Isn't that conflict of interest or something unnatural?

gf| 1.28.12 @ 4:00PM

It's his Ross Kaminsky's trick to obtain more "hits" and reader comments. You've notice how ASO now offers the statistical number of comments after every article or blog, the little light gray colored number. They're tracking this, keeping stats.

The number stat is probably a big factor helping to determine which ASO contributors get web published here on the site more often.

String together just 23 or 34 comments a half dozen times, and, well, a writer is relegated to the Junior JV. However, top the 160 mark consistently, and....well, maybe good things happen.

So, Ross Kaminsky is artificially bumping up his numbers. On the one hand, it is nice that he's seemingly willing to mix it up with readers. However, no, this is not his motive. It's about the numbers.

So it is savvy but also disingenuous to keep posting one-liner responses here and there in the reader comments. Whatever becomes of the final weekend (see, you want your article at ASO to be posted Friday morning -- means more comments as it runs front page thru to 6 a.m. Monday)

Anyway, you get all that. Just subtract the 12 posts that R.K. has made here today from the total and the 12 responders to his short, little responses.

Hopefully the editors are not fooled.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 4:03PM

Cain was taken down by the Left: they had more to lose in seeing one of their slaves outside the plantation.

Perry was taken down by himself. Seriously, it wasn't the attack ads that did him in, it was his performance. How one manages to seem more milquetoast than Romney is beyond me, but he managed.

Gingrich started hitting below the belt first. He set the standard for the RoE between the two, and reaped the whirlwind.

Are there any qualified candidates that can defeat Romney? I hope so. Oh, and please, screaming Ron Paul doesn't help his case.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:09AM

Are you sure he wasn't taken down by the Romney camp?

BackToBasics| 1.28.12 @ 3:24AM

One thing all 4 of the current candidates will do if any one of them are elected is keep the Southern border wide open. If the unemployment rate were 30%, I think they'd still allow the illegals free reign.

Bulbul| 1.27.12 @ 1:07PM

Gingrich needs to fire back, rebounding and reviving his campaign, and improving his debate performance, otherwise, we would see a historical collapse of a rising conservative firebrand.

Bulbul| 1.27.12 @ 2:07PM

Putting aside the feud between Gingrich and Romney, as a devoted Christian and constitutionalists, I miss Gov. Rick Perry.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 4:04PM

Well, you should have prayed harder during the early debates.

howard lohmuller| 1.27.12 @ 2:11PM

Newt Gingrich has said so many things to so many people in so many different ways that to pin him down is like stopping Jello from quivering.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 4:05PM

Oh, it's easier than that. Just let the fat bastard sniff for lobby money like truffles, and you know where he stands.

Nick099| 1.27.12 @ 2:56PM

Most folks writing here have no idea the destruction Jimmy Carter wrought upon this nation during his term, How we were a laughingstock around the world. High interest rates, high unemployment, gas rationing, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and the failed rescue attempt in Iran because Carter had cut funding to the military and the copters crashed. The list is endless. Then came Ronald Reagan, a guy who spoke of hope and American Greatness. His message was uplifting. He had a simple plan. He loved America. You could feel it when he spoke. He won by a landlside.....but you already know that.

Now just think, when Reagan was saving this Nation, Romney was voting for Carter and then that fool Mondale.Then you tell me who would you put faith in to lead this Nation out of the woods. Romney????? Not on your life for that sissy-boy. My money is on Newt Gingrich. I know what he is about. he does not run away from it and he admits when he is wrong. He also does not shrink when he feels he is right. Gingrich has been fighting for Conservatism for 40 years. How dare some of these imbeciles here cast aspersions upon his accomplishments. Rubi0 is paying Mitt back for his endorsement of him for Senate. Rubio has made a rookie mistake, much like Crispy-Creme Christie of Jersey. Romney ain't no Conservative....never has been. Oh, and by the way, from last night if anything should be gained from the debate: Romney will never repeal Obamacare. He is Obama-lite.
Freakin imbeciles.

Patrick| 1.27.12 @ 4:07PM

How about that time when Gingrich was sharpening his knife to stick in Reagan's back?

He's a whore.

JJ| 1.28.12 @ 1:08AM

never happened.

Oldefarte| 1.27.12 @ 4:00PM

Ross, I'm obviously reading different news material/information that you are, as I'm of the opinion that Newt started out almost entirely focused upon Obama/Democrats and that Mitt and his PAC's originally attacked Newt [and not the other way around]. Newt only bagan seriously attacking Mitt after I think NH [and was reported to be highly infuriated at Mitt's campaign attacks upon him thereafter]. As to the SELF DEPORTATION issue, both are partially correct. Illegals are returning to Mexico etc especially leaving the several states which have legislatively passed their own state immigration laws, and same may possibly represent the one/only appropriate remedy going forward [if either the federal government rightfully did its job of immigration enforcement, there would be no need for states to pass thier own laws regarding same;and such effective enforcement would cause illegals to return to their home countries from fear of being arrested]. Both Newt and Mitt need to get off this attacking each other whick is stupid and non-productive. The taxpayer-voters of this country are yearning for candidates to stop this insignificant/trival BS and start procaliming their views upon the important issues concerning this country [and they are playing right into Democrats' playbook by dumbly doing thus]. Also, IMO its the true conservatives who are outraged over Mitt's attacks upon Newt's conservativism [which is asininely absurd]. They both simply need to respectively beging attacking Obama/Democrats rightfully for the socialism and anti-business agenda that is now occurring in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ross Kaminsky | 1.27.12 @ 6:14PM

Olde,

If I ever said or implied that Newt went negative first, it was certainly unintentional. Clearly Romney went negative with both barrels, or at least his PAC did.

KateS| 1.27.12 @ 7:38PM

Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño endorsed Romney today. Romney is a jobs man...Bain saved and created tens of thousands of jobs. He can do a great deal to help the economy (unlike Newt).

I thought it was terribly foolish for Newt to hint that he would make Rubio his VP AFTER Rubio endorsed Romney. I'd love to see Rubio as Romney's VP, but not Newt's. That would be political suicide for Rubio, and I know he is much smarter than that. Rubio and Romney have one thing in common...they are both God fearing, devout, moral men who want to do the right things for the country. It is about time we have leaders who are the political version of Tim Tebow.

Mike Hawk| 1.28.12 @ 8:56AM

Marco Rubio is needed in the Senate, not ending his political career in the VP's office of oblivion.

Sonny119| 1.27.12 @ 9:42PM

Marco Rubio stated, quote- “Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist,” Rubio said in response. “Romney is a conservative, and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.” unquote-

Now, why would Marco Rubio, a Tea Party conservative politician, back a liberal Republican Party RINO elitist like Romney, whose record is one of furthering the liberal agenda, especially Romneycare, forced mandated inferior substandard State Socialized medicine program, that is bankrupting the State and people of Mass, over a Reagan conservative like Newt, who accomplished more for the nation in challenging the status quo, and the RINO permanent political class in Washington DC, not to mention a liberal Bill Clinton agenda, and balanced the US Federal Budget, forced Clinton to reformed welfare, cut spending and lowered taxes, that helped to created millions of jobs, and so on..

That’s the question.. Now what’s the answer..

The answer is political payback. And what does that tell you.. 2 things. It tells you that Marco Rubio is both an honest person who pays his debts, political or otherwise, but also one who is willing to distort the truth if need be, in the payment of that debt. Because Romney is far from being a conservative. Romney attacked Reagan and supported GHW Bush in the 1980 election, and many years after.. which does not bode well with Tea Party Conservatives. On top of the fact that it was the Reagan Conservative Tea Party folks who voted for, and thus, put Marco Rubio in the Florida US Senate seat, over Charlie Crist.. not the Republican Party RINO elitists of Romney and company. We view this sort of twisting and distorting of the truth, as standard political double backing betrayal and dishonesty, repugnantly repulsive..

It’s a shame that people who were given their place in power by the Reagan Conservative Tea Party folks, are now being stabbed in the back by the very same people who benefited from us, like Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio.

This is why I, and millions of other Tea Party Patriots, never trust the person in politics, but the values and principles of Constitutional Conservatism, and when they violate these principles, we hold the accountable for it.

Politicians and their betrayal of lies, are not the subject of adornment, as I and the millions of Tea Party folks, will forever hold them and their feet, to the fire of the US Constitution, and ensure they are responsive to, and accountable to, We the People.

David| 1.27.12 @ 10:07PM

Ross, you just lost me. Won't be reading any more of your articles.

You won't vote for Santorum, but will vote for Romney or Gingrich. Just what the flip is your objection to Santorum?

He doesn't support an individual mandate for health insurance like your boys AND Obama.

He didn't support the Wall Street bailout like your boys and Obama.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 10:29PM

------------------------JUST IN!-------------------------

'The US now falls to 47th
in press freedom in the world!"
-Drudge Report
(today)

Keep a goin' kiddies!

----USURY and TREASON and RED China
Re--SUN ---

---------JUST KEEP A GOIN'

----------------------------------------GIT!

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 1.27.12 @ 11:52PM

If Rubio believes Romney is a conservative than the THC content in Florida's marijuana must be much higher than the rest of the nation.

BackToBasics| 1.28.12 @ 3:19AM

Rubio's just another new RINO in the making. The top RINO's swoon when he speaks.

martin j smith| 1.28.12 @ 7:58AM

Rubio is a disappointment but that is the problem of Washington Elite Power. Rubio knows where the money is and will do whatever it takes to get it. Once he is anointed as part of Establishment Leadershit--he is lost as a potential leader. Romney is a terrible choice a bore, with many politcal baggage issues --Romney Care being a gigantic one which he has not satisfactorily delt with. I think Santorum got him with some big hits in the debate. And his comment that it is not getting angry about--well that about sums up a big problem for Romney. As for Newt--I believe at very minimum there is big controversy about some of the negative comments supposedly attributed to Gingrich . In the end I do not trust Romney or his supporters--I think they are Crony Capitalists ready to sell the voters out. Too bad but there it is.

Rick| 1.28.12 @ 10:54AM

Obamas' polices do to work its just headwins. He will NOT loose! Your a bigget and your poles are rasist!

David| 1.28.12 @ 11:22AM

Hey Rick, learn how to spell.

avagreen| 1.28.12 @ 4:24PM

Rubio wanting a VP spot.

Mike Hawk| 1.29.12 @ 10:01PM

Not hardly. He knows VP is a step to oblivion.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 1.30.12 @ 2:31AM

Didn't Gingrich just say he'd consider Rubio for VP. That's certainly a ploy to win the Cuban American Republican vote. It's a smart move. I wouldn't be so quick to say Gingrich couldn't win Florida.

Paul Wilkinson | 1.28.12 @ 9:03PM

It's 172 paragraphs, but worth reading Newt's 1986 speech cited by Abrams:
http://paulwilkinson.com/2012/.....et-empire/

BackToBasics| 1.28.12 @ 10:41PM

I read it and he doesn't sound anti-Reagan at all. He said he thought Reagan's correct pronunciation against the Soviets didn't match so well with "weak" policy implementation regarding it, nothing more. It was 1986 and nobody knew it would only take 3 more years for the Soviet Empire to crumble.

And from what I've read, Reagan did know that the Soviets were overextended, internally and externally and all he did was give a good push, but the empire was already collapsing. Although again, I don't think anyone knew it would happen as soon as 1989.

Gingrich's speech in 1986 is the kind of speech one rarely ever hears anymore with well thought out ideas, whether you agree or not, and lots of references to crises at the time.

Oklahoma| 1.29.12 @ 12:49AM

Kaminsky says he wouldn't vote for Santorum. In later posts he has had several opportunities to tell us why Santorum is unacceptable. Why in the Hell would he not tell us why? Could it be he doesn't have a valid reason for not supporting Santorum?

rhortus| 1.29.12 @ 11:36AM

Romney: the second coming of Hank Paulson.
Gingrich: the second coming of Richard Nixon.
Santorum: the second coming of Pope JP2
Ron Paul: a genuine advocate of the US Constitution.

Mike Hawk| 1.29.12 @ 9:54PM

rhortus: a genuine Paulbot kook nutjob

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 1.30.12 @ 2:47AM

Actually Pope John Paul II was against the war in Iraq as was Ron Paul. Santorum knows the Catholic social teaching, but he doesn't know the Catholic Just War Doctrine very well which should be every part of being Pro-Life as being against abortion. I support Ron Paul not because I agree with him 100% of the time because I don't. I support Paul because he's the only one with a sane and Constitutional Foreign Policy and he's the only one that would challenge NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and our membership in the WTO as compromising our national and economic sovereignty. Last but not least is Dr. Paul's record of being a relentless advocate of having a monetary policy where our currency is backed by precious metals and has real value as opposed to being just fancy ink designs on paper.

Ron Paul 2012!

Med Student| 1.29.12 @ 10:38PM

The Cuban anchor baby speaks.....and I buckle to my knees!

Gingrich 2012!

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|123 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|106 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|66 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri