The American Spectator

aware| 1.31.12 @ 6:12AM

Lord the statist defends Newt the statist. Am I surprised. The stench of corruption is thick.

Tom Osterman| 1.31.12 @ 6:32AM

I missed the part where Romney became the Libertarian. In any case, the point of Lord's article is that the attacks on Gingrich originate from the statist wing of the GOP. And as Lord makes clear, the same treatment will go to Santorum or even Ron Paul, should one of them get in the way.

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 9:41AM

There's another wing?

Margaret| 1.31.12 @ 2:15PM

Excellent article in American Thinker "The Republican Establishment's Strategic Blunder" by Steve McCann

http://www.americanthinker.com.....under.html

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 2:53PM

Good article - the Republican establishment is going to destroy the party. They kept a slew of conservative Governors out of the race somehow.

I never believed that Gingrich was a conservative alternative. More like he pissed them all off back in the day with his obnoxious BS.

Elias| 1.31.12 @ 7:49PM

Seven pages? Thanks, Maggie. Maybe Mr. McCann can say it with fewer words. Adios, AmSpec.

Evangelical| 2.1.12 @ 5:40PM

Servants of Christ, lovers of God, abandon the wickedness of the RINO party! Scourge and purge the GOP of self-serving worldly Satan worshipping Moderate RINOs. Nothing in the Republican Party is beyond God, we shall vote for the Kingdom of God! Elect only fellow servants of Christ, goodly Evangelicals who love to PREACH THE WORD!

Lord| 2.1.12 @ 1:26AM

I knew Ronald Reagan, and, Newt, you're no Ronald Reagan.

Evangelical| 2.1.12 @ 5:37PM

Servants of Christ, lovers of God, abandon the wickedness of the RINO party! Scourge and purge the GOP of self-serving worldly Satan worshipping Moderate RINOs. Nothing in the Republican Party is beyond God, we shall vote for the Kingdom of God! Elect only fellow servants of Christ, goodly Evangelicals who love to PREACH THE WORD!

Jack in Wi.| 1.31.12 @ 6:56AM

Newt has been a Rockefeller Republican posing as a Conservative his whole career, just like the Bush's and Romney. On top of that no sane women, disaffected Democrat, young person, or casual voter is going to vote for him. He is and always has been a crook with the morals of an alley cat. He is unelectable and unacceptable and would be crushed by Obma and any 3rd party which is sure to emerge if by some fluc he was the nominee. I don't think he would get 20% of the vote in such an election.

Carol| 1.31.12 @ 1:42PM

No sane woman? Well then color me batsh*t crazy because I voted for Newt this previous friday in the Florida early voting. I'm not looking for a president I can sleep with so his marital fickleness has no bearing on my vote. Surely you don't believe that Romney is the Conservative in this race? If so, please tell me one Conservative accomplishment of Romney's while he was in office.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 1:52PM

He's a rabid Paul-bot.

Jack in Wi.| 1.31.12 @ 3:06PM

You 2 girls are not what you would call sane especialy Margie.

Mike Hawk| 1.31.12 @ 3:24PM

You cetainly aren't sane.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 3:51PM

Jack's a Pope Idolator who rejects the Holy Scriptures.

He therefore HATES Christians, as he is taught to do by his Apostate Religion which teaches that Bible believing Christians are heretics.

He's a shining example of this Idolatry.

They are taught that anyone who clings to Scripture is crazy.

You know, as in "Bible Idolators", and the like.

When God Himself says that unless you follow HIS WORDS, you aren't IN Christ.

"JHe who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Catholicism teaches that their Religion is the GOD to be followed.

Christianity teaches it is CHRIST and His Words, as written in the Bible, are to be followed, and the false teachings of the Vatican are NOT in the Bible.

Deborah D| 1.31.12 @ 5:53PM

Goodness -- Catholics are Catholics. My parents are/were Catholic and two of the best human beings on the planet. Please, be kind.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 6:56PM

Deb D.,

Please, I am talking about the Religion and what it teaches, not individuals. And I speak the TRUTH.

My family are Catholics too, sadly.

They were duped like the millions of others in believing the false gospel it teaches and puts them in bondage of.

If you're a Christian, you should know this.
God says to speak and serve the Truth, and that's what I do.

It's the kindest thing I could do~ let people know they are following lies~ why would I want anyone to be deceived?

In the case of Jack here~ I am as kind as I should be~ he is a liar and a scumbag, who should go mutilate himself.

MikeG| 1.31.12 @ 7:00PM

Hey wacko, still spreading that good Christian goodwill again. Keep it up, your'e doing a great job recruiting for Christians !!!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:46PM

Go mutilate yourself, you fool.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:51PM

MikeG~ another nasty Paul-bot anti-Christ.

MikeG| 2.1.12 @ 7:59AM

Good morning, wacko. Not a Paul supporter. I like the Pope Idolator Santorum. You think everybody who disagrees with you like Paul, and I use the word "think" loosely. Idiot.

TrueBlue| 2.1.12 @ 11:09AM

How much of the Church's writings have you actually read? Most of what you THINK are Church teachings and principles are NOT. There is a serious problem in this country of priests on up teachings things that aren't true because they're trying to act like political leaders and not teachers of morality and the Word of God.

You might want to try reading some of John Paul's writings, or Pope Benedict XVI, or Thomas Aquinas.

I'm not even Catholic and I know most of the stuff you spout about them as reasons to hate the religion is WRONG.

Cosmo| 2.1.12 @ 1:30AM

Margie: I hate to break it to an anti-Catholic like you, but Newt and Callista are Catholics, or, as you call them, Pope Idolators. So why are you supporting the Pillsbury doughboy and his lovely bride Lady MacBeth?

The Bruce| 2.1.12 @ 1:58AM

Dear Margie,

"Shut up, Meg."

Griffin, Revelations, 1:1

Nick099| 1.31.12 @ 5:46PM

Jack, you are just wound a little too tight....and a little loose in the head. Better stop drinking and take your meds.

Because when you do you may become aware that it was Gingrich who planned and ushered in a Conservative majority in the House for the first time in 50 years. It was Gingrich who worked with Art Laffer and Jack Kemp in his early days. It was Gingrich who held the line on spending and taxes after Clinton and the Dummycrats had given us a 325 Billion Dollar tax increase....at the time the largest in world history. Yeah, he was a real jerk then eh????? Trying to protect the people from over-taxation and burden...yeah he was a real bad guy.

Your clown Romney mean while was hanging out at Country-Clubs as a registered independent in Massachusetts exclusive areas voting for Carter and then Mondale against Reagan.

But you´re worried how many skirts Newt chased when he was a young man!!!! Moron.

Mr ED| 1.31.12 @ 8:14AM

But the thing for so many conservatives & Tea Party types (Myself) isn't how great either Newt or Romney are, to the contrary, they both have long histories of political expiediency and both seem happy to jettison any hint of conservative values when they are in power or stand to gain sufficiently. I do not really trust either of them to be anything more than "moderates", which is just another way of saying they seek accomodation and expidiency first, and will use principal (and the base) only if such efforts fail.

That having been said, even the most casual observer will know that the RINO class - both the media talking heads and the politicians - have selected Romney and will do or say anything to insure he gets the nomination. Their job as they see it is to prevent us local yokels in flyover country from making any more mistakes (like Reagan) and protect us from our own bad judgement. "Bad judgement" in this case means standing in the way of them and their cronies taking their turn at looting the treasury.

Dmac| 1.31.12 @ 3:54PM

All of us see what is happening. The articel is correct. We all knew it was going to happne 4 years ago too. This isn't a surpurse to any of us. If it welcome to th eparty, you're a bit late but welcome anyway.
The question is this, should Romney go on to win the nomination, what do we do then? We either have to vote for Romnay or vote for Obama. One is a communsit, the other an internationalist, just about the same in my book. I'm middle class so I'm going to get screwed by either one of them.
At what point do we as citiizens realize that neither party represnts our beliefs? What do we do about that? Do we start a third party? Or de we have a revolution?
I'm afraid that may be the two choices we are going to be left with.

Deborah D| 2.1.12 @ 9:51AM

I understand your turmoil, Dmac. I say vote for Romney if he is the nominee, and somehow work to find a way to establish a conservative party...either within the Republican - or outside of it. One way or the other, something's gotta change if we're to save the country for our children.

Biomuse| 2.1.12 @ 4:13PM

Sigh. I'll just say up front that I tend center-left, though no blanket descriptions will be very predictive of where I am on any given issue. I'm a case-by-case type. Ideology is usually an excuse not to think and little more than that. Now, having gotten that out of the way:

I see comments like Dmac's comment about being stuck between a "communist" and an "internationalist" or similar sentiments, a lot in conservative circles. They always make me feel sad for the commenters, because of the gigantic, unavoidable fact that they seem to overlook.

China. India. Latin America. The entire rest of the world, now engaging in the same free market system we are engaged with.

Who is going to protect you from that, and how would they do it? There's no protection to be had.
There is only managing the pain, and strategizing for the long term.

For that, what you need is, in fact, a USEFUL TENSION between total free market turbocharged internationalism and socialistic protectionism. Because those are both tools in the political toolbox, and you will need a push here, a pull there to manage this complicated system in our best interests.

In other words, what you really want to avoid, desperately, is extremism on either side: someone who says, "I only need one type of tool."

I have no ideological dog in this fight, and simply from the available evidence, Obama is the least extremist individual that has occupied the Oval Office since at least G.H.W. Bush. His healthcare plan is a market-based plan designed by the Cato Institute and first implemented by Romney. If those are "communists," we're in very deep trouble indeed. Obama is very far from antimilitaristic, as he has recently shown -he keeps all options on the table without feeling the need to use every one of them at all times. He has not raised taxes. All you have to do is examine his record, and this list keeps getting longer. If Romney has any strengths, they will be similar to these: an ability to look at the problem WITHOUT ideological lenses on and simply to choose effective action plans, no matter where they come from.

PCC| 1.31.12 @ 8:16AM

Mr. Lord's arguments are full of holes.

In particular, ignoring the fact that President Ford's defeat was inevitable given the country's complete revulsion at all things Republican following President Nixon's disgraceful resignation and President Ford's subsequent pardon (which, long after the event, has proved to be the wise course for the country).

Secondly, he assures us that the anti-Gingrich attacks have nothing to do with the Speaker, but are simply the Establishment's anti-conservative tendencies revealed. Horsefeathers! Mr. Gingrich is no Reagan, sir. Nor is he a Palin or a Paul Ryan or even a Bobby Jindhal or a Marco Rubio.

He is a deeply unattractive candidate who, in the past few days alone, has once again exhibited his angry, arrogant, egotistical personality in his usual shoot-from-the-lip, undisciplined manner.

Finally, Mr. Lord gives no credit to President Reagan himself, who singlehandedly moved the country rightward and made conservatism more then respectable - he made it attractive.

To conflate Teddy Roosevelt, Tom Dewey and Gerald Ford with Newt Gingrich's deeply flawed candidacy and campaign is, at best, disingenuous and at worst, ridiculous.

Ryan| 1.31.12 @ 8:34AM

He DOES point to something you don't address, however - the inability of moderates to win elections.

PCC| 1.31.12 @ 9:18AM

Ryan,

That's a fair point.

However, I think it's equally true that in any other previous presidential election Governor Romney's positions would place him squarely in the conservative camp.

Although I know this observation might attract howls of derision from certain quarters, I think Governor Romney may prove to be a very Reaganesque president, if given the chance.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.31.12 @ 10:35AM

PCC- can you get me some of that stuff you're smoking?

jane| 1.31.12 @ 12:28PM

He was an independent at the time of Reagan

Nick099| 1.31.12 @ 6:01PM

Well since his RECORD does not show that. We should all be in for a treat!!!! Wishful thinking I am afraid. He goes along to get along, like a reed in the wind he will bend....not convince others to come his way. That is the fundamental difference between he and Newt in abilities. Newt can lead by making a forceful intellectual argument for his positions. Romney is reading from a script.

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 9:43AM

Ryan - good point. If only an actual conservative was running...

Chris| 1.31.12 @ 10:03AM

Moderates don't win elections?!!! Eisenhauer, a moderate, defeated the conservative Taft for the GOP ticket. Kennedy defeated the conservative Goldwater. Nixon, a moderate, defeated everyone. George HW Bush defeated Dukakis. I could go on for years...

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 10:21AM

Eisenhower was a WW2 hero; nobody could defeat him. (Damn, I have to keep checking Google for spelling.) Kennedy was a liberal Democrat, not a moderate Republican. Nixon defeated the very unpopular Johnson, and George Bush Sr was (false) heir to the Reagan legacy. Dukakis was also a liberal Democrat, not a moderate Republican.

Chris| 1.31.12 @ 10:40AM

Johnson didn't run against Nixon. Kennedy was a typical Democrat for his time. His brothers were more liberal. I don't know what your point about Dukakis being a liberal democrat is. A moderate Republican defeated him. There has only been one conservative Republican elected so far. RR.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 12:51PM

Oh yeah, forgot that Johnson did not run because he was unpopular (Vietnam and all). His VP Hubert Humphrey, another liberal Democrat, ran against Nixon. So, these were not moderate Republicans vs. conservatives. Thus your claim that moderates win elections is misdirected.

benny havens| 1.31.12 @ 10:38AM

Kennedy defeated Goldwater? What the hell election was that?

Chris| 1.31.12 @ 10:41AM

Sorry. Johnson defeated Goldwater.

RichTex| 1.31.12 @ 11:19AM

Actually, you were pretty close to being right in the first place. More than anything else, it was the ghost of JFK who defeated Goldwater. In fact, there were plenty of political observers who were predicting a year earlier that Goldwater could very well have defeated Kennedy in 1964.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 12:06PM

Goldwater was an affable individual but he was demonized by Johnson and the liberal press. Sound familiar?

aware| 1.31.12 @ 7:21PM

Yeah, except the "affable" part. Don't see any connection affable-wise with the current clown show.

MikeG| 2.1.12 @ 8:00AM

No Republican could have won in 1964.

Seek| 1.31.12 @ 11:53AM

It was Johnson who defeated Goldwater in 1964. No matter how young you are, certain facts must be known or you lose credibility.

W| 1.31.12 @ 10:34AM

Ryan,
Moderates can win if they say the conservative slogans and pretend to be conservatives.

GWB won twice, and he certainly did not govern as a conservative, except for his two brilliant Supreme Court picks of Alito and Roberts. But he wanted to nominate Meirs instead of Alito, and he wanted to pass an immigration amnesty bill.

He expanded the Dept of Ed with No Child Left Behind Act, and expanded Medicare with the prescriptons. He expanded federal control of elections by signing McCainFinegold. At the time he said he hoped the Court would strike it. He could have used the veto, which he rarely did.

He agreed to the TARP bailout of over 700 billion.He agreed to the regulation to force use of the new light bulbs.

GWB called himself a compassionate conservative which is just another name for a big government Republican.
While most on this site prefer a more limited federal government, the Dems and enough Republicans want the government to do more for them to run their lives.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 10:43AM

W:
There in a (rather lengthy) nutshell you have it. This is the debate which has divided the GOP since the days of Tom Dewey. Do we simply propose to better manage the leviathan which is the social welfare state or do we propose to defend Liberty and reduce the size and scope of an ever more intrusive (no matter how well intentioned) federal government? Which approach has brought the party success? Which approach is ultimately in the best interests of a free people?

W| 1.31.12 @ 10:59AM

Al Adab
That is the issue, my friend. The Reps have success when the candidate wants to cut taxes, reduce govenrment, and have a strong national defense. Reagan won on these themes in 80 and 84, and Bush in 88. Bush lost in 92 because he raised taxes and the Perot third party. GWB ran as a conservative but he did not govern as a consrvative.
The limited government, free enterprise system is best for a free people. It is the system set up by the constitution with a limited federal government and power in the people and states.
Unfortunately many people are confortable with the nanny state, especially the 47% who pay no federal income tax, but enjoy the perks.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 12:46PM

W:
It gets a little heavy in this debate. Can the citizens through the ballot vote their freedoms away and would that be legitimate? Can the united States become Rome by choice?

W| 1.31.12 @ 1:26PM

Al Adab
That is a complicated question.

The constitution has a bill of rights that applies to the states which forms our basic freedoms, along with other amendments. So the legal issue is can we amend the constitution to eliminate rights such as free speech, bear arms, etc. We passed the 16 amendment to allow for a progressive income tax because the original constitution did not provide for it so that would be an argumen for amending away our rights. But I believe the Supreme Court would rule that we cannot amend away a specific right enumerated under the bill of rights and other amendments, such as the 13 th amendment that abolished slavery.

The problem though is not a direct assault on a basic right by amending the constitution, it is more like death by a thousand cuts where each regulation or law keeps increasing the role of government in our lives. Each in itself does not alert us but over time we have what we have.

For example, the income tax started with a simple form but now asks us to list our mortgages, interest and dividents, charity, education, car expenses, in short we have to tell the IRS everything we own, earn, and spend.

This is an interesting issue that should get everyone to think about it.
I don't think it is a legititmate use of the ballot.Some rights are basic, endowed by our Creator as it says in the Declaration of Independence, and cannot be taken away, legally or illegally.
This is more interesting that the matter I am working on.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 2:49PM

W:
To continue, our representative often pass legislation which grants to executive agencies the power of legislation. The courts ruled (Kemp-Roth I think) that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority away, yet it is done all too often. Aside from voting out those representatives as do such, what recourse do the citizens have to prevent such abuses? If our goverment, under our Constitution, continues to dribble away citizen rights and privileges is there a recourse?

I am reminded of the debate over impeachment during the Constitutional Convention. Governour Morris opposed the impeachment option until Franklin remined the members that without it the people retained assasination. (No I am not advocating that) whereupon Morris said, "I've changed my mind" and impeachment was placed in the documant.

What I fear has happened is that the citizens have tired of the demands self-government places on them: to remain engaged, to understand the issues, to educate themselves about the process, to participate and so on to the extent that they may actually prefer government by bureaucrats to the work involved in being self-governing. If that is the case, can self-government be redeemed?

You and I really need to sit down over a scotch or two and think this through. I can think of a few others here we might invite along.

W| 1.31.12 @ 3:35PM

AlAdab
Let's do it.
I suggest Veal saltimbocca, Italian red wine, expresso, single malt Scotch, Macanudo cigars, and we will solve it.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 4:52PM

I'll substitute veal oscar but otherwise that suits to a tee. Laguvulin? Macallam? Laphroigh? or better still a tasting party - after dinner of course with the Macanudo.

KennesawJack| 1.31.12 @ 7:46PM

Al, Your penultimate paragraph goes to the heart of the matter. Our Constitution is the ultimate exercise in subsidiarity. The challenge with that, though, is, in order to achieve the requisite efficiencies at the lowest level of government possible, the people have to maintain at least a decent level of commitment. That that no longer happens to a workable degree is, in my opinion, the result of a decades long assault on our historic culture of individual responsibility.This has allowed the Federal government to aggregate more and more power unto itself. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Feds have succeeded in "dumbing down" the electorate to the extent a majority is no longer cognizant of a threat to their individual liberty from Washington. I have tell you, my friend, I think we may be shoveling sand against the tide. Hope not, but I fear so. By the way, if I'm invited to the party, Wienerschitzel, a cold Yuengling (or 2, or 3) and an ice-cold Jaeger does fine for this simple fellow. (Although I do confess to a fine appreciation for a good cigar.)

W| 2.1.12 @ 10:11AM

KJack

Great you bring the beer.

In answer to your question I will vote for the Republican nominee. There is too much at stake to stay home, not vote, and then complain.

I prefer Romney because of his business background and our main problem is the deficit and economy. If we don't fix that we won't to worry about other issues.

We need to elect senators and congressmen and Newt will not help in close elections. Any of the Reps will appoint more conservative judges and more conservative agency heads than Obama will. Sitting it out will not accomplish anything except satisfy the ego and helps only Obama.

Romney will need a very conservative VP, like Allen West, or Marco Rubio, or Rick Perry .

PCC| 1.31.12 @ 5:53PM

It don't mean bupkiss if you can't get a majority of your fellow citizens to agree with you and vote accordingly. That is an inconvenient reality that many Tea Party zealots frequently ignore.

scotchieguy| 1.31.12 @ 11:44AM

He may not be a Reagan-conservative, but he TALKS like one, and his attacks on the media are serious threats that can't happen for the establishment. We can only hope he does what he promises if elected, but his words are galvanizing the base, and this scares the hell out of the establishment. Anyone seen George Will's response to the Newt phenomenon the past two sundays on the ABC morning show. If looks could kill...

richard ryan| 1.31.12 @ 11:49AM

Yes, the attacks have something to do with Mr. Gingrich. Its the same stuff over and over and gets very old. I say again, I want to know where folks disagree with Newt's agenda for the country. It's on Newt.org. Good stuff, and I think he would fight hard for every single item on that agenda. Also, he knows how congress works. He could get things done like no other man in the race.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 12:52PM

you mean his agenda of the moment.

the guy is clearly a self promoting, self centered opportunist. I don't want him anywhere near the oval office. the only path I see forward is the one I envision for all of these candidates: don't care, first goal is to get rid of the current occupant. once that is done...work tirelessly to replace whomever wins in 2012 with a real leader who can be trusted in 2016. everyone forgets...whomever is elected...should it be a Republican...if they stray from the reservation....they will be cooked in 2016.

Nick099| 1.31.12 @ 5:57PM

First: Ford should not have run. Reagan should have gotten the nod as a fresh face on the scene. But old guard politics would not allow that. Just like they have messed up every election when they run a moderate.

Deeply flawed???? Are you insane??? Gingrich certainly has made mistakes but deeply flawed??? Now you are parroting the talking points of the imbecilistas of the Media. Gingrich has no more flaws than anyone else. Pointing to marriages past and his openly admitted failings and redemption only point to you as being an unforgiving judgmental malcontent. Most of the truly religious folk out there have long forgiven Newt and moved on.

But angry???? You betcha!!! After the vile filth Romney and his Bain Boys have thrown??? You vilify the man for having the backbone to fight back....Oh for shame!!!!! How dare Newt question the coronation of Mitt Romney as the nominee!!!!

Maybe you should check out your squeaky clean Mitt´s record when he owned and ran Damon Corp.....largest Medicare fraud case in Mass. history....$119 million dollar fine......but hey the other night at the debate he said he never had anything to do with Medicare....guess we can ignore the facts as he was telling the truth right???? After all we can never question any of his activities at Bain as that would mean a criticism of Capitalism...right??? Imbecile.

So have I pretty much fleshed out your thinking??? So has Jeffery Lord.
Closed minded-fool.

Hobbes| 1.31.12 @ 9:58AM

"Sarah Palin knows the answer. Governor Palin gets it." Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of rocks. Does Lord really think we are going to be swayed by whatever nonsense she spouts? Jeff Lord, your typical NeoCon chickenhawk, hates Romney because he is Mormon and because he is undecided about invading Iran....and Syria...and the rest of the world. Anyway, Gingrich wouldn't win a single state, so this whole article was not only hopelessly idiotic, but pointless.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 10:22AM

Why don't you anarcho-Paulista pissants get lost, and stop attacking true conservatives like Sarah, Rush, Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln, Washington, and Newt.

Crassus| 1.31.12 @ 10:55AM

Quit wearing your war wound like a crown. It doesn't fit and your child isn't named Jesus.

Seek| 1.31.12 @ 11:55AM

The idea that liberals and RINOs are "terrified" of Sarah Palin is a familiar trope. The truth is, nobody even cares about Palin anymore. Isn't that kind of the main reason why she decided against running? As for an endorsement from her, at this point that's probably more a liability than an asset.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 12:54PM

I'm not a Pailin advocate...but your dishonesty is appalling. Palin was deliberately destroyed by the media.

Hobbes| 1.31.12 @ 3:32PM

Palin was destroyed by the media? What a lame excuse. The media couldn't destroy Reagan, because he wasn't a bimbo. If the media destroyed her it is because she was shallow and easily destroyed. And if she is destroyed, why is making millions on FOX?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:15PM

Well, she wasn't destroyed in the final sense of the word. She's still doing what she has always been doing~ shining like a star!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:16PM

And I'm not talking Hollywierd star, but one of God's stars.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:00PM

Um...Romney stated he wouldn't let the Iranians get nukes, period. Seems to me he would use military force---but Newt would definitely do it, and not in a pansy"nation building " way. I'm for nation destroying---the, "Carthage must be destroyed" type of thing. We need to do that to Iran WITHOUT boots on the ground---destroy their water, rail, air, and electrical systems from the air, and let them starve and dehydrate in the dark. T'will serve as a useful wake-up call to the Palis.

KennesawJack| 1.31.12 @ 7:51PM

Occam, the sweet voice of reason, as per usual. Newt will damn sure do it. I doubt Romney will (he won't get a chance, though, because he can't beat Obamarx).

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 9:32PM

Thanks, KJ. By the way, Boar Hunter, you were right, I was wrong---Paul finished with 7%, not 6.9%. (Giggling like the psychotic killer played by Richard Widmark after he pushed the Little OL in the wheelchair down the stairs.)

SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 2.1.12 @ 1:02AM

If only we had done that with Iraq the first time around :P. However, I do agree with you. War has rules and codes of conduct. One of those rules is to destroy the capacity of your enemy to continue fighting. Nation building only works when the people of the country in question want the help and have some sort of unifying structure. (Hence why Germany and Japan worked) For the most part the Middle East is still a tribal region, hence why alot of the countries in the Middle East are always in a state of flux of some sort.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:36PM

Wow, talk about an example of what Lord speaks of, aware, you are right on cue. No facts, no information, no login, just ad hominem attacks.

aware| 1.31.12 @ 5:30PM

If you don't think Newt is a statist, you haven't a clue. The first time he stabbed me in the back was in '79 when he voted to create the Dept of Education. Specific enough for you? And his "excuse" now for doing it is "the institution was only structured to provide research and collect data". How could he know a new Federal Dept. would balloon into the bloated swamp of corruption that EVERY other activity and endeavor of government is? Right?
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....=h1979-468

Having your vote create a whole new bureaucracy for the State can legitimately get you labeled a statist.

And I'd just like to mention just 2 years ago he was partnered up with Al Sharpton for the "Let's sell Obama's 'education reform'" Tour USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDoTg-Kljw

From Sharpton patsy to "conservative" darling in 2 short years! And people are ready to fight for him! I have much more between these 2 events if you wish more non "ad hominem" specifics.

And the other choice is Mitt? What a circus!

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 6:56PM

Lord was also the Reagan White House Political Director. One may argue with him over whether Newt will continue the policies of Reagan, but not really over whether or not Newt was a political ally.

Alan Brooks| 1.31.12 @ 7:18PM

Newt is a megalomaniac the electorate will not crown president any more than they would elect Bob McCain and John Dole.

Lord, you are a shill for Newt?? such is beneath you.

stephen| 2.2.12 @ 9:14AM

read your history, Bud. Newt may be a lot of things, but his actions in congress show that he is not a statist

CB| 1.31.12 @ 6:40AM

Mr. Lord's article is absolutely correct, the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Kade| 1.31.12 @ 7:57AM

Well, Rush and Carl Rove were first in attacking Newt when they led a full frontal assault against him for having the audacity to criticize Romney’s Bain Capitol sleazy business tactics. They purposely insulated Mitt from further Bain criticism by falsely claiming that Gingrich was attacking capitalism -- a shallow and ridiculous claim.

Then on Bloody Thursday a surprised (yeah, right) Rush echoed the GOP establishment by spreading the lies that Gingrich was really against Reagan. Rush backtracked on Friday after reading his emails but the intentional damage was done.

If Romney wins in Florida Rush can take credit -- something he is good at.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 9:15AM

Rush backtracked because he read Jeffrey Lord's earlier article, and even read it on the air.

The fact is, Romney and his campaign team are snakes, and moderate Republicans (especially in Florida) are political whores.

Despite all of Newt's baggage and wandering off the conservative reservation, his core beliefs are conservative and he showed it where it counted -- in legislation.

Romney governed Massachusetts like a moderate or liberal. Why should voters pull the lever for a clone of the Democrat? By voting for Obama they can have both Romney and the GOP establishment in a more pure form.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 12:57PM

yea...Gingrich never strayed off the reservation. he never played around with the global warming crowd. he never attacked Ryan.

gimme a break. the same finger wags at Gingrich that points at Romney. changeling with no solid foundation other than his own opportunistic instincts for what "is best for Newt".

Hailey| 1.31.12 @ 2:28PM

The problem with these examples is that Newt never put into legislation any of these ideas.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:40PM

Newt is willing to admit his mistakes. Not so with Romney. Instead he wants socialized medicine to go on and still accepts the nonsense of the warmists. But I can deal with the assault from the Romney crowd. Let the primaries play out and let the truth rise to the surface, but the Romney crowd wants to tell us the primaries end in Florida. Why is that? Are they afraid of their guy getting vetted by us idiots in the heartland.

chuck| 1.31.12 @ 6:52AM

Great piece, Mr. Lord!

The establishment GOP are scared too death of Newt, not because he will lose, but because he will win!

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 12:58PM

not a chance. he can't even keep a campaign staff together. are you kidding me?

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 6:57AM

Nancy Reagan actually said that Ronnie passed the torch to Newt and the Republican members of Congress which makes the statement very different from singling out Newt as heir apparent. Moreover, Newt brought these attacks on himself with his incessant invocation of Reagan's name. As to Newt's status as the so-called anti-establishment candidate, it is a mystery to me how anyone who spent 20 years in Congress and his post-congressional career peddling influence in DC could ever be called an outsider or anti-establishment. While he may have temporarily tapped into anger at the media in those two SC debates, the guy who gave us S-CHIP, supported individual mandates for years, undercut Paul Ryan, agreed with John Kerry on global warming and was "willing to be convinced" about Cap and Trade is no tea party candidate. It's not that conservatives can't win--it's that deeply flawed alleged conservatives can't win.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 12:59PM

right on!

Don| 1.31.12 @ 2:08PM

Gingrich also fought against the 1990 bush tax 9increase showing the political courage to fight against bad policy. Voted yes on Graham rudman balanced budget act. Led the effort ans voted yes to cut 16.4 billion form the fed budget. Romney never governed as a conservative not one time .

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:44PM

I still remember the "read my hips" remark of George HW Bush. It was crude and arrogant and lead many of us into the Perot camp. I have no regrets. It got Bush out of office, and Newt into office 2 years later. We then had a balanced budget and boom times.

Dmac| 1.31.12 @ 4:08PM

Perot did not cost Bush the election, it was the other way around. Bush and "the establishment" cost Perot the election. For many, myself included, we saw what Bush was really about. All that we have witnessed in international trade agreements that do not have the best interest of the Unitd States were begun with Bush. Look up the word "internationalist" and you'll see a picture of Gerge HW Bush. Remeber, he was Nixons first ambassodor to China. Many of us saw him for excatly what he is, a traitor to the party and a traitor to the middle class. He is the King of the elites. He brought us NAFTA, one of the biggest lies of all trade deals. It benefits the Canadains, it benfits the Mexicans, but screws Americans. Todays sorry state of American trade is the product of GHW Bush.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:03PM

What cost Perot the election was his "in again, out again" maneuver, that shook up his supporters (myself included). To be POTUS, you need the "fire in the belly," and Perot didn't really have it.

Brian Mc| 1.31.12 @ 6:57AM

The misperception that the left is right seems to be at the heart of the issue. When we had majorities at any given point in the past century it seems all we were ever able to do is slow the liberal 'progress' a little. Case in point? "There they go again." There is no more time for an "Aw, shucks" approach to this evil. We have reached the tipping point and if our next candidate does not reverse the trend towards this socialist democracy, replacing our representative republic with 'not so fast' remarks, we the people will be forced to take it upon ourselves to right the wrong.

It is no longer a game.

Dmac| 1.31.12 @ 4:11PM

Brian gets it. When will the rest of us. The game is just about over. Either we take back this country or we fall, that simple.
Romney is a known product and he is not going to change.
Newt wants to be a hero, it's part of his ego, lets let him be the hero he wants to be. We can influence Newt. We can keep him in line. We can not influence Romney and if elected he will do the hell as he pleases and what ever pleases the elite.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:13PM

Dmac---I agree with you. Newt will be willing to engage in a dialogue, and, if not a good man in all areas, has a magnificent brain and is an American patriot. Romney is more problematic.

Further, Newt will be willing to punch Obama in the crotch on the campaign trail. Hard. I'm not sure Romney has the heart for the viciousness that will need to occur. Newt will be willing to "go low."

This "treat Obama with respect" crap will not work. Everyday for Obama on the campaign trail needs to feel for Barry like he's up against Larry, Curly, and Moe. Nipple twists, crotch kicks, foot stomps, eye gouges, hammer applied to head maneuvers all day long.

I don't want to see 1 single positive Campaign ad from the Republicans when they go against Obama this campaign season. Everything should be negative, with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko PROMINENTLY mentioned, and Michelle Obama's work for UC hospitals denying care to poor people in the mix, as well. (And if there is any truth to the Gay Men's Club story, hammer him with it.)

Obama needs to lose, and scruples regarding his family need to be tossed. Not about his children, but Michelle needs the blowtorch of public criticism treatment. Show a deprived child, skinny, not so healthy looking, and do a voiceover of Michelle denying poor people care. Beat 'em up all day long without mercy.

Richard Baker| 1.31.12 @ 7:13AM

When I read Ann Coulter, as an example, stridently defending Romney my head wants to explode. There seems to be an attempt by some conservatives and the establishment folks like Dole, Bush 41, and others to ignore the danger to the country and just play nice. Did you ever notice that the liberals DON'T ever play nice? Must be something in the food that these faux Republicans eat. Lincoln and Reagan must be rolling in their graves.

Appleby| 1.31.12 @ 7:20AM

I had to turn the sound off on Ann Coulter when she swung into her shrieking tirade against Uncle Newt. I don't understand in the least why anybody would believe Romney is a conservative.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 9:43AM

Yes, pretty soon Ann will be receiving "strange new respect" from the liberal media.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.31.12 @ 10:40AM

Well, she's already receiving "Strange New Respect" from Bill Maher!

Seek| 1.31.12 @ 11:57AM

Hey, they dated each other back in the day. Perhaps they will marry.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:46PM

Coulter also expressed her hatred for Barry Goldwater. Funny thing. She says liberalism is a disease. Well she obvious has the disease.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:13PM

As to Goldwater, he was very sane for a long time, but didn't he lose his ever-loving mind and become a rabid anti-Christ in the end??

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:14PM

No, Seek, Maher says they were "only friends." However, she did date the son of the Founder of Penthouse Magazine.

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 9:49AM

Why would I believe Newt is a Conservative? Seriously. He has always talked a big conservative game and rarely delivered.

Drunken Sailor| 1.31.12 @ 9:57AM

Welfare reform was not a delivered conservative game?
Balanced Budget the same?

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 11:05AM

Neither Mitt nor Newt is a true conservative.But Mitt has tacked more right in the past 10 years and Newt has tacked more left. I'll take the former over the latter.

Don| 1.31.12 @ 2:10PM

Mitt six years ago praised Teddy Kennedy as his number one collaborator on Romnney care. Take a look on Mother Jones to view.

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 12:20PM

Welfare reform was that rare conservative delivery. Balancing the budget was done by hacking up the military in the 90's, while the rest of government grew.

Those achievements were sandwiched between voting in favor of creating the Department of Education and advocating a massive expansion of Medicare.

He is an inconsistent conservative at best.

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 7:21AM

Mrs. Neutered Brings A High Heal Spike To A Purse Swingin' GOP RINO-CINO Cat Fight.

You Go Girl.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.31.12 @ 7:51AM

Jeffrey,
I think I finally figured it out; the wimps are trying to scare the electorate in order to un-seat Obama...with a clone.
A native Floridian recently told me: :"Too darned many frightened retirees here now ...frightened about the wrong things."

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 10:46AM

True Ken,
They need to be frightened about what the government may decide is that age at which no medical treatment will be allowed. If an agency can mandate treatment, it can mandate the lack of treatment as well.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:16PM

Hell, they also ration care by making you wait for procedures. People like that pediatrician scumbag that Bummer had as head of CMS are truly verminous.

SUSEYQUE| 1.31.12 @ 7:53AM

The true conservative in this race is Santorum, not Newt, who calls Romney a liar with his own lying tongue. Sad but true.

Old Soldier| 1.31.12 @ 9:51AM

Ha, Good one! What has Santorum ever done that can be defined as conservative?

Mike Hawk| 1.31.12 @ 3:27PM

Behave like one for starters.

SUSEYQUE| 1.31.12 @ 8:03AM

Why do the palinites call out for Newt…his debating skills and following ooo around the country to dispute what he is saying is another “pie in the sky” newtism.

Romney has the means and the method to get this country back on its feet when ooo is defeated.

Leave a Reply

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 8:55AM

Like TARP & RomneyCare.

Brian Mc| 1.31.12 @ 8:57AM

Get the damned government off our backs. We'll get up on our own, thank you very much!

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 9:06AM

Right On, Brian.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:49PM

Then proof it. Lets see this primary contest last till June. Lets get all the information out on all the candidates. Lets discuss issues like global warming and cap and trade. Lets discuss who are the main contributers to the campaigns. Lets discuss promised jobs and cronyism. Lets discuss ObamaCare and RomneyCare. Lets discuss the 2nd Amendment.
We want this in the open.

Dmac| 1.31.12 @ 4:15PM

Pete,
Wouldn't that be refreshing, to actually have a meaningful debate about issues that the voters actually care about. Not what CNN wants us to think we care about.

Anthony| 1.31.12 @ 8:14AM

Obozo, the hard Left, the media, and the Republican establishment. The four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
You have to wonder how America can survive this.

JimH| 1.31.12 @ 8:26AM

Much of the GOP leadership, like Satan in Paradise Lost, prefers to rule in Hell to serving in Heaven. They would rather the party be out of power with themselves in charge than play a secondary role in a successful party. None of the non-Romney candidates are ideal spokesman for the Tea Party type sentiment threatening the establishment; however they are all have their strengths and are superior to Mitt who represents the wing of the party which is essentially Obama lite. As bad for the country as Obama is, I am not convinced that we would be better served by replacing him with Romney unless we can also get a Senate majority and increase the one in the House. If Romney is the nominee, this should be the focus of limited government supporters, who should also work at the grass roots level to increase their influence on the party over that of the country club crowd. The Party seems to be most effective and keep closest to its principles when in opposition.

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 8:56AM

My support of Mitt is based wholly on the belief that he is the only one of the current crop who could beat Obama and the belief that Obama in his second term, buoyed by reelection and unfettered by the need to run again, would cause even more irreparable damage to our country than he did in his first term.

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 9:45AM

Get used to it; because that's what will happen if Romney is the nominee.

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 10:54AM

okay, I'll bite. Which of the wonderful choices we have this year can you envision beating Obama?

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 2:54PM

Mitt may have the least shot. He is losing the base, not good as he needs the excitement. He is another stodgy old white guy. Remember how that worked out in 2012? He is a lifelong member of the 1 percent. Think that will get him votes? He gave Massachusettes socialized medicine, thus taking ObamaCare off the board in the debates.
He himself is a dull speaker who fails to show any understanding of the common man and main street. He wants to show he can work with the Democrats and compromise. Is that really what you want? He is the guy who lost to the loser to Obama. Not a great profile for the guy is it?

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 6:03PM

If all you want is confirmation of your opinion, don't check out the electoral map on Larry Sabato's website with Gingrich as the nominee.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:19PM

Newt or Rick could beat Obama. Rick actually has the most appealing family life; when the Liberals tried to make fun of it, they were stung hard. He walks his walk. As the father of a son with an ear microtia, I think Rick would be most sensitive to his needs, while running a Conservative country. In addition, changing the tax code to ENCOURAGE marriage and child raising is an excellent thing.

Drunken Sailor| 1.31.12 @ 10:02AM

That's the problem. So many on the establishment are so convinced that Obama will be so hard to beat that they prefer to put their money on what they see as the most likely horse.

I don't see it that way. Obama is a terrible president and past history show that every sitting president with a terrible economy lost the election. With GDP down, Democrat voter enuthusasim down,inflation up, unemployment up I just don't see that any of our guys could not beat Obama

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 10:48AM

Guys,
Have we not followed the republican establishment to defeat enough times to understand that simply a promise to better manage the welfare state gains nothing? If the GOP continues to refuse to present an alternative to statism, what is the point?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:10PM

Al.

Are you saying what's the point of voting for the Repub nominee, then??

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 2:33PM

In one sense Margie, I think that is a legitimate question. What would have been accomplished by say replacing Truman with Dewey in 1948? Two peas from the same pod. One perhaps was a better politician, one a better manager, one more honest, but policies would have remained the same. We are, I feel, faced with such a choice should the establishment GOP once again prevail in selecting our candidate.

If the Obama policies are simply to continue under a republican administration then, when the final collapse does come it will be blamed on those in office. History will falsely record the GOP as having brought about the fall of America. Is it not more important that future generations understand that statist programs ended the experiment in liberty?

If a GOP administration were to successfully fix the problems created by the DEMs but continue the social welfare state programs which are bankrupting the country what is gained? Maybe the voters simply turn to the GOP to repair the damage everytime the Left harms the country. Is that what the party should represent?

God Bless you and yours.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:01PM

Id do not see how the Republicans or how electing a Republican to the Presidency would or has ever been in any way anything like the Democrats.

There is no way on this earth that even electing Romney would be equal to the Leftist Socialist Communists (Democrat party).

We do the best we can with what we've got, and pray God to take care of the rest of it.

Perhaps you should consider running for office, Al. We need strong conservatives who are willing to throw their hats in the ring, but it seems there aren't enough of them.

I can't help but admire the ones that do, even if they are far from perfection.

We can't control the people who vote, and so many are misinformed or poorly informed. This World is under the power of the Evil one, as it is written in the Bible. It is amazing that we are still holding together as a country with the assault on morality that has taken place since we've become a nation under God.

A nation under God... that's what we need to return to. And the Founders knew it. They were God fearing men and knew that taht is what was needed in men who ran for office, especially of the Presidency, in order for us to exist.

But as Christians know from the Bible, this World is passing away, and the lust of it, and only the Word of God will not pass away.. and those who cling to Him.

'Til then, vote Republican! :6).

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 10:55AM

Yet almost half the populace still loves him--and there's the rub.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 1:06PM

which means over half doesn't and will not play along with his agenda.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:21PM

DS: I agree. Newt or Rick could kick Bummer's ass without thinking about it. Obama: Newt's cheated on his wife with another woman. Newt: Obama dined regularly with a cop-killer.

And then the pounding on real topics could begin.

KennesawJack| 1.31.12 @ 8:00PM

Occam, I'm interested in your thoughts, as well as Al's, Ken's, Timothy, W and others on this question. If either Newt or Santorum is not our nominee and we end up with another establishment-backed country club Republican as our nominee (that would be Romney, obviously) does the Tea Party stay home and let this thing come to a head or do they dislike Obamarx and fear for the country enough to put this uber-moderate in office? Me, I'll vote for Romney if I have to but I'm beginning to think a significant number of other conservative won't. From the readings on this site and others I sense a growing resentment on the part of the Tea Partiers and other like-minded folks at the way they're being treated by our own Party and they may just think the hell with it.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 8:08PM

Stay home and don't vote for Romney if he's the nominee and you contribute to Obama II.

KennesawJack| 1.31.12 @ 9:35PM

I've already said I won't sit home. I'm simply curious as to what the reaction of the Tea Party will be.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 10:59PM

Sorry Jack.
Let me change that to "they", then.

Maybe the third partiers will grow stronger in their hopes for same but I hope not.. just don't know how that would ever work.

If I ever thought it could work, I'd be for it.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 9:34PM

I hope not. Obama is just not in the regular order of things---he's a genuine gold plated Communist, really. Scary, scary guy.

Crawler| 1.31.12 @ 8:52AM

Thanks for the informative and historical article, Mr. Lord.

I couldn't help but think of two other Republican Establishment nominees, Dole and McCain, that met their certain fates, too.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the Republican elitists telling me and others we're too stupid to choose a presidential candidate.

And as you have explain and history as proven over and over, they (Republican elitists) always get their comeuppance, but at our expense.

Again, a very insightful article, sir.

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 9:01AM

Just who are these Republican elitists telling you that you are too stupid to choose a presidential candidate and why are you listening? I'm sick of this ridiculous meme. Vote for whoever you want to vote for. The simple reality is that we are all constrained by who did and didn't decide to run.

Crawler| 1.31.12 @ 10:56AM

Well, if you must know…the same elite em-effers that made me vote for Bob Barr because they promoted and ran an aisle-reachin’ liberal weasel from Arizona in 2008 (they should have ran Palin; their results would have been a helluva lot better).

Hell, I know several others that chose not to participate in that election just to protest the sorry and despicable choice the “R” elitists presented them.

Now, you savvy?

rightasrain| 1.31.12 @ 11:34AM

No one "made" you vote for Bob Barr any more than anyone "made" Mitt or Newt or anyone else run this year or is making you vote for them. We all hoped we would get better candidates after the 2010 victories and we didn't. We're stuck with four pretty bad choices, one one of whom i believe can beat Obama. The real lesson here is that we have to work much harder at getting better candidates to run.

carnot| 1.31.12 @ 1:08PM

exactamundo.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:23PM

Well, Crawler, seriously: would we be better off if McCain was in office now? I think so. I really do. McCain doesn't hate this country and Obama does.

Quite frankly of the three Candidates still seriously running, all of them love their country.

Mike W| 1.31.12 @ 8:53AM

This blogger, who has been shilling for Gingrich (enough with the cozy first name usage) tells everyone else they are wimps for not believing Gingrich can win.

He can't win.

Only in the echo chamber of blogs like this will that lying piece of crap Gingrich win.

2Anglico| 1.31.12 @ 10:34AM

Says who?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:11PM

So, the lying piece of crap in the people's House is preferable?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 8:07PM

MikeG is a rabid Paul-bot.

sirbourbon| 1.31.12 @ 8:34PM

And your point is?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 9:29PM

He's a liar, duh.

MikeG| 2.1.12 @ 8:04AM

Margie, you are an idiot. I like Santorum, the Pope Idolator. You are too stupid to understand and think anyone who disagrees with you votes for Pau.

PattyMor| 1.31.12 @ 8:57AM

There isn't much difference between Romney and Obama. Maybe some with tactics, but the end game is the same: implant the final blow of progressiveness into the DNA into America. That is centrally controlled healthcare. For if you control the body, then you control the mind. Just think how they will have people throwing money at them to get their healthcare. Oh, the possibilities. And what a greater high than having that much power.

Newt may not be the perfect anti-dote to progressiveness, but at least he has a record of accomplishment. He took over the House, became Speaker, and balanced the budget. And he says he will trim expenses to fit the revenue. Good enough for me. I'll join the rage against the establishment. Which means rage against RINOs and progressiveness.

VonMisesJr| 1.31.12 @ 9:54AM

PattyMor, I recognized your name from American Thinker. You always have reasoned and concise words. You are spot on.

Jeffrey Lord is absolutely correct. I think it is very simple. RINO's are Republican "Enlightenment" elitist. They think that they are today's Nietzsche "supermen" and we are Rousseau's "Noble Savages." My elitist Republican Congressman runs when he sees me. My reasoned and informed challenges about his TARP vote or his recent ceremonial "Nay" on the additional $1.2B debt ceiling raise are considered obnoxious and out of line. Look at what McConnell said about the debt ceiling vote about a week ago. Well we could not stop the increase, "BUT WE MADE OBAMA ASK FOR IT." Who the hell cares except elitist that want to give the appearance of the opposite of what they really are: whimps.

But I think my hero Von Mises would sum it up like this: The wealthy are not necessarily opposed to socialism. Once they have climbed the ladder, they are more than willing to kick it out from beneath them. First, it eliminates competition so that they freeze their social status. It eliminates competition for their businesses so now can offer poor quality and service without losing sales. And they own hard assets that rise in value as the inflation redistributes the wealth from the middle class (to them!) They become the Nobles in the New Serfdom, and we become their serfs!

Drunken Sailor| 1.31.12 @ 10:04AM

I agree with you both, unfortunatley it seems many are not listening. Newt has the backing of many we call conservatives but that doesn't seem to count anymore.

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 10:06AM

Well said, VonMisesJr...especially your last paragraph. Warren Buffett comes to mind as an example of someone who wants to remove the economic ladder now that he has reached his upper level destination and can look down at the minions below.

VonMisesJr| 1.31.12 @ 10:38AM

Thanks Tommy. And Boehner is getting his last insider trades done before they are shamed to make it illegal again for legislators to profit from inside knowledge. And McConnell is hoping to get earmarks back in full swing to bribe the majority if they get four net ads in the Senate.
See, the ruling class in a corrupt society get special priviledges. If we were caught insider trading or bribing Senators, we would go to jail. But politicians never go to jail. It is like the Ancien Regime in France where the Nobles paid no taxes and could break a serf on the wheel for insolence. They so want that arrangement back again.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:03PM

If Nixon had read Von Mises, we would still be on the gold standard. You are right about rich socialists. They fear the inventor in his garage producing a product that hastens the end of their company. So they will have government do the dirty work and prevent the next Steve Jobs from producing a better computer.
When I talk to my rich ceo nephew, I suggest to him that the goverment should force those extra rooms in his big house go to those families who can't afford to buy their own. Course never does he consider that spreading the wealth around means he is no longer needed, because without his wealth he has nothing left.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.31.12 @ 10:47AM

PattyMor: your comment reminds me of a scene in the comic strip B.C. There is an election going on, one candidate speaks, and then the other candidate says: "There's not much I can add to what my opponent said." I can hear Romney say exactly that after an Obama speech.

MikeG| 1.31.12 @ 7:04PM

You actually believe Obama and Romney are the same? Did they both attend wacko Wright's church and hang with cop killer Ayers?

nathan| 1.31.12 @ 9:01AM

I'm sorry but I'm supposed to take advice from "governor" Palin? The same "governor" that after two years couldn't stand the heat and walked away to cash in to do a string of reality shows? Who must I remind you had no trouble supporting the bridges to nowhere? THAT governer? Really?

Newt, sadly whatever "conservative" credentials he may once have had, they disappeared a long time ago. We go over this time and time again, support for the medicare drug benefit, that's a real conservative position. A man who is already wealthy by any standard taking 1.6 milli0n to shill for fanny and freddy? That's conservatism in action. Mugging with Nancy Pelosi? Do we have to go on? And the consummate insider acting like he's the outsider? When can we expect him to appear on Saturday Night Live? I mean that's where this act of his belongs doesn't it? I mean we can't really take him seriously? And I'm sure that to the people who are unemployed, well hell yah let's go colonize the moon! That's really going to put food on my table! Ladies, Gentlemen! Can the IDEA MAN come up with an idea that makes sense now? Just asking.

He has simply become a caricature of himself and far too easy to parody. And sadly, impossible to take seriously anymore.

Republicans are looking for this year's Reagan. There isn't one. Paul comes the closest but the neocon imperialist interventionists, the ones who told us we HAD to get into Vietnam (wrong), we had to invade Iraq (again wrong) we had to invade Afghanistan to go chase down a gang numbering at most 1,000 members (wrong again, we're losing there and will lose just as every other western power since Alexander the great has) calls him the "nut case" because he won't support blatant acts of war against Iran like the embargo. (An economic act like an embargo not an act of war? The Japanese sure thought so 70 years ago.)

Sorry folks you dance with who brung ya and Romney who warts and all was vastly superior to McCain four years ago, is probably going to be it because warts and all again, and since none of you will support Paul, is vastly superior to Newt. Deal with it.

Marco2| 1.31.12 @ 9:32AM

Agreed, Mitt is vastly superior to Newt, and Paul is nuts.

Hobbes| 1.31.12 @ 10:12AM

The American people have grown sick of war and sick of taxes. Calvin Coolidge

Could be Ron Paul talking.

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 11:20AM

Mitten's Is A Superior RINO-CINO TARPSTER & ROMNEYCARETAKER.

Obviously, The Squirrels Ate Marco2's Nuts.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:13PM

"the neocon imperialist interventionists.."

HAhaha!! Love it.

Every time you Paul-bots talk like this it just confirms your insanity.

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 7:06PM

This Is The Big Yellow Zany Crazed "Get The Net" Yellow Margie Bus Callin' A Lemon Pie Yellow.

See A Religious Counselor And A Psychiatrist, Joisey White Trash Bigot Broad, Apocalyptic Crank Margie.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:25PM

Wow! What a suppository from your cut and paste depository, Clint.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:42PM

I wish Clint would go mutilate himself.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 8:06PM

Clint's post proves he's not a Christian. He's a Pope Idolator. They truly believe, as they are utterly deceived~ that Bible believing Christians are heretics.

Ward Bond| 1.31.12 @ 9:43AM

Mr. Lord,great article. It's always interesting when the history of American politics is brought forth. The American cancer of liberalism's chickens are about to come home to roost and when they do the self serving Rep. establishment can share the blame.

sirbourbon| 1.31.12 @ 8:42PM

I'm sorry but you need a better scout.

Although your nod for Lord's Newt pitch sounds good the fact is that the conservative wagon train left the gate years ago and Newt didn't hitch his wagon to the Goldwater train. Newt was actually part of the attackers! Newt threw his lot in with Eastern liberal attacker Nelson Rockefeller. Reagan and other conservative actors supported Goldwater when it counted. Now Newt is trying to make people believe he was with the conservatives like Reagan when he hightasilerd it to the Left- wing of the Party!

Vern Crisler| 1.31.12 @ 9:47AM

So in order to defend the Mittster, his followers have to attack Sarah. Obama deserves to win the next election.

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 10:42AM

No, Vern. At the very least, Obama deserves to be run out of office and spend the rest of his life in shame.

We, Americans, deserve what we get if we nominate the only GOP candidate who endorses mandatory government run health care. There will be no 50 state waiver. The ObamaCare law does not allow additional waivers after 2012.

youfamissim| 1.31.12 @ 9:49AM

Thank You, Jeff - again. 50% of voters do not vote - for a reason. They claim there is nothing to vote for; the two party's are indistinguishable. 50% of voters is a lot of votes... Reagan did not win with Reagan Democrats. He did get some, but the voters labeled as Democrats were part of the 50% who registered as Democrats - for whatever reason. These are Nixon's Silent Majority. They only vote when a candidate speaks up for them = Conservatism. Do not forget - Romney chose to run in Mass. He could afford to go anywhere. Mass. was the Right Fit for his views. Mitt ran three times as a Liberal. He tried to Out-Liberal - Ted Kennedy !!! Mitt promoted every liberal cause and policy with compelling remarks. Mitt is NOT a Moderate - which is why he lost in Mass. Few Republicans supported him. Why should they? Liberals would vote for Kennedy, who had more influence and brought them oodles of gov't gifts. Now Mitt is trying to portray himself as a Conservative - he can't. His record won't allow it. Mitt's liberal bias and past are why Conservatives do not trust him and explains why he can't attract a majority.

The establishment must attack Newt. They can't pump up Mitt's Conservative credentials and Out-Conservative Gingrich. Lord's comments that establishmentarians think Conservatives "Rubes" and easily deceived is spot on. I really believe finishing a strong and respectable 2nd is their goal. After nearly a century of in the minority, the establishment's logistics favor that position. Once they assumed the majority, and lost Gingrich's direction, they morphed into Democrat-Lite. When the Conservative wing of the Republican party wanted to oust them, a Democrat was the only option. The 2006 election was more one of removing RINOs than a Democrat confidence vote. RECALL - Rahm Emanuel demanded no abortion or gun control issues. Democrats needed to appear - Conservative. The establishment try to model their candidates after Democrats - thinking what they promote is the key to victory - Wrong! The 50% who do not, refuse to support either party when there is no difference in their messages. Keeping that 50% at home come election time must be a factor - since that is exactly what the establishment does. This also explains why Conservatism wins when it is promoted. The media who complain Gingrich cannot win, fail to consider what will happen when Mitt and Obama stand face to face - this is when Obama thanks Mitt for health care and supporting liberal causes while governor. Obama will have a trunk filled with examples to convincingly argue their is no difference between them. Will the 50% vote for Mitt? This is what will turn the election.

I want everyone who reads this to remember those supporting Romney - Ann Coulter et al... They DO Not Share your Views !!! They are merchants who know how to create a product for a specific audience - write or champion Conservative material. These are they who act to secure their party invites, etc.... and turn against their target audience.. They have no problem returning the nation to Obama. Afterall - that provides them substance for their next publication.

2Anglico| 1.31.12 @ 11:07AM

Exactly, youfamissim!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:14PM

I'm still trying to figure out the REAL reason Ann Coulter is supporting Romney.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 5:11PM

Margie:
Ask yourself what cabinet position Niki Haley got offered. Might Ann go for press spokesman?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 6:59PM

Well Al, better that than a board member of GoProud I suppose. (If that's really true, as someone here said).

CAGrandma| 1.31.12 @ 2:22PM

Absolutely!!!!! Well stated. I agree wholeheartedly.

Otis the Hand| 1.31.12 @ 9:54AM

Pure gold, Mr. Lord.

ER| 1.31.12 @ 10:06AM

Jeffrey Lord nails the theme of this election; I am a citizen, appalled at the state of my country. I trust that if Romney is the nominee, we will NEVER see the type of vitriol directed at the Marxist Obama that he has directed at Conservative opponents. Mr. Lord's analysis and Palin's leadership reflect my conclusions exactly. It is indeed "a time for choosing".

Nemo| 1.31.12 @ 10:09AM

Romney boasts he spent 25 years in business. Just what we don't need at this time. We need someone with vision, imagination, and heroism. And Newt is the closest thing around.

Bill| 1.31.12 @ 10:17AM

PLEASE VOTE NEWT GINGRICH!
-Orchestrated the 1994 GOP Revolution
-Balanced the budget 4 times
-Reformed the welfare
-Impeached Bill "Serial Rapist" Clinton
-Passed the Crime Bill
Gingrich will REPEAL Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank Bill, and the Sarbanes-Oxley law. He'll also drop litigation against AZ, SC, AL, GA over immigration and the Voter ID laws.
Gingrich is the "Shadow of Ronald Reagan."
SC voted Gingrich, FL will do so.
DEFEAT ROMNEY!
-Romneycare
-pro abortion
-pro gay marriage
-pro gun control
-pro cap & trade
A "New England big-government liberal RINO."

Mimi| 1.31.12 @ 10:26AM

O.K.....Let's see what today will bring ! I know what the POLLS are telling us...but somehow I can't fatham an overwhelming win by Romney.
I can't see the retirees, military retiries all in the tank for milquetoast Romney...they are 50 % of the vote in todays election and because of their maturity, have an Historical perspective....Their voice is powerful in Florida....Florida is also known for it's surprises...
After today the Conservatives/Tea Party , will analyze the numbers and may have to bombard Newt with the one thing he lacks MONEY!
What ever, I'm not willing to get despirited and join in nominating a RINO when I sincerely believe this country so despartely needs a Conservative Leader to turn around the ship....This 2012 election is SO CRITICAL!

Mimi| 1.31.12 @ 10:34AM

Thanks JEFF You really " FRAMED" the problem. Many are on the verge of splitting the Republican Party....The Anger at the ESTABLISHMENT is breath taking.... They have taken the Ride of their lives in 2010...now they can't move over...even a little bit...It's suicidal!

RCV| 1.31.12 @ 9:55PM

Guess what, Mimi. It was an overwhelming win by Romney. He came close to an absolute majority in a four-man race. And with Santorum and Gingrich both vowing to fight on, just like that lunatic egotist Ron Paul, Romney now has pretty clear sailing.

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 10:34AM

Thank-you, Mr. Lord, for standing up for the truth again. I wish Matt Drudge would headline this article on his website. Unfortunately, he is aligned with Ann Coulter and others from GOProud who have no regard for the truth.

Here's the bottom line: only two candidates in this election cycle have signed government mandated health care into law, the most intrusive attack on our personal liberties that the Government has ever attempted,...Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It doesn't matter whether it's by the State or by the Feds. It doesn't matter if it is Constitutional or not...it is wrong.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:16PM

GoProud! The Homosexual crowd.

Is THAT why Ann's backing Romney??

UGH.

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 3:00PM

She's on their board of advisors and Romney is their candidate.
Do your research on GOProud and also Bain Capital which owns Clear Channel, which owns Premiere Radio Network and you might see why these attacks towards Newt Gingrich can seem so well coordinated.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:06PM

She's on the board of GoProud??
I am truly sorry for her, as she has spurned her God, if that is the case.
Sad and sickening.

RCV| 1.31.12 @ 9:59PM

She's not on the Board of Directors, but she is on the Advisory Council along with Grover Norquist.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 11:02PM

What's the diff??

And why would she want to be a part of it if she's a Christian??

MikeG| 2.1.12 @ 8:07AM

So what if she is on the Board? Coulter has done more for the conservative movement with her writings than the few wackos on this site. And aren't homosexuals Americans?

cicero| 1.31.12 @ 10:35AM

There is no moderate middle. There are only those who vote themselves the national treasury and those who fill it. Given a choice between a true Progressive, and a true Conservative, the country would go 49 to 1 for the Conservative. Mitt believes that it is his turn to run, and he has told himself and his friends that he wants to be president. Newt has told the country that he will get rid of Obamacare, balance the budget, delete whole departments from the Federal establishment, among other things. Given a choice between a Progressive and a Progressive Lite, those who take from the treasury will turn out in droves, and those who fill it will stay home.

TURK| 1.31.12 @ 10:41AM

TWO POINTS
Goldwater lost in 64 because of the Kennedy assassination and the rino attacks on him AFTER he had defeated them for the nomination (Scranton, Rockefeller, Brooke et al!

Mr Lord's piece was preceeded by a book in 1968 by M. Stanton Evans - The Future of Conservatism. It describes the identical flaws with the republican establishment going back to BEFORE Dewey. The problem with our political system isn't the democrats---it's that they have no political party to stop them! One would have thought the drastic nature of the Marxist in the White House would be enough. I fear it is not.

Newt/Mitt is NOT the problem.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 10:52AM

Turk:
You have the right perspective. If all the republicans can do is promise to better manage the leviathan which is the social welfare state what is the point. The GOP then does not represent an alternative to statism but simply a more benevolent tyranny. Is not freedom and liberty worth more than government pottage? Is not our birthright worth defending even at great cost?

ltw| 1.31.12 @ 10:45AM

Might I suggest adding "Seacoast clambakes" to "blind pigs and acorns and all of that."

Palin's "time" beat the Establishments "money" the day of Romney's formal announcement of his candidacy last June , and her "time" to write her latest post "Cannibals in the GOP" is still beating their "money" today.

Love it!

Hoads| 1.31.12 @ 10:49AM

The only reason Republicans keep veering left is because they are pawns of a political underbelly consisting of advisors, pollsters, academiticians, staffers and the like, who've become grafted onto the political class over the course of decades.

Politicians, sadly, are not independent thinkers and as the government beast has swelled, a consortium of leftist oriented manipulators have grown tentacles into the far corners of every aspect of our government. This is where the real political power resides. The Left's religion is government, and by that measure, they are the ones who have perceived conservatism, with its emphasis on individualism, as an existential threat to EVERYTHING they believe in therefore, it must be destroyed by any means necessary. Couple that with their tactical strategy of incrementalism and subversion, they've successfully managed to infiltrate the very roots of government. And, a little extortion, bribery, blackmail, high crimes and misdemeanors takes care of any outliers.

I've been waiting for one of our conservative crack investigative reporters to crack open this nut so that we, the people, can exterminate the contents.

Bill| 1.31.12 @ 11:01AM

FL Primary:
1st: Gingrich
2nd: Romney
3rd: Santorum
4th: Paul
Gingrich kicked ass again!

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:34PM

Bill:

I am sorry to report this---with 11% of the votes in, Romney is ahead, with 50.1 % of the votes. Next comes Newt and Santorum, who together has 41 %, with Newt far ahead of Rick.

Coming in WELL UNDER the poll numbers is TREASON'SFRIEND, the Bradley Manning supporter Ronaldus Minimus, at 6.7%. Repeat, Paul gets nada from FLA.

I wonder if those polls talking about how well Paul would do against Obama are as fixed as everything else the Paulbots stuff ballots on, when it's not for real.

America steps on the Paulbot face. Hard. With Cleats. This is the fun part of the Paul campaign, where it gets to be Rocky losing to Clubber Lang. Nose broken, ribs broken, living in the world of pain, only his stupidity and fighter's pride keepinghim up. Go, Clubber!

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 7:35PM

What I was sorry to report was Romney winning, not Paul LOSING.

1ConservativeUSA| 1.31.12 @ 11:20AM

Well done, Mr. Lord.

coal carrier| 1.31.12 @ 11:21AM

The other day I saw Ed Rollins on FOX. He stated that Gingrich has decided to run an “unconventional” campaign. He (Gingrich) really doesn’t have a lot of money and doesn’t have the organization needed to carry him through to Tampa.

I just returned from voting. As I drove into the parking lot at the polls, there were an enormous number of signs for Romney, Santorum and Paul. There was not one sign for Newt. Like Rollins said, no money and no organization. It’s going to be a tough haul.

Wendy| 1.31.12 @ 11:30AM

Thank you Mr. Lord. I no longer feel that I have a political party to subscribe to, and I'm not alone in that sentiment. Goodbye GOP.

sirbourbon| 2.1.12 @ 2:22PM

The Republican Party appears to be swinging back to its socialist moorings with Romney off to a strong start to securing the nomination.

The Republican Party came to birth in Ripon, Wisconsin in March 1854 in a white school house organized by US army major Alvan E. Bovay and other influential Americans like the owner of The New York Tribune, Horace Greeley of "go west young man" fame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvan_E._Bovay

Major Bovay was head of the National Reform Association.This was by all accounts a socialist organization. Bovay was the editor of Young America, a newspaper that advocated using America's economic might toward building an American world empire. The heirs of Bovay's dreams of world empire have been picked up by the neoconservatives of today that daily bleat for war with Iran and Syria and interventionism all over the globe.

Bovay and Horace Greeley teamed up with others like warrenchase a Wisconsin politician to push the new "third party." Militant auxillaries were formed called Wide Awake Republican for that purpose. The WAR auxillaries agitated for war with the southern states. The auxillary incorporated the flag of anti-Christian revoluntionary France as part of their logo. More evidence of the Republican Party's radical roots came via Karl Marx and Fredric Engles, two well known marxist icons that wrote in The Principles of Communism, in which they wrote that the marxists had formed a common cause with Bovay's National Reform Association.

Whether it Romney or Gingrich, the GOP nominee will carry the WAR banner back to Bovay and Greeley's party.

RichTex| 1.31.12 @ 11:34AM

Everyone agrees that this nation is facing unparalleled dangers and is in need of strong leadership to rescue it from the brink of disaster. So, the Republicans offer up as its champion the next …. Wendell Wilkie!?!

For those who might disagree, take a look at the Republican wing of the Republican Party:

http://www.republicanassemblies.org/

scotchieguy| 1.31.12 @ 11:40AM

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I guarantee Rush will be talking about this article within the first ten minutes of his show. Like he says, "conservatism wins. Don't be afraid of scaring the moderates and independents into running back to the democrat party." In other words, prevent-defense only prevents you from doing one thing--winning. You think Ford would have learned this.

Wendy| 1.31.12 @ 11:48AM

Yes, Rush is right. I now know the answer to his question as to why will the GOP not champion the conservative mantra because it wins every time. . . .

It's because the GOP itself, is not conservative. I wonder if it ever really was.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 12:49PM

No Wendy, the GOP is not Conservative. The Conservative Movement choose it as its preferred vehicle and only when the Movement is ascendant has the GOP enjoyed success. Sadly too many candidates realize this and talk one way but govern another. Nixon, Bush 41

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 11:42AM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

AuntieMadder| 1.31.12 @ 11:49AM

I'm reminded of the South Park episode in which the students must elect a new school mascot. Kyle campaigns hard to convice everyone at school that his selection, Giant Douche, is better than Cartman's choice, T*rd Sandwich.

So, which is better?
...Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich?
..Mitt Gingrich or Obama?
...Giant Douche or T*rd Sandwich?

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 9:36PM

Giant Douche---at least you feel fresher, afterward.

Bill| 1.31.12 @ 11:53AM

Romney's "Bain $" and the "Mormon Brigade" cannot save his ass in FL, just like he was sucked in SC. It's the "Great" South. No Country for RINO!

RJ| 1.31.12 @ 12:12PM

Thanks, Jeff. Your article helps put this race in a new, larger perspective.

Rick| 1.31.12 @ 12:20PM

BREAKING NEWS: President Obama has agreed to throw his full support behind the Newt Gingrich campaign! He's also inviting Newt, Palin, Cain & Fox's Sean Hannity to the White House to sing their newest single: "We're Just a Swinging". Stay tuned for further updates.

Bill| 1.31.12 @ 1:08PM

BREAKING NEWS: President Obama just endorsed Mitt Romney! Obama said "I expect Romney to win the GOP nod, it'll make my life easier since I will beat Romney in a landslide. By the way, thanks to Romney, for implementing ObamaCare." He also promised that he would give Romney a job since Romney would have been bankrupted by the time the election is over. Obama also invited Romney, Chris Christie, Ann Coulter to his victory party after the 2012 election, saying "I did it again!"
You get the picture, don't you!

John Frankfurter| 1.31.12 @ 12:22PM

A Romney presidency would threaten House control in '14. He is not inclined to end the nanny state. I can't support him in good conscience.

Who Knows?| 1.31.12 @ 1:03PM

“Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown, he’s a clown, that Charlie Brown. Why’s everybody always picking on me”.

THERE Jeffrey lord goes again!

I wonder if his face was red, as he wrote this hit piece, because it is filled with red herrings. While there’s no doubt, in my mind, that Romney is no Reagan, it’s doubly damned true that Gingrich isn’t, either! So, the whole false dichotomy between the Establishment and the Tea Party nonsense, being promoted by Palin and Lord, should make them afraid to show their faces in public.

We’ve grown tiresomely used to Obama and his plethora of false choices, and here we have Lord mimicking the big One, BHO. I’d have to say the REAL split is between the grownups and the children, or between those who learn from the past by taking into account new information and those who refuse to see the vital revelations.

None are so blind as those who will not see!

Here’s THE essential quality---the willingness to admit you were wrong, when confronted with FACTS.

Well—I admit I was wrong about Palin. She has exposed her limits, IN SPADES. I was one of those who for too long fell for the best and brightest Newt had to offer, having spent many an hour reveling in his speeches broadcast on C-Span, over the years.

I was likewise wrong to allow Jeffrey Lord into my group of wise and trusted sources. While he surely does yeoman duty in dragging out old quotes to buttress his major points, like today, it’s become apparent that he’s like those old generals, always fighting the old wars. Sadly, he hasn’t learned from history, but wallows in the past, IMHO, which leads him to forget---what’s happening, man, never repeats the past, perfectly, but only RESEMBLES it.

Even so---it is fun to read Lord as he squirms in his own crap, desperately AND uselessly trying to defend it.

He’s a clown, that Charlie Brown!

sirbourbon| 1.31.12 @ 1:07PM

Lo and behod Mr. Lord acknowleges that there is an "establishment" within the Republican Party. In the era of the rise of staunch conservatives like Barry Goldwater who captured the nomination of the GOP, despite the best efforts of the "establishment" party figures like Nelson Rockefeller, Hollywood's conservative actors like James Arness and Ronald Reagan came out in defense of Goldwater, producing television ads for the Goldwater campaign. Out in Georgia a young Newt Gingrich was campaigning on behalf of the "eastern liberal Establishment" wing of the GOP; Newt came out for Liberal Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Yes, Newt supported the "liberal" Rockefeller, the same liberal that hired a communist painter to draw a huge mural in Rockefeller Center full of communist symbolismshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller#Art_patronage.

Your Newt is a yellow four flushing, double dealing rat.

Don| 1.31.12 @ 2:14PM

Um he was a teen and a young adult.Mitt was an independent at the time of reagan and his dad was a completely liberal republican.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:16PM

Who hated Barry Goldwater. I remember his father well. In those days many Democrats were more conservative than Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans were the most progressive of all politicians.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:16PM

Who hated Barry Goldwater. I remember his father well. In those days many Democrats were more conservative than Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans were the most progressive of all politicians.

sirbourbon| 1.31.12 @ 8:50PM

"Umm" he was a full growed ail-dult when he said: "call me a futurist." I'm a fan of Alvin and Heidi Toffler.

Newt wrote the forward to a book authored by Alvin Toffler.

It may be a shock but Newt doesn't look before he leaps. Future Shock is a famous book in which the author calls for the death of the Constitution.Newt, red faced, has had to backtrack on his enthusiasm for the Tofflers.

Check it out:http://www.newser.com/story/138577/newts-mentors-pushed-marxist-values-open-relationships.html

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:18PM

"Out in Georgia a young Newt Gingrich was campaigning on behalf of the "eastern liberal Establishment" wing of the GOP;"

Ah, how old was he? 20 maybe and not old enough to even vote. Come on, you must do better than that. At least he wasn't taking cocaine.

beejeez| 1.31.12 @ 1:15PM

Speaking as someone with no skin in this game, I have to laugh at the exchanges of bad-faith accusations y'all trade here. Look, both Romney and Gingrich are longtime Washington insiders, both of them well within the 10 percent of would-be lawmakers most completely in thrall to corporate interests.

That's actually not a disadvantage if your goal is to move some conservative legislation, and not just to appoint a spokesman for your grievances about the welfare state. As candidates against President Obama, at this point it's apparent that Gingrich is more likely to fire up the GOP base and Romney is more likely to attract independents. What you can't say is that either one presents a clearly superior route to electoral success, let alone one that is a slam-dunk to succeed. Many, many Americans strongly disagree with the agendas of both Gingrich and Romney, and of Republicans in general. Not only is this fact not respected in your comments, some of you can't even acknowledge that in the past there have been majorities of Americans who have rejected the more conservative agenda, and not just a lackluster candidate. Rejection by the majority does not make you wrong, but it does mean that you can't justifiably claim that most Americans agree with you. (Yes, yes, I know: They'd agree with you if only it weren't for the vast lobbying and media power of socialists and lazy social parasites. Got it.)

It's not an accident of history or a conspiracy that major health-care legislation passed two years ago. Most voters wanted it, and their elected representatives enacted it. If a majority of Americans have buyer's remorse about it now, by all means you have that fact to use as your battle cry to tear it down. But your candidates who do so will be eliding the unwelcome fact that a large percentage of those buyers are remorseful because the legislation did not go far enough. Again, doesn't mean the conservative position is wrong. Just means that it's not a slam-dunk that most Americans endorse it.

Drunken Sailor| 1.31.12 @ 2:12PM

Most voters wanted Obamacare? What have you been smoking?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/.....y-the-day/

And seeing how you don't believe most Americans consider themselves conservative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152.....Group.aspx

beejeez| 2.1.12 @ 9:52PM

You're under the impression that I said that most Americans don't consider themselves conservative and that Obamacare is popular, and you ask what I'm smoking?

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:14PM

Why would Romney attract independents? I want that explained?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 4:10PM

Because Independents are moderates?

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 4:56PM

Margie,
The polls consider independents as one group, but there are actually two. Some independents are less conservative than the GOP and are closely aligned with moderates. The other group of independents are more conservative than the GOP. Romney will get very few voters from the latter group.

Although, I have voted a straight Republican ticket for about 35 years, I now think of myself as an independent conservative.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 5:16PM

Those independants Margie are the luke-warm ones we are warned about. Spew them out. Those who do not stand for something will stand for anything.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:09PM

Al,

Here's something funny. When I was a dopey teen, and didn't yet know Christ, I was so dumb that I thought registering as an Independent meant I was "being" independent. I didn't realize it was a party.
LOL! Good thing Jesus saw fit to save me and give me His mind, huh?

Well, I wonder though, how many people don't realize that, and just think, "I want to be independent, so I'll register as that!"

No, but it's true~ if you're a so-called Moderate, it really DOES mean you're just a middle of the road, go along to get along, so called neutral kinda person.

I was that back then, too, as a dumb kid, but then I grew up, by the Grace of God and realized it. What's the use of straddling the fence in life? It's the road to nowhere. It's the road of good intentions that take you to Hell.

God wants us to be sure of ourselves and to choose the RIGHT thing and to be proud of it!!

There really IS no neutral anyway~ it's even a scientific impossibility! Look it up! (I'm sure Al knows it though).

We're all either actually and in reality already choosing which side we're on. Claiming neutrality is just a cop out, or a way to not have to face reality.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:38PM

God loves Independents, He just wants them to make up their minds!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 8:04PM

"Although, I have voted a straight Republican ticket for about 35 years, I now think of myself as an independent conservative."

Tommy, so have I voted straight Repub. ticket. Since '92. I was a late bloomer.
I can appreciate what your saying, but yet don't think it's the best thing to withdraw from the party. They need us. We need it.. but we need to change a few things about it. Leaving it is like leaving a Marriage for some~~ they just would rather go on to the next person rather than heal the one they're in.

It takes work. Real love is work. Staying and fighting is what I'm about.

beejeez| 2.1.12 @ 9:59PM

Yes, Pete, "moderates" is definitely a more accurate word than "independents." If I acknowledge that, I don't have to answer your question, right?

Butch| 1.31.12 @ 5:33PM

Whatever you've been smoking has ruined your short term memory--2009 wasn't that long ago. Passed by one vote with several Dems agreeing to "walk the plank" with their constituents. No hearings despite solid majorities in both houses, closed meetings so no one would know what was going on . . .

Yeah, sounds just like something a solid majority of voters wanted.

beejeez| 2.1.12 @ 10:25PM

Butch, Democrats promised voters over and over again in 2008 they would try their best to pass some kind of health care reform. It wasn't some underhanded trick that they passed it. In fact, it would have been an underhanded trick on voters had they not tried to pass it. And yep, it took a lot of arm-twisting and compromising to do it, because Democrats are mere mortals who really would prefer to be re-elected, and they knew Obamacare wasn't going to be a political winner in 2010.

So what made these sensible public servants jump off a cliff for a rattletrap piece of half-assed reform like Obamacare? Possibility one: They are just that stupid. Possibility two: It was just that important a thing to do. Ain't no other possibility, because none of 'em are getting rich and powerful as a result of their vote.

David| 1.31.12 @ 1:31PM

is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.

If you want to know why the republican congress was decimated after taking control, just read Joe Scarborough's article in Politico. It details how Newt did orchestrate the contract with America and a republican takeover, but what came next is scary.

Take a look of you want to know how and why the repub congress lost its way and allowed the dems to takeover again.

Vote Santorum all day long.

George S| 1.31.12 @ 1:36PM

The way I see it: this election is the neaerest thing to a slam dunk Republican victory in generations. The Establishment types see this as a vindication for the Fords, Doles, McCains and the ghosts of all rhinos past.

The last thing they need is for a conservative to rout Obama and reinforce the tenets of Reagan. Newt must be destroyed, not just defeated, as a message to other elected conservatives. (Ask Allen West).

This is about putting us sharecroppers in our place; how dare we propose a voice in government or have a say where our money goes.

ncatty| 1.31.12 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Lord, why no mention of that other establishment Republican, R. Emmett Tyrell?

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:19PM

oooh, better watch it, ncatty, you'll get laughed off this site.

Even though Tyrrell DID say Ron Paul's one of the true conservatives in this race!!

David| 1.31.12 @ 1:48PM

I agree with Mr. Lord for the most part. What I do not agree with is that Santorum the AMOUNT of political and personal baggage of Newt and Romney, AND he has not made numerous ridiculous statements over the years that are going to come back to bite him.

He did not sit on a park bench with Pelosi to warn us about global warming. He does not support individual mandate for health ins as Newt and Mitt have. He did not support the Wall Street bailouts. He cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper. He cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear. All of those are true of Newt and Mitt.

It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.

If you want to know why the republican congress was decimated after taking control, just read Joe Scarborough's article in Politico. It details how Newt did orchestrate the contract with America and a republican takeover, but what came next is scary.

Take a look of you want to know how and why the repub congress lost its way and allowed the dems to takeover again.

Vote Santorum all day long.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:20PM

Joe Scarborough is truly a traitor to conservatism.

He isn't someone I'd read on the subject of the Newt!!

Kenneth Olsen| 1.31.12 @ 2:21PM

Calling your opponents wimps is what passes for manliness at the American Spectator these days.

M. D'Amato| 1.31.12 @ 2:23PM

Mr. Lord, you are wrong AGAIN. Nancy said RR was passing the torch to the Congress, not the egotistical Gingrich.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:04PM

Which was lead by Newt.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 2:28PM

"To Newt AND the Republican members of congress.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec_Nunb6izo

Bo Darville| 1.31.12 @ 2:42PM

This article was written by that guy that pushed Christine O'Donnell on all of us.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:11PM

Christine O'Donnell hmm. Wasn't it Rove who blasted her the moment she won the primary over the very liberal Castle, a GOP insider.
The GOP national committee refused to help fund her campaign, then blamed the tea party for losing the senate seat.

This should be a reminder to all of us just what contempt the GOP establishment has for the Tea Party.

shoebox57| 1.31.12 @ 4:33PM

The first step for recovering conservative republicans is to recognize there is nothing conservative about the GOP Establishment. Once you recognize this, you will begin to work for the overthrow of all Elites not just Democrats. A war rages and we refuse to stop funding the enemy within. Time for a guerilla war! Take one town and work for change, then another until you own a county. Then a group of counties and finally a State. Speak out at liberal rallies both CINO and RINO.

Marc Jeric| 1.31.12 @ 3:02PM

Bush 1, Dole, McCain, Romney - the row of RINO losers is getting extended.

David| 1.31.12 @ 3:02PM

Margie, Margie, please do not let the messenger destroy the message!!!

I don't like Scarborough now, BUT he WAS a conservative when in Congress. Read the article so you know what Gingrich did. The article is more about Steve Largent (remember him, big conservative representative) and I have no doubt that Scarborough is telling the truth. What it relays are FACTS about one meeting. There were 11 conservative witnesses in the room. Scarborough wouldn't be stupid enough to write what he did if he knew any one of the other 10 could refute it.

Read it Margie, read it all posters here. Educate yourselves.

Steve Largent's speech to the gathering is very moving. Put your heads in the sand if you want. If you want to know the real Gingrich, read it.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:06PM

Yes he would.

Tommy Frisco| 1.31.12 @ 5:15PM

David,
Maybe you need to do a little more research on that incident. That spending bill which Gingrich wanted passed, as Coburn put it. "gave a short term disadvantage to the Democrats."

I assume by "short-term" Coburn meant while the Republicans were in the majority in the House. I assume these 11 Republicans, which included Mike Castle, that voted against Newt's bill did not want to give themselves any advantages over the Democrats because someday, the Democrats might regain power. It is EXACTLY that line of thinking by the GOP that I am tired of.

calvin| 1.31.12 @ 3:10PM

I shall start listening to Newt when he stops complaining all the time. Man up. Give us a consistent philosophy of governing that stops bouncing off the latest poll.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 3:19PM

Yes, the complaining gets old, but I hear it from all four candidates.

Don L| 1.31.12 @ 3:43PM

We have now witnessed why the GOP won't fight/Bush included/ they are part of the very rich and powerful GOP Washington establishment. Watching them destroy Sarah when the left (that e-mail rush to Alaska) failed, was a grow-up lesson this old timer will never forget, from Cheney, to Coulter and Will, the knives came, from Ingraham and Krauthammer the bullets flew, from Rove to Christie, and Noonan, and Parker the poisoned pens nearly burst with passionate destruction. The GOP had made their choie of Rhobamney a long time ago. (Why do you think that weasel McCain's men went after aSarah publically right after he lost the election. The little guy liked her too much. Since destroying he reformer Sarah, they shift to destroying every other potential candidate who dared not ask their approval first. So now we are stuck with the least of the few. It looks like we have a choice between rattlers and cooerhead to replace a viper. I shall no longer be caught alive admitting I was once a Republican. Indies, I regret to say, here I come.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 5:51PM

Well said and how true. But at least today we are seeing what is going on. It is not knew, what is knew is that we are realizing it.

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 5:51PM

Well said and how true. But at least today we are seeing what is going on. It is not knew, what is knew is that we are realizing it.

GoldenEagles| 1.31.12 @ 4:20PM

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

This phenomena described by Jeffrey Lord, of the elite trying to destroy the true conservative goes much further back.

As we all know, the most famous conservative in the whole history of the earth was the Master Jesus Christ who lived his life for the purpose of teaching the Children of God on earth, to live their lives in such a way as to conserve (retain) the principles and values of God the Father in their lives, and not to let them die out, or to be chopped down by the mockery and ridicule of this world.

Let us remember this key story showing how the elite of his day desired to destroy this true conservative.

Mark 3:1-6

1 And [Jesus] entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they [Pharisees and Sadducees - the Elite] watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them [i.e. unto the elite], Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

And so, this pattern of the elites has been passed forward, even from the days of Jesus Christ, generation unto generation, of hating the true conservative, and retaining this insanity in their hearts, whereby, they would destroy the very one who comes with the very gift of salvation.

shoebox57| 1.31.12 @ 4:27PM

Amen, I say! Amen! Thus the truth in the statement, We are the People and we live forever!

GoldenEagles| 1.31.12 @ 7:16PM

STAND FAST WITH NEWT

We have to stand fast with Newt, reach into our hearts, and find the true spirit of conservatism, even the Light that Christ shares with each one of us, even the whole population of the American people, that will finally stand up and champion this nation's absolute need for the blessings of Divine Providence.

Conservatism is the Light of Loyalty unto the Principles of God, which burns as a tiny candle in the heart of every American. It is this Light of Loyalty unto the Principles of God, which conservatism, at its root, tries to conserve, generation unto generation, through allegiance to First Principles.

There can be no economic prosperity without the blessings of Divine Providence, as our founding father George Washington made so clear in his First Inaugural Address, which every patriot should read every morning. Please Google it.

The nation cannot qualify for the blessings of Divine Providence if we rebel against the Laws of God, in allowing a despotic constitution trashing judiciary to stuff a gag in the mouths of those who desire to pray TOGETHER in public, in allowing the wholesale murder of God's Children in the womb, and in setting up on a pedestal of virtue a practice that God taught us through the Law Giver, the Prophet Moses, is an abomination, so egregious in its depravity that God required the death penalty for it in those ancient days.

O NO! I said what is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing that an American can utter these days! I know. O how the people shake in their boots literally terrorized by the possibility that the homosexual lobby will label them a bigot! O No! Not That! Yes, we have fallen into a pit of insanity. And who has pushed this fear onto the people? Of course, the homosexual lobby, their minds flaming with a frenzy of insanity. But moreover, the very “moderate” elites that Jeffrey Lord has spoken about. But it must be said. For the path back up the mountain is narrow. A nation that rebels against God’s Laws, will be cut off from the blessings of Divine Providence, and there will be no economic prosperity for them.

We are on that track now, slowly sliding into that very state of grey mediocrity that the people of the Soviet Union suffered for over 70 years. Communism was of course a state of utter rebellion against God. And because of the rebellion, the people of the Soviet Union never qualified for the blessings of Divine Providence, and thus, the people, as a whole, lived in a state of near poverty for most of their history.

(Note: Today, we do not need to enforce the death penalty on homosexuals, as we have institutions which can help homosexuals overcome what is a state of slavery to the forces that push the agenda of immorality. We have the latitude to be merciful and compassionate, which the people, in the days of Moses did not have. Nevertheless, we must be obedient to the Spirit of the Law, understanding that homosexuality is a very destructive condition, both to the individual enslaved by it, and the culture on which it lives, on which it feeds, and pollutes, and it must be relentlessly fought, no less than the war on the use of illegal drugs.)

Well, my friends, think about this way. God our Father gave to the Prophet Moses the Law on Sexual relations. It was codified in the Fifth Book of Moses, Leviticus, Chapter 18, and the common sense of the people, over the last 3,000 years has validated the simple wisdom explained therein. And they lived by it, and slowly but surely, we have crawled our way out of the dark ages, and established a mighty civilization which provides the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the history of the earth.

And now, all of a sudden, we have adopted this attitude, that the Law on Sexual Relations is to be laughed at and ridiculed . But not only that. We have tasked the institutions of the American government, at a national level, in a wide variety of ways to “educate” the people to believe that this Law on Sexual Relations is the greatest farce ever to be laid upon the mind of man. For example, tens of thousands of officers in the U.S. Armed Forces are now commanded by law to educate the rank and file members of the U.S. Military along these lines, yes, to adopt a mindset that totally mocks the Law of God, and allowing moreover, homosexuals to drape around their condition of infamy, the real virtues of courage and bravery that real soldiers can display, that homosexual could never hope to match. Why? Because God is the Source of those Virtues, and God does not bless individuals in a state of rebellion against his laws, with Virtues! It is that simple. They fall, and they fall, and they fall, into greater and greater degrees of vice. History shows us that.

I can imagine how people are grimacing at these words even now, and so you will understand why it is so, that God our Father has come to the conclusion that this has finally gone too far, yes, this has finally gone too far, we have reached a point where wisdom and reason has no impact at all upon the belief structures of the people, they cannot even grasp the consequences of being in a state of mockery before the Laws of God, and that the only thing they can understand now, is the disappearance of their prosperity.

When all the wealth and prosperity that they once knew, begins to melt away before their eyes, only then will their minds become open to an explanation that is true, and real, which will show them the way back to the solid ground of sanity.

And so, while the Blessings of Divine Providence has surely been the origin of every good thing that America has ever received, it is now cut off. God our Father will not lift a finger to help the people believe they are on the right track now. They are on exactly the wrong track now.

Watch how the economic experts huff and they puff, and nothing they can do will stop the slide of America’s economy into progressively deeper and more intractable states of weakness.

Gradually and slowly will this happen, so the people will have the opportunity to ponder in their hearts the reason for their increasingly diminishing prospects, with the hope they will discover their error, that in their rebellion against God, they have indeed lost their access to the blessings of Divine Providence, and that the only path back into the graces of God, and back into that blessed state of prosperity we once knew, is to undo that rebellion. Every bit of it.

I don’t know whether Newt has reached these conclusions. Perhaps not. But I know he is steeped in a deep sense of value for the principles handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. And if you apply those principles, the above conclusions are absolutely inescapable.

Of all the candidates, Newt is the one who is most likely to find the courage in his heart to tell the American people the truth in this regard. Check out this book that he wrote, “Rediscovering God in America.” He quoted all the necessary principles in there. He has already allowed his own heart to register the value of these principles to which the founders gave such eloquent utterance. The next step, unto the foregoing inescapable conclusions, it is not a giant step, but a baby step. He is the candidate best positioned to take that step, and thus best positioned to help get America back on the right track.

Someone must tell the American people the truth, or this slide will continue as noted, and our history going forward will be, more and more, like an out-of-control hay wagon falling down the mountain with the occupants thereof engaged only in throwing partisan accusations and recriminations at each other, none of which has any power at all in slowing the downward momentum of this falling wagon.

We must seek the higher ground of that heart felt allegiance, of which we are all capable, unto the principles handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. In his First Inaugural Address, which itself was an act of Divine Providence, President George Washington handed down to us, those principles. Most of the key ones that we need. It is superbly serendipitous that George Washington was the candidate for President that everyone could agree too, and believed in. It is superbly serendipitous because he gave utterance to those basic principles, not only that everyone agreed with at the time, but most importantly, which all of us have the capacity in our hearts to agree with now, for the saving of our nation.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:14PM

These same Pharisees also accused Jesus of having a Demon!!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:25PM

And the modern day Pharisees of today accuse Christians of same!

GoldenEagles| 1.31.12 @ 8:18PM

Yes Margie, and I think, in that, we have a clue to what it means to sin against the Holy Spirit. That is in the same chapter as the above. The unforgivable sin.

Mark 3:28-30

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

I think what that means, broadly interpreted, that whenever the Holy Spirit is acting through ANYONE, and it can act through ANYONE who is devoted to God, and who understands the intercessory functionality of the Master Jesus Christ, by which the Holy Spirit flows into this world, and into our hearts, that to label that Spirit anything less than Divine, is to commit the unforgivable sin. Thanks for bringing that up.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 9:41PM

Well, it has a lot more to do with whether or not one labels the Holy Spirit as Divine or not.

There are many Religionists who label Him as Divine, yet they reject the Holy Scriptures, and the Gospel of Grace as it is written in the Bible.

Even the demons believe, as it is written.. but they reject the teachings of Christ.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit has more to do with rejecting His teachings, as it is calling Him a liar.

"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.
If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; or he who greets him shares his wicked work." 1 Jn. 9-11.

These same Idolators mock Christians who cling to His Words~ they say we are heretics and Bible Idolators, when Christ Himself tells us that if we reject His Words, we are anti-Christs.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

These same Idolators are the ones who put Christians to death for standing on their testimonies to the Word of God, thinking they were performing a service to God.

And they still believe they are serving their God to this very day in their hatred for Bible believing Christians.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 11:08PM

"There are many Religionists who label Him as Divine,"

Should have added: "and He IS.."

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 9:43PM

"They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." Jn. 16:2.

shoebox57| 1.31.12 @ 4:24PM

Romney is un-electable. There is nothing else to say. Conservatives are saying, "Not this time! We will not compromise, we will leave!" Remember the core of the GOP, the base is not the rich, the Elite. Obama cannot rob from those who have nothing to lose!"
So listen up Elites, you're done, it's over. We are not going blindly to the ballot box to vote for Mitt. Instead, we are working tirelessly on the infrastructure of a Party. The GOP is driving off a cliff with Romney! Not us though, we are the People and we live forever!

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 5:46PM

They fail to realize this. The GOP is on trial. We are seeing if it can truly be a conservative party. Instead the GOP establishment is doing its best to alienate the corp. It is not just the attacks on Newt either. I must say, I knew this would happen. My prediction: Romney loses to Obama in 2012, Jeb Bush (the establishment guy and third member of the Bush dynasty) wins in 2016, as we look at the pigs and the farmers and can not tell the difference between them.

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 5:00PM

Jeffrey has once again [as always] POINTED TOWARD THE C ENTER FIELD WALL AND THEREAFTER BLASTED IT PRECISELY OVER SAME! As is said in court, THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Or as that old philosopher once declared, STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. All of this comes to one profound conclusion, and that is FEW PEOPLE HAVE WHAT'S KNOWN AS GUTS OR COURAGE. Reagan was ignored by liberals until he got close to the White House, and then their guns came out blazing. Same previously with the trail-blazing Goldwater [but sadly he was trounced by liberals and gutless so called conservatives by Johnson]. Both were derided and humiliating insulated in their times by liberals [especially of the yankee variety] with their one wordisms of EXTREMIST, RACISM, etc. Why is this allowed to happen in a supposed conservatism-leaning society? Simple, LACK OF GUTS on the part of agreeing conservatives and moderates to defend the politicians that lead the charge of the fight against liberalism, that's why. People are GUTLESS! They lack what's known as B&%LS! I've been around liberals most of my life, and I'm well aware of their extreme hatred for conservatives, and mostly for intelligent conservatives who LEAD THE FIGHT COURAGEOUSLY. No leader can enduringly win or sustain the fight with backup and support from those behind him/her, and very few today have the guts or b(*ls to follow and support Newt who has been taking the fight to liberals most of his life. WHAT has Paul, Romney or Santorum ever done for conservatism that is outfront and historically noteworthy? Any legislation passed/authored etc? Absolutely NOTHING! Newt has, as a loyal follower of Reagan's movement within conservatism and thereafter in congress. Like Palin and Limbaugh[both] I sick and tired of the gultless, ba*Less whimpish behavior of most so-called conservaties that bash Newt for other candidates who are about as conservative as I am Letawanian or French [and I've never been to Europe much less France]. Again these liberals hate Newt why? Because he, like Reagan and like Goldwater, because they're extremely threatened by him [and not so by romney, Paul or Santorum]. IMHO, it's not Republican money that's behind this humongous assault upn Newt, but instead LIBERAL DEMOCRAT money that is financing these destructive advertisements [and specifically its probably coming from with the bowels of the middle eastern oil kingdoms of these Arab-Muslim countries]. Oh yeah, these liberal Democrats are p(ssing in their turbans at the thought of Newt walking into the White House and overturning decades of their accompolished socialistic governmental welfare programs of quid-pro-quoism for votes initiated by Kennedy/Johnson and probably even further into Roosevelts rein of terror. As Jeffrey indicates, they can live with the possibility of any of the other Republicans winning over Obama, but the idea of Newt and his conservatism hell-fire-and -brimstone taking over is more than they'll tolerate and that is why these attacks are coming supposedly [and falsely] from other Republicans' campaigns. It's BS, folks......IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS.....WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 5:20PM

PS: Where do you think this money is coming from ['....Obama Surpasses 2007 Fundraising With $128 Million 2011 Haul Tuesday, January 31, 2012 04:56 PM...Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama entered his re-election year with more money to spend than he had four years ago when he defeated Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.Obama reported a bank account balance of $81.8 million as of Dec. 31 as he took in $128 million last year for his re- election campaign, including $40 million from October to December.The figures include transfers from a joint fundraising effort with the Democratic National Committee. Four years ago, he had raised $104 million through Dec. 31 and had $18.6 million in the bank.Obama has maintained a strong base of small donors; $58.5 million, or 46 percent, came in through contributions of $200 or less. He had 1.3 million donors last year, the campaign said.
Obama also reported that the number of fundraisers bringing in at least $50,000 increased to 445, from 351 at the end of September. He named 61 bundlers, supporters who tap their own networks to help generate donations to the campaign, who raised more than $500,000, up from 41 in September. Obama is the only presidential candidate to publicly identify backers who are bundling donations.....']?????????????? Do you think that beyond Hollywood, anyone other source in THIS COUNTRY has the financial wherewithall to donate these kinds of dollars to his campaign????????? Do you think that those Clintonian White House teas and Lincoln Bedroom stayovers to Chinese political supporters was a mirage or a figment of someone imagination?????? Do you think that the business community's wealth is politically supporting Obama after his assaults upon them with his 'millionaires and billionaires' and 'fat cat bankers' speeches?????????????? Do you think that possibly the oil interest of the Arab middle eastern countries could somehow be a source of this money being contributed???????? Do you also think that maybe just maybe it could also be the source of these political attacks upon Ginguich???????????

Pete| 1.31.12 @ 5:42PM

Nice rant. I like it. I would also say that Goldwater lost in 1964 because of the Kennedy assassination. He was leading Kennedy at the time in the polls. As the opponent of Kennedy, who instantly became a martyr, his campaign was finished. He might have just as well resigned on the spot. As obnoxious as Johnson was, he was going to benefit from the grief. However he did manage an ad I will never forget. It was the little girl with the flower as the nuclear bomb went off behind her.

The implication was vote for Reagan and this is what happen. LBJ was a fan of Alinsky and often consulted with him.

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 7:41PM

Shazam, that made about as much sense AS A SCREEN DOOR IN A SUBMARINE!!!!!!!!

vmd| 1.31.12 @ 5:11PM

It's all the fault of those darn moderates. If they would just learn to shut up and OBEY rather than voting according to their own enlightened self interest things would be wonderful. Why would lowly moderates even think they should have voice? I blame democracy.

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 5:18PM

vmd:
While I understnad you are being facetious, please remember that the drafters of the Constitution and the other "founders" feared Democracy- and rightly so.

vmd| 1.31.12 @ 8:28PM

Exactly. The foolish founders left too much democracy in the system, resulting in all the trouble of citizens who are not true believing members of the party thinking their own interests matter.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:18PM

Does he know that we're not a democracy, but a Republic?

Al Adab| 1.31.12 @ 6:55PM

This just in: Romney 49%.
May God have mercy on our souls.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:20PM

They have til 8 p.m. in the Panhandle. It ain'r over til it's over.

RCV| 1.31.12 @ 10:07PM

It's over.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 11:09PM

Yes, it is.

FOR OBAMA.

Clint| 1.31.12 @ 7:10PM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Oldefarte| 1.31.12 @ 7:45PM

Yeah, and the three stooges are Larry [Paul], Curley [Santorum] amd Moe [Romney]; whoever wins will face Shimp [Obama] in the general.....woop, woop, woop, woop, ump, ump!!!!!

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 7:56PM

Shemp, not Shimp. LOL.

And Santorum's no STOOGE.

Occam's Tool| 1.31.12 @ 9:38PM

Margie, if Santorum gets the campaign nod, he'd better fight like Moe (the stooge) or we will be bowing to Mo.

Margie| 1.31.12 @ 9:44PM

TRUE!! :^)......

POST American| 1.31.12 @ 11:11PM

"Gingrich was brought in by Globalists
in the early 90's to co-opt and subvert
the GENUINE contitutional awakening
of that time."

And consider IF that awakening had
been carried through ---and the power
grabs of Globalst USURY and the
RED China handover and TREASON OP
had been thwarted?

AS we may be within years of 'aggressive'
receivership to the US taxpayer underwritten,
Globalist 'miracle' of RED China,
this is the ONLY thing to be considering
when looking at Gingrich ---the Bushes --Gores
--the Clintons --and BAR-Rockefeller Obamas.

--------------HUAC meets NUREMBURG------------
---------------------------2012-----------------------------

The ONLY thing to be thinking about.

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 2:09PM

I have never heard a word spoken by Gingrich supporting the appeasement policies pursued, visavis Red China, by Nixon, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and so forth. It seems that your thesis stands on a delusion. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ted R.| 2.1.12 @ 1:56AM

Nothings going to stop Gingrich from taking the wrecking ball to Romney's support in the swing states. The Ken doll never had much chance against the President; he's been Newtered.

Four more for no. 44.

sophia| 2.1.12 @ 4:22AM

He therefore HATES Christians, as he is taught to do by his Apostate Religion which teaches that Bible believing Christians are heretics.
http://www.cheapnbajerseyssale.com/

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 9:57PM

Malwarebytes blocked access to that link as a potentially dangerous site.

POST American| 2.1.12 @ 5:27AM

---AND speaking of the CFR 'age--enda' and
its front men:

"----They have NO qualms whatever
about eliminating what's left of the
middle class. This is to be an authoritarian
systen run on PURE efficiency and
administered by an EEL-eat class of
TECHNOCRATS."

GINGRICH -----------------is of this.

Likewise 'BAR-Rockefeller' Obama/
the Clintons/ the Bushes/ the Gores
the Romneys/ the McCains et al

ice9| 2.1.12 @ 3:53PM

This narrative, meandering among vaguely supportive quotes, is of course true in its central claim: that moderation accompanied certain GOP losses. Causality is another questi0n, of course, but it's your party and you set the rules of science and rhetoric that govern it.

But even the malleable reality of the far right can't cover up the distinction between 'wimpiness' and 'lie.' When you substitute 'true conservative' for 'willing to lie,' your argument's rough places are made plain. The test for inclusion in the GOP race in 2012 is just that: are you willing to lie. Once included, of course, the stakes rise and the base lies are insufficient to keep a person in the game, so to continue you have to lie even about the lies you are telling; you have to expand on the lies, deepen and extend them. A rising majority of the statements made in speeches in the Florida primary were false, and not just a little bit false. Your GOP is living on recirculated prevarication, invented for the consumption of a small percentage of Americans by a tiny clacque of insiders such as yourself, then fed in a perpetual-motion mobius through the tiny minds of the faithful and back in to the mouths of the candidates by way of the insiders again, who give it a quick poke-and-push as it flies by to the faithful again. Palin is courageous; Gingrich is smart; Santorum is beloved by Jesus. Obama is a socialist Kenyan usurper who wants to ruin the economy and Europize our noble Judeo-Christian nation. On and on, ten or a dozen more, visibly false facts that can't be discussed, only amplified.
Telling the truth, that's wimpy.
That will really bring them in on election day.

ice9

Evangelical| 2.1.12 @ 5:42PM

Servants of Christ, lovers of God, abandon the wickedness of the RINO party! Scourge and purge the GOP of self-serving worldly Satan worshipping Moderate RINOs. Nothing in the Republican Party is beyond God, we shall vote for the Kingdom of God! Elect only fellow servants of Christ, goodly Evangelicals who love to PREACH THE WORD!

MT from CC| 2.1.12 @ 6:23PM

"Palin has also put her finger on the problem when she said that the Establishment GOP had "adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent."" Seriously? What exactly do you call the destructive personal attacks on Presiden Obama's loyalty, heritage, patriotism, love of America, belief in capitalism, etc? The politics of personal destruction has been the centerpiece of GOP political strategy and tactics since Lee Atwater and his protoge, Karl Rove, took over the political functions of the Party. The irony is that they are now turning that, and all that corporate super-PAC money, on each other, and destroying what's left of the GOP brand in the process, while virtually guaratntying that, regardless of who the GOP nominee is, the President will be re-elected in a landslide. Well played. sirs. PS - President Reagan, the so-called conservative, would have been deemed a liberal and drummed out of the party by the right wing nuttism that currently masquerades as conservatism these days.

Stroker| 2.1.12 @ 7:24PM

MT from CC,

Are you serious????You can't attack something that's not there--referring to Obama's loyalty, heritage, patriotism, love of America and belief in capitalism. Having seen what this person has done, you still believe he possesses any of these values--quite psychotic!

Jett Davis| 2.1.12 @ 11:31PM

Great story, but for one glaring issue: can we trust Newt? I'm a Tea Party conservative who switched from Santorum to Gingrich and then back again. Why? Because even though Newt is the most substantive debater, his record since leaving the House is decidedly globalist and, frankly, un-conservative. He supported the individual health insurance mandate up until May of 2011 (and made $55 million through his Center for Health Transformation by peddling the IM), he still believes man has "something" to do with climate change and global warming (leaving the door wide open for stuff like Cap & Trade), he thinks FDR and Wilson—not Reagan—are the best Presidents of the 20th Century, his attack against Romney's creation of over 130,00 jobs while at Bain Capital is straight out of the MoveOn.org playbook, he voted for the establishment of the Department of Education, and he cast a pro NEA vote that increased their funding, not to mention he's cheated on two wives (which goes to the question of character). And, of course, there’ still the issue of Fannie & Freddie, which he has yet to adequately explain. So, again, why should I vote for this guy especially when he's polling 10 points behind Obama and most everybody that's worked with him can't stand him?

RonL| 2.2.12 @ 6:10PM

There is strength in numbers, but we CONSERVATIVES have not effectively harnessed it. It's too late for 2012, but from now on ...

The CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE must not only form, but act! The CA must hold a convention in October of the year preceding a presidential election, and the state delegates must select THE conservative presidential candidate for the upcoming presidential primary. With one solid conservative candidate bearing the mantle, the establishment country club Repubs will be defeated mathematically before the primaries even start. Our candidates must be vetted and scored to trim the pretenders from our midst. This ought to lead to a candidate conservatives can back with enough power to carry the nomination. If it had been done this year, our candidate would be regularly taking 60-70 percent of the primary election votes from Romney and Paul, who would have quickly seen the light of day and bowed out.

RonL| 2.2.12 @ 6:17PM

Just how would the conservative candidates be scored and vetted?
By their record of voting on:
Plus Scoring
Life (NRLC lifetime score)
Taxes (Americans for Prosperity lifetime score)
Voting records
Minus scoring
Point deductions for incorrect votes on constitutional issues, life, taxes, cap and trade, earmarks, hate crimes bills, ENDA, DADT repeal, troop support, government medical rationing, and more
Pledges
To not raise taxes
To nominate strict constructionist justices and judges
To defend marriage and the family

RonL| 2.2.12 @ 6:18PM

Bottom line: ONE conservative candidate vs. establishment RINOs, Libertarians, et al

RonL| 2.2.12 @ 6:21PM

Example of the convention in action: Sen. DeMint, Cong. Pence, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney show up to claim the "conservative" berth; Romney is scored in 4th place and dismissed, free to run as the RINO/establishment candidate if he pleases; while one of the other 3 would emerge as the official conservative candidate

Audrey| 2.6.12 @ 10:01PM

I'm not saying that Mr. Lord has an obsessive compulsive adoration of Mr. Gingrich. But, when one hears stories from multiple, credible sources of rumors about cross-dressing and sado0-masochistic love nest parties without Calista's knowledge or consent, one has to wonder if they're some truth to then.