The American Spectator : Exit Newt

Text Size

Exit Newt

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 2.2.12 @ 6:10AM

He’s part and parcel of the 1960s generation’s larger failures.

WASHINGTON — Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination!

Newt quoted Soros as saying, “We think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Citing Goldman Sachs’ profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: “Those ads,” he averred, “are your money recycled to attack me.” On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs’ or of Soros’s aiding Romney.

Newt lost support in his last week in Florida because conservatives gave him a closer look. Sure we loved his one-liners singeing the tail feathers of the Liberal media and politicians. Yet, we have to put someone up against President Barack Obama who can win. Moreover, we have to put someone in the White House who can govern. With Newt we would be explaining his gyrations every few days during the campaign. And in the unlikely event that he should win we would be spending the next four years apologizing for his extravagance. I did it once before in the 1990s, and I can tell you it was a thankless task.

As I wrote last week, Newt is a 1960s generation kid. Allow me to elaborate. That generation — my generation — was the most ballyhooed generation raised in the 20th century, and it was — at least in politics — a failed generation. Gingrich, the Clintons, Al Gore, and the rest of the 1960s hustlers began their political careers in college when they were the first generation to actually believe that student government was on campus to govern. The weak Liberal administrators went along with them and gave them a say in the running of their universities. The universities have yet to recover. Yet, beyond the damage they did to the universities was the damage they did to themselves. They became the most self-absorbed generation of narcissists ever heard of. From their student government days to their days in national politics they all lived out a fantasy. Now it is over. It would be eminently fitting if Romney won the presidency and set the country on course in 2012. He is from the normal half of that generation, a man who was a student in the 1960s and afterwards a businessman, until he had secured his fortune and entered public life in middle age. By then the Clintons and Newt had been supping at the public trough for years.

The unreported aspect of last week’s story of the conservative writers and politicos turning on Gingrich was the role played by the Episodic Apologists. They are the media types who have been covering for the Clintons for years. They have high hopes for the Clintons’ talents. Then they are crestfallen by one of the Clintons’ scandals: the pilfering of the White House, the last-minute pardons, Monica Lewinsky. Then their high hopes rekindle anew. They were loath to report my attack on Newt as being the Republican’s Bill Clinton, but they jumped at the “conservative Establishment’s” attacks on his veracity and his other wayward traits.

Yet, Newt’s failure is part of a larger failure, the infantilism of the 1960s generation. In his narcissism, impulsiveness, and deviancy he is at one with the Clintons. Mitt, and for that matter Santorum, are just the opposite. They are straight arrows and duty-bound. They would not be a riot of scandals in the White House, but is it not about time that we leave the scandals to Hollywood?

This country is facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama offers us what Romney calls Crony Capitalism. Romney is right and Crony Capitalism means more Solyndras. Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has served up a budget to cure the nation’s ills and head us on a course that will not end like Greece has ended. Romney is not far from the Ryan budget and he can move even closer. Newt can be forgotten.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (431) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

spike59| 2.2.12 @ 6:20AM

newtie looks good in the rear view mirror...where he belongs

Jack in Wi.| 2.2.12 @ 7:19AM

Goldman Sachs is the largest contributor to both Obama and Romney. I hate Newt Gingrich but he is dead right on that. Mr. Tyrell is also right on a different matter. The country is in the worst financial and foreign policy crisis in decades. The problem is that he ignores the only guy who has seen it coming and has a real program to pull us out of this mess, Ron Paul. Romney is just another country clubber like the Bush's. He is and always has been in the pocket of Wall Street which has dumped many millions into his campaign. Look up who his main contrbutors are. Clint has put it up enough times on this webb site.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 9:15AM

Yup. Mitt is just another uber-wealthy maggot, born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple. Just like the Bushes. Expect more of the same should he end up elected. Which he wont, given his tin ear and cluelessness.

typical white woman| 2.2.12 @ 12:36PM

Exactly and well said, Emilio L. The author of the article is simply another establishment, country club Repubican, only interested in the status quo and his own welfare. After Romney loses to Obama, let the establishment types eat crow.

The Bigfellah| 2.2.12 @ 12:58PM

Who is this Mitt? O wait, his name is Willard. Dr. Paul has no chance of winning, but will go to the convention with some delegates and try to get some of his positions into the platform. Newt's problem is that I truly believe he's unelectable. We need a solid candidate like Jim DeMint. There are still 46 states left. If Romney goes into the convention with a majority of delegates, he still may not win. Many Romney delegates are conservatives and support Romney because he is seen more electable than Newt. I believe they would bolt and support a Jim DeMint candidacy. I was a PR/Ad guy. Romney comes across like a stiff phony. His handlers have done a good job. Notice how he holds his head when he thinks he has scored a point. He looks to the sides with that stupid smile. Romney would be clobbered by the Chicago machine.

Mike| 2.2.12 @ 3:22PM

You keep on being a parrot...Dr.Paul can win! Or are you like the rest of the warmongering, kiss Isreals ass crowd??....

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:28AM

'drpaul' has as much chance of winning as Shaq does of being the winning jockey in the 2012 Kentucky Derby...and antisemitic nutjob followers like you are a BIG reason for that

Tina| 2.6.12 @ 7:10PM

I agree about Jim DeMint. I wish he would look at what's happening and realize he needs to jump in before it's too late.

typical white man| 2.2.12 @ 3:21PM

Lady, you obviously have no clue about the author of this article. To call RET "simply another establishment, country club Repubican, only interested in the status quo and his own welfare" is to exhibit ignorance of the highest order - congratulations. Mr. Tyrrell is a self-made man who attended the University of Indiana - hardly an Ivy League Ivory Tower. He was not born into wealth and started his own magazine because he was tired of the Kultursmog that was passing for higher education in his day. With the passing of Mr. Buckley, he is the senior conservative scribe in our great nation. Read his last book, you might learn a few things.

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

emilio,
you are a fool, not to mention a living embodiment of the PhD caricature - the wealthy as "maggots". Mitt is hardly a Bush. What wealth he has, he earned. By building a business. By making shrewd moves with that business. What money Gingrich has is owed to his having been Speaker. Unlike the others, Mitt has been successful in business, with the egos of the Olympics, and in one of the bluest states going. I realize this rings hollow in your faculty lounge, where deep thoughts are thunk and the echo chamber is filled with the harumphs of the left. By the way, you offer no defense of Obama, which is hardly unusual since he is impossible to defend and any of the four GOP contenders would be an improvement.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 1:46PM

Man that's some hifalutin' verbiage, you sure told me. Listen dude, I'll match my conservative bona fides and loathing of Obama with any of y'all. I admire hard work, capitalism but I cant abide scions of the wealthy- like Willard- and trust funders-like Willard who think the silver spoon in their mouth, and the Manor to which they were bred are the only prerequisites needed to save this country. Romney saved the Olympics? Are you fucking kidding me? We are talking about undoing the policies that are killing this country, not hosting a glittery sports pageant. Cretin.

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:04PM

Then let's make it simple. Mitt is not a "scion" of anything. He is a guy who went to business school and then went to work. Frankly, what you claim to admire is exactly what Romney did. If you disagree with him politically, fine; but you are being intellectually dishonest.

By the way, I didn't say "saved" the Olympics; however, no one disputes the Salt Lakes games were in disarray prior to Romney's arrival and they became profitable with him in charge. The conclusion seems obvious.

You are deliberately misrepresenting Newt (it's the Mormon thing, isn't it?) in order to back who? Newt, fan of all things govt? Santorum, who thinks govt ought to be in the birth control business? Please.

The basis of your argument is fraudulent. Mitt did not go into or take over daddy's business, he built his own. Self-professed conservatives used to applaud that. Paul had a medical practice prior to Congress. Newt and Rick? Sucking at the govt tit for virtually their entire lives. The wealth they have is directly connected to their prior service. Some folks would call them insiders.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 2:15PM

I am disgusted by them all, but will hold my nose and vote for the Republican because I truly believe in this election, IT'S OBAMA, STUPID. And the only reason why Willard isnt a Washington insider is because he keeps losing elections. To Ted Kennedy. To John F'ng McCain. For whatever success he had in the business world, in the world of politics he is not cut out for the job and in point of fact is also a loser. And I couldnt care less about his religion. For all his stupid tonedeaf utterings of late, Obama's boys will be all over Willard come election day like snakes on a toad.

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:52PM

that anyone even perceives Obama as a credible threat, given the abysmal track record of his administration, is as much the result of self-inflicted flesh wounds on the right as it is the result of incessant cheerleading on the left. How many conservative pundits whine about the field, pining for un-named white knight to come from the woodwork. These were the same folks who thought Reagan an idiot, and were RR running today, he would be portrayed as a CA moderate.

Romney lost to Kennedy because everyone lost to Kennedy in Mass. The Huckabee crowd did its best to paint Mitt as part of that thar cult out west and party elders anointed McCain for reasons that are still unclear. In politics, he was elected governor of as blue a state as can be. Some taxes were cut, some fees went up, the budget went from shortfall to surplus. Yes, he has Romneycare which, by the way, had ONLY TWO VOTES AGAINST IT IN THE LEGISLATURE. That means it was going to pass regardless of what any governor thought.

If you want losers, Newt was tossed out as Speaker by his own. Santorum was voted out of office. By that calculus, the only man you should be supporting is Ron Paul, the guy who has talked about fiscal calamity for years and who is being proven right. But the right wants to paint him as Uncle Krazy because he is not for bombing Iran on day one. Silly Ron; actually things going to war requires approval from Congress. Where could he get such an idea?

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 5:21PM

never disputed Mitt was the best of the sorry lot, nor is it ever in doubt that I'll vote for the man. He is a weak candidate, a clueless and spoiled individual who is hell bent on out-Newting Newt in terms of his ridiculous pronouncements, his $10K bet with Rick Perry. Out of touch. Like the rich kid he is (and no I dont begrudge him a nickle of his wealth, his accounts in the Caymans or in Swiss Banks, hell, I wish I had those problems). He is going to get smoked in November.But I'll vote for the guy, because I think you and I agree there's a huge problem here. IT'S OBAMA,STUPID

jmulcahy| 2.3.12 @ 12:14AM

"and no I dont begrudge him a nickle of his wealth, his accounts in the Caymans or in Swiss Banks, hell, I wish I had those problems."

Yes, you do. Envy is etched in everything you write. It is pitiful. The Ph.D stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 2:41PM

When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%.
(Now it is at 11%).

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:15PM

Newt Gingrich is the consummate INSIDER. He has been in Washington DC since 1978 and has had an office on K Street for the past 15 or more years. He is a multi-millionaire but not as rich as Romney.

Mitt Romney's father was not born rich and worked his way up in life. Mitt had it a lot better than his Dad, but he is a self made multi-millionaire. He did not depend on Dad's money, he made his own way. He deserves his millions and gives up to 19% of his income to Charity every year. Comrade Obozo gives 1% and Plugs Biden gave $387 bucks last year. I hope he could afford it! I give more that that on my paltry salary every year.

Rose CD| 2.6.12 @ 4:15AM

Alex, you seem to be talking about Romney as if he was just an ordinary guy. Romney came from money. He went to Cranbrook, a private boys preparatory school, which at the time he went, it was a very elite school. And that was before his daddy became governor of Michigan. Rick Santorum was a lawyer before he got into politics and Newt taught history and georgraphy. They had nothing handed to them, they had to work at what they got.

SeymourGlass| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

Alex: relax, he's not really a PhD. You've apparently never seen "Buckaroo Banzai".

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 2:35PM

yeah and believe me I get a lot of shit about this. Regardless, Mitt Romney is a loser. Just like his dad. Remember the "brainwashing" flap ol'George claimed to have undergone? I keep trying to convince myself he's better than Obama, some days are better than others

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:54PM

there is no worse than Obama, not unless Alinsky himself moves into the WH. That's what is irritating about this. This election should not even be competitive, let alone the outcome being in doubt.

Sha44ss| 2.2.12 @ 7:51PM

Romney will Win because it is all a Dog & Pony Show & they know Obama has no more power. It doesnt matter if it is the Right or Left - they are all Progressives and taking us down the same road- just a little Slower than Obama! The Strings will just go from one puppet to another! We will still all be shining Romneys shoes!

SeymourGlass| 2.2.12 @ 2:55PM

Let's just hope Election Day is a good day.

Amanda Fitzhugh| 2.2.12 @ 4:10PM

Sorry, Alex, but if you want to believe for yourself that Mitt Romney made it on his own, I've got a bridge to sell you!

The youngest son of the CEO of AMC, and former Republican candidate for President, who was an elder in the Mormon church, best friend of J. Willard Marriott (yes, that's where Mitt got his name), ad nauseum, Mitt Romney NEVER had to make it on his own. He had enough money to support himself and his wife for the three years of law/business school, and, according to Ann Romney, he had stock that he sold to pay their bills. His house in Boston was bought by his parents. His first job was, I'm sure, at a firm that knew EXACTLY who he was and what his connections were. Bain hired him. Why? Was Mr. Bain a friend of his father's or a friend of a friend? I'd bet so.

When Mr. Bain wanted to start making more money than he was getting for the business consulting of Bain, he offered Romney the job. Before Romney took the job, he was guaranteed that he was facing no financial or reputation risk, so he took the job.

Bain did NOT provide initial funding for Staples. They turned it down initially and only risked their money after some other v.c. firms made an investment.

Because of his father, Romney had business connections to people of wealth that an ordinary person would not have. I seriously doubt that Romney did ANY of the analyst work that goes into decisions made by Bain- those analysts are usually the bright young men and women fresh out of b-school. Romney's strength was in NAME RECOGNITION, contacts in the business world through his father, and his connections in the Mormon Church.

I cannot speak to Romney's job with the Salt Lake City Olympics, since I do not know what he actually did.

Romney's embarrassment over his own wealth is due to his knowledge that he could NOT have achieved it without his father's name, connections and bankroll.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:20PM

You left out the part about Mitt and Ann living in a basement apartment for 3 years while he was in college. Mitt has made his own way since he was given the great education by his father. And more power to him if he used contacts from his Church. Who wouldn't?

This sounds like more class warfare garbage our illustrious NON-Leader likes to spew! pfft!

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:22PM

Envy is a disgusting trait. Your post ooozes envy.

My sympathies.

beebop2| 2.2.12 @ 6:01PM

You have to be a liberal .... your contempt for financial success is breathtaking.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:19AM

ron paul has no program.....quit spreading myths. what he has are claims..."I'll shut down EPA....I'll shut down DoE....I'll legalize drugs......I don't care if Iran builds nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.... I'll get rid of the Fed." and he'll achieve it all cuz...as he has demonstrated already...he's just a natural born leader who has been incredibly successful at forming coalitions needed to successfully shape and pass major legislation! there's more to leadership than incessant, reductionist incantations about how the Constitution's sole purpose is to create conditions in a hugely complex society that are fundamentally reactive/after the fact in almost every avenue of human activity. he and his followers...while grasping many essentials...are nevertheless breathtakingly shallow/simple-minded in the "application", or better, "implementation", of these essentials.

blah blah blah.

there is no detailed execution strategy....there's no political constituency to execute whatever will-o-the-wisp "POA" might exist.....there's no alignment of ends, ways and means.

on closer inspection...there are also huge gaps in experience/knowledge. does anyone really think someone who served as a flight surgeon for 3 years almost 40 years ago has profound insights into today's military and warfighting context? same thing holds across a wide expanse of disciplines. anyone seriously believe ron paul knows squat about the cyber world?

richard blaine| 2.2.12 @ 9:38AM

So your happy with the staus quo?

Renaissance Nerd | 2.2.12 @ 10:18AM

Nobody is happy with the status quo. I'm not happy with the status quo ante Obama either. I'm not happy with the status quo ante Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan.

The fact remains that it took 100 years of creeping socialism to get us to this point. It can't be fixed in 4 years, or even 20. It's going to take long, hard work, but there's no chance of turning back from the precipice unless we a) win back the Senate, b) keep the house, c) defeat Obama, and d) actually have a budget for next year. Obama's gotten away with his massive deficits because the Senate hasn't passed a budget for 1,000 days as they are legally obligated to do. The current crop of Democratic senators are all oathbreakers. I'm not keen on a manager for president, but Paul hasn't got a prayer of doing anything he promises. Congress is and has always been where the action is, and that's his principle weakness--he's got no coalition backing him. Which is also Gingrich's problem. I honor Newt for the great things he did in helping bring about the '94 revolution, but he squandered his opportunities and got outfoxed by Dick Morris. He has no constituency in the Congress either. It's one reason why Representatives never get elected President. Romney campaigned for a bunch of Republicans in the '09 campaigns. There's a reason 'the establishment' backs him--he worked hard for them and helped many get elected. Gratitude is not a bad reason to support somebody. I still like Santorum better, but Romney will have a bunch of friends in Congress if he gets elected, and has a chance to at least hold the gates, even if he's unable to defeat the barbarians. If that's all I can get, I'll take it.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:34AM

Nope, I won't be satisfied until January of next year with Dr. Nutjob in a retirement home and Romney in the White House.

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 12:50PM

Well, you are wrong that he will "shut down" all of these programs entirely. What he will do is allow the states to run those programs that they wish to keep. After all, this is how our country was meant to be run, as per the Constitution. You either believe in our Constitution or you do not. It is the very document which made our country so prosperous (until the government started to ignore and dissect it). You can not pick apart our Constitution and only use the specific parts that will benefit your agenda alone. It is a document of the people, all of the people. Also, he is not looking to legalize drugs, he wants to decriminalize drugs. There is a difference. The states will be allowed to handle any drug issues as they see fit. They may legalize them if the citizens of that state choose to do so, or not. States rights allow you more freedom. Do you not like freedom?

As far as Ron Paul passing legislation, well he is but one man with one vote among hundreds. We all know that Congress does not vote per the Constitution and all of Dr. Pauls proposed legislation has been Constitutional. Congress is the problem here, not Ron Paul. Most of his legislation would have been passed had we a Congress that actually stood by our laws.

It's strange to me that you can dismiss Dr. Pauls foreign policy when members of the CIA and even the very man whom was head of the Bin Laden unit has agreed with him. I guess the CIA has no foreign policy experience? Or what about the high ranking military members that support Dr.Pauls foreign policy. Would you also have us believe that they do not have a clear grasp on our foreign policy and entanglements? There is plenty of video footage which shows them speaking in support of Pauls foreign policy.

If you do some research outside of the MSM, you would realize that you are in fact, the one spreading myths. You do not have to agree with Dr. Pauls policies but, at least know what you are talking about before attempting to call out others. All of my statements here are factual. You are welcome to research them for yourself. I hope you are hungry enough for the truth to do so. The future of our country is dependent upon you educating yourself on what the media refuses to tell you. Best wishes.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:34PM

Paul passed nothing---no one wants to work with a guy supported by StormFront and David Duke who refuses to call them out. Paul has no ethics. He supports Bradley Manning. Sorry, I don't. Wikileaks has done immeasurable harm to our country, and Ron Paul supports it.

Paul was a REMF in the service, and he supports treason now. Sorry, no respect.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:29PM

Ron Paul has been in Congress forever, it seems, and has passed just ONE bill, which was a very mundane "housekeeping" thing. He is NOT qualified to be President and will NEVER get the nomination. He has a few good idea's, but even a blind hog gets an Acorn every now and then.

I am looking forward to seeing him RETIRE!

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.2.12 @ 7:23PM

David Duke and Stormfront support Paul because he'd leave them alone as long as they're not breaking the law, he'd do the same for the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.

As for Manning, he needs to be released. All he did was shed light on illegal and unconstitutional actions of the United States government and to shed light on those type of things is a very American and very patriotic act.

Paul isn't the one guilty of treason. Maybe you should look in the mirror for that Occam. How can you say someone else is guilty of treason and being unloyal to this country when your loyalty isn't to the United States of America but to Israel?

Rick Johnson| 2.2.12 @ 1:31PM

Ahhh. A nice, honest-to-goodness breath of fresh air. Am I wrong to say that the Gingrich and Paul supporters often seem to think they're a lot smarter than they really are.

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 1:36PM

you are half wrong. The Paul folks have actually read the Constitution and found it big on things imperial DC is NOT supposed to do. The self appointed smartest man in the room, the former Speaker, sees the document as a historical relic that is sometimes useful and sometimes anachronistic.

Bottom line, Newt is as big govt as Obama, as is much of the Repub establishment. The only difference is what they would spend our money on. Paul IS different and while he cannot win, it is interesting to note that both parties have gone Alinsky on him - no one tries to debate him, they only attempt to smear and belittle him. Is he wrong on the debt? Uh, no. Is he wrong to say that we have a process for going to war and it does not mention a king? Uh, no. Is he wrong to say that neither the nanny state nor the police state has served us well? Uh, hell no.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

Carnot---you are SO right, but incomplete---He also has no knowledge of substance abuse issues. He delivered babies---he did not treat addicts. For example, he has, I am sure, no clue as to the mechanism of action of ANTABUSE in treating COCAINE abusers. (Yes, I got medication and substance correct. Not alcohol, cocaine.) That's MY field.

I'm going to vote for Santorum on Tuesday in the Caucus. But if Romney wins, I will support him. One, because I am not a sore loser, and two, BECAUSE THIS WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT SCOTUS AFFECTING ELECTION IN 20 YEARS. Look at the ages of the SCOTUS justices---you want Obama or Romney to be selecting those judges for the next 4 years. Me, I would like Santorum to be the one, because pro-Life judges RARELY are socialists, and Rick would be intense on that, but Obama will be a nightmare---and it will mean we will be living with the legacy of this piece of filth for 20 years.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 4:31PM

bingo! it would be nice to live in a world where absolutes prevail.....but until that day arrives....I...for one...will absolutely support candidates who move the dial in the right direction (no pun intended). heck...if I have to...I will vote for any of these candidates over Mr O.

Liberty4AllNow1| 2.2.12 @ 2:59PM

I'm glad to see that the people on here did not fall for the "Romney being the one"! Mitt is just a white Obama and would continue the wars, bailouts, higher taxes, etc. Ron Paul 2012!!

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:21AM

Romney's Donor List.

Goldman Sachs $496,430
JPMorgan Chase & Co $317,400
Morgan Stanley $277,850
Credit Suisse Group $276,250
Citigroup Inc $267,050
Bank of America $211,650
Barclays $203,650
Kirkland & Ellis $201,701
HIG Capital $188,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $179,300
Blackstone Group $170,550
Bain Capital $144,000
EMC Corp $127,800
Wells Fargo $126,200
UBS AG $123,900
Elliott Management $121,000
Citadel Investment Group $118,625
Bain & Co $116,050
The Villages $98,300
Sullivan & Cromwell $97,150

Follow The RINO-CINO Cronies Money Trail.

Renaissance Nerd | 2.2.12 @ 10:07AM

So your assertion is they all back Romney because they think he won't be an improvement over Obama economically?

Al Adab| 2.2.12 @ 10:17AM

Somebody want to post Obamas donor list? Would we not prefer to see profit making companies donating rather than non-profits and unions which live off public money?

cowgirl| 2.2.12 @ 10:32AM

Top contributor to Obama has been BP Oil. Enough said.

Jean Tant| 2.2.12 @ 3:36PM

Nope, BP gave $77,051 to Obama. Not even on the top 20 list. When you state provably false statements (AKA lying) you really hurt your argument.
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

W | 2.2.12 @ 11:06AM

Al,
I read that unions gave over 200 million to Gore and Kerry, and they had union reps calling members, putting up and knocking down signs, and canvassing. The Dems take unions for granted like the black vote and Jewish vote.

crookedwren| 2.2.12 @ 10:52AM

So you're saying Wall Street money in your campaign chest means you're a "sell out"?

How can a Republican garner a campaign chest that can come close to that of a Democrat????

I'm not that fond of Romney. Don't get me wrong. I'm worried about Romney Sr.'s fondness for Saul Alinsky -- which is why, perhaps, we don't hear Mitt calling Obama a "Saul Alinsky radical." That's Newt's line -- and it's apropos.

I'm worried by Romney's inability to articulate the small government part of the Tea Party, aka conservative stance. Our youth have been indoctrinated -- in our schools and by our media, including Hollywood -- into a dislike and distrust (at best) of corporate America -- but not all corporations are run on the basis of greed and evil intent to grab power (much of that has been channeled into our litigious legislators). But our kids (even those in their 30s now) do not have a foundation in the truth regarding the free market system vs. socialism (which leads into fascism or communism or some other totalitarian scheme).

Romney hasn't -- so perhaps he cannot -- articulated the MORAL imperative behind these conservative concerns -- and it is the moral lesson, along with the reality lesson, that will, I believe, move the still-idealistic hearts and minds of our youth and might awaken those who have been entranced by the media, those who exhausted by work, work, work and getting less, less, less retreat to their sofas at the end of the day, imbibing escape and the fantasy of reality that the msm offers up.

And I have listened to the George Soros recording. That IS frightening. Soros does say it doesn't much matter if Romney is elected, that he'll be close enough to Obama that it doesn't matter. It'll take a little more effort to destroy the dollar and the US economy -- along with the global economy -- but that it will still happen. There will be rioting in the streets of the US, proclaims Soros from Davos. I've heard that recording. It's chilling. Especially when you consider that Soros has managed to destroy currencies before.

Newt scares me. This article makes a good deal of sense. Yet what in his resume can lead me to trust that Romney has truly embraced conservative principles? Romney, too, shows the flaws of not being solidly rooted in core conservative principles.

He is a moderate. What does that really mean? It's important to know before he goes any further.

And he blunders all the time. Really. He does. "I'm not concerned about the very poor. . . ." Yeah. I know. I haven't finished his sentence for him. I'll have to -- for the rest of the time he's running and the entire time he's in the White House, if he makes it. We all know what Axelrod will do to him.

Santorum is the only candidate that makes sense.

(Just exactly how would Ron Paul end the Fed, return to the gold standard, legalize -- gulp! -- the drugs that are pouring into this country from Mexico and other places, and shut down all our bases overseas, etc. etc. The man can't finish a sentence without shifting to "And another thing. . ." heading off on another tangent, another idea. He can't stay on topic, and he doesn't defend well his ideas re: foreign policy. He keeps focusing on the US part of it, not on what it is that keeps us "out there" in the first place. These dangers are real, not that we haven't many times taken the wrong side -- we've had Marxist loving infiltrators working in our state dept. since before I was born.)

I've gone on too long here, but I will tell you, I am weeping that Paul Ryan and Mike Pence aren't running.

And I'd love to hear a good, clear definition of that "moderate" thing.

When anyone I know claims to be a "moderate," I consider them to be pretty far to the left.

VR Enscoe| 2.2.12 @ 1:26PM

Right on - and you won't see that donor list on the Fox/Rove/Rino News either. The Rove/Romney Machine and Krauthammer are the Rino mouth piece while Boehner is their ineffective minion. The Rinos have tried to discredit Palin; Angle; West; Santorum; the Tea Party and any true conservatives. The Rino Establishment are Progressives in Republican clothing. True conservatives better put their money and time where their mouth is.

WJ| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

Fox loves Gingrich. Watch them and it will become obvious.

It's quite amusing for Gingrich and his air head supporters claim that he is not part of the establishment.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:01PM

Uh considering how much the establishment hates his guts, I don't think he can be considered an insider.

I would say he's an outsider with so much knowledge of what is going on inside Washington that they are scared to death of him.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:36PM

Palin sounds dumber every time she flaps her face, Angle sounds like Giffords on a bad day, and too many Tea Partiers are showing themselves to be the ignorant political novices their detractors always said they were. Supporting Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich as candidates for President of the United States, and they expect to be taken seriously? By whom?

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:02PM

All you're showing is that even the Obamney supporters are just like the regular Obama supporters.

Joe Mudd| 2.2.12 @ 3:39PM

Those banking entities are known by another name
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
who really runs America?

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:35PM

Why wouldn't Wall Street support Mitt Romney? You could see this same list of Donor's for ANY presidential candidate, especially Comrade Obozo who really hit the Jack Pot of Wall Street Donor's when he was running 4 years ago. Goldman-Sach's gave more to Obozo than any other candidate in recent history. Wall Streeters are mostly DemocRATS, in case you didn't know.

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:30AM

Follow the RonPaul trail back to the Birchers, 9-11 truthers, Stormfront, and the KKK

LDG| 2.2.12 @ 1:51PM

Romney will fail. Obama will have his number with regard to Romneycare. End of story. Once again, the GOP has let the DNC pick their candidate. In this case Romney. Just like McCain. Newt would have decimated Obama in the debates. Dream Team ticket of Newt/Rubio is gone. Too bad. It would have been an avalanche win for the GOP. Now we are guaranteed 4 more years of the Marx1st - and the end of America. Hello, Amerika.

WJ| 2.2.12 @ 2:19PM

You are delusional if you think Gingrich would beat Obama. A couple of debates are going to undo the hypocrisy and the insanity of Newt and his background.

Get a grip. Newt is done. Let it go.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:37PM

DITTO! Obama would make mincemeat of Newt.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:04PM

What exactly could Obama throw at Newt that Romney hasn't thrown at him already?

Alan Brooks| 2.2.12 @ 5:51PM

Jack,
Ron Paul is too decent to be president, so for that matter was Carter! Jimmuh was smarmy, but he meant what he said about reducing our standard of living and instituting a conflicted foreign policy-- he did it.
Carter was a sincere, smart, educated, f*ck-up.

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:31AM

ronpaul is too 'outhouse rat crazy' to be President; Djimmi Carter was a special breed of incompetent fool

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:46PM

What part of the 21st Century Contract with America did you not agree with pray tell?

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 2:44PM

When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%.
(Now it is at 11%).

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 3:02PM

When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%.
(Now it is at 11%).

somnolence| 2.2.12 @ 6:24AM

Bob, Politico says in Drudge that Trump is going to endorse, then salvage Newt today. It doesn't sway me one way or the other, but I'm sure many on here will be so exhilirated today they will need a change of Depends.

Anthony| 2.2.12 @ 10:42AM

No we won't!! As I posted on the Reiland article, Trump, the consumate narcissist, keeps his threat alive of running 3rd party by endorsing Newt, now that it appears Newt is finished. Trump's timing was impecable, don't you agree?
This fat toad is clever, he spends all of his creative energy thinking of ways of keeping himself front and center.
So by endorsing Newt, if the Rs pick Romney, Trump can still make good on his threat.
Like I said before, if either Trump or Paul decide to go 3rd party, we must do all we can to punish these guys where it hurts the most.
So go ahead Trump, keep your b.s. threat alive, and we will keep our promise to bankrupt you!!

Pierre Montagne| 2.2.12 @ 1:59PM

How is Newt fnished?
There are 46 states left to go.
This will be a brokered convention

canuckistani| 2.2.12 @ 4:49PM

Pete's right, Willard has a long way to go, and the Trump endorsement will derail his march to the nom even further by allowing the combover to share the stage with him. Dumb.

As frontrunner, he will be forced into more MSM appearances and he will forget to take his foot-in-mouth pills each morning.

When yer splainin' yer losin'. And he sure does a lot of explaining after he opens his unscripted yap.

Newtie will withdraw through February, allow Willard to veer/tack back to the center and then pounce again ahead of Super Tuesday.
He's never been a money campaign like Willard, so a rhetorical regroup could work.

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:31AM

hahahahahahahahaha....wait-you're...SERIOUS????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:47PM

Agreed.

Steve| 2.2.12 @ 6:38AM

Dear Mr. Tyrrell

Thank you so much for your input. Rest assured I will give it all the consideration it so richly merits.

L. Ross| 2.2.12 @ 7:08AM

Smells like sarcasm.

oldfart| 2.2.12 @ 7:13AM

Really? I can smell it through the compter screen.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 7:28AM

Dear Mr. Tyrrell:

Thank you so much for your input. One wonders if we should be Following The Money, on this one?

"Newt lost support in his last week in Florida because CONSERVATIVES gave him a closer look"? Really? Which "Conservatives" might those be? David Brooks? Bill Krystal? Joe Scarborough? You?

I seem to recall that it was NEWT GINGRICH who brought the Republicans out of the Wilderness. It was NEWT GINGRICH who gave us a Majority in the House of Representatives, for the first time in 40 YEARS. 40 Years of wandering through the Desert, like the Israelites.

It was NEWT GINGRICH that gave us Welfare Reform. He got rid of the Crooked Filth, that was the Democrat Leadership. The Piece of Garbage - Jim Wright - from Fort Worth. The Piece of Garbage from Illinois - the Pollock - who went to PRISON. Got the House Bank closed, and the House Post Office cleaned up. His Contract For America, made sure that the Laws that Congress passed, pertained to THEM, as well as to us. And, under him, we got FISCAL SANITY in Congress, and a Balanced Budget for the first time since 1969.

I know you're a Romney Guy. Perhaps you wouldn't mind letting the rest of us in on all of the CONSERVATIVE things that YOU BOY has done, lately. Or EVER, for that matter.

I particularly like his GUARANTEES to uphold the ABORTION Rights. Especially his Vow to make sure that if a MINOR CHILD (A 10, 11, 12 year old girl) needs an Abortion, and she can't get a Parent's Permission? No Problem. She can go to one of Romney's Judges, and they'll give her all the permission she needs.

He's quite the Conservative.

Oh, and p.s. - They will use his Mormonism like a STAKE through his heart. They will hang the writings of Smith and Young pertaining to "The Negro" and why his Nose is Flat, around his Neck, like a Millstone."

How much money did he give ya, Bobby? What's your PRICE these days? You're not a Stupid Man. You can see that he's just what Newt said he is: A Liberal/Progressive Ex-Governor of Massachusetts.

C'mon. You can tell us. How much did you SELL OUT for?

Joseph| 2.2.12 @ 8:13AM

The "pollock?" Timmy, you are in fine form again. Newt didn't clean up the post office. He bounced checks like everyone else.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a SELL OUT. You know what shrinks call someone like you?

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 9:18AM

Joseph,

The house bank provided overdraft protection in the amount of one months draw. That is, one was permitted to advance one month salary to oneself. It was a perk which should never have been permitted. Newt wrote 22 checks against insufficient funds, including the famous $9,000+ to the IRS. I have not been able to find the total amount or how long they were held. The most egregious abusers wrote almost one thousand checks against insufficient funds and held overdraft balances for years.

It WAS Newt and the "Young Turks" who brought this down. I'm sure Newt assessed the damage from the fallout to accrue mostly to the Democrats (which it did).

While the perk clearly was not something you or I would ever have gotten, it is important to note that these hot checks were a political problem, not a criminal one. The folks back home were righteously indignant, but not a soul was prosecuted for writing the checks, per se. Criminality was discovered during the subsequent investigation and was prosecuted. Thirteen Democrats and one Republican left the House from the fallout, but one of the 22 identified as the worst offenders, John Conyers, who wrote 273 overdrafts left uncovered for 9 months is not only the longest serving member in the House (since 1965) but also the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. You can't make this stuff up.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 9:58AM

Don't waste your breath. He doesn't want any facts to get in the way.

Joseph| 2.2.12 @ 1:44PM

Timmy,
What is the "fact" about your slur "Pollock" and "ski" that I don't want to get in my way?

Margi| 2.2.12 @ 2:55PM

Watch it, Timothy, you've got one of most despicable Trolls on your tail now. Good 'ol "Joseph", who cares nothing for the truth.

All these scumbags do is pick on your words, but they won't deal with what you actually have to say, which is the truth.

Hey Joey, we DO know what God says about people like you, never mind shrinks.

Margi| 2.2.12 @ 3:08PM

And furthermore, how Can Emmett Tyrrell, the man who considers Ron Paul a conservative), but despises Newt)~ lump him in with the liberalism of the Clintons??

He says Newt was like them back then, and took over Universities along with them?
Is this true?

And how does he compare him to the policies of the Clintons now?

He's lost his mind to Libertarianism.

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 3:27PM

Yes, that's me.

W | 2.2.12 @ 11:11AM

John
They opertate the budget with hot checks covered by borrowing 40% of all sums spent so it should not surprise us how they ran their private bank. The mindset of operating the bank is the same mindset operating the budget.
I believe, though, it was Santorum, as a congressman that started the investigation. Santorum won a seat in a Dem district beating a long term Democrat.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 11:55AM

Gingrich was the Minority Whip at the time. Santorum was one of the Gang of Seven (along with Boehner). Santorum has criticized Gingrich claiming that Gingrich was reluctant to reveal the scandal going so far as to suggest the Gingrich was complicit as he had written NSF checks and had known about the banking shennanigans for the years he had been there.

I don't know either Gingrich's or Santorum's mind, but the criticism rings a bit hollow for a couple of reasons. The first is that there was no secret. Members were told of their privilege as part of their orientation. Everyone knew - except the public, evidently. Gingrich initiated the investigation of Jim Wright which resulted in Wright actually resigning in disgrace, and which is credited with giving him the stature to become Minority Whip and ultimately Speaker. So Gingrich was no stranger to house cleaning. Santorum was a freshman member who, with no experience with what went before him, can be excused for believing that it was he and the others in the Gang of Seven who were truly pure. To the extent that the banking scandal had become an issue, I'm more inclined to credit the, ever politically savvy, Newt with keeping his powder dry.

I've no difficulty with the notion that the Gang of Seven put this on the radar or that Santorum initiated it (I don't know, myself). It's is unlikely that a freshman would be able to get very far without some support from the leadership, which Gingrich provided, so Santorum's claims of credit, particularly to the exclusion of Gingrich, are a bit much for me.

(PS. I'll be pleased with either Santorum or Gingrich as President.)

W | 2.2.12 @ 12:42PM

John
Did not mean to imply or suggest that Newt had no part in it. I remember Santorum got a lot of ink here in Pittsburgh about the House bank.
Newt did good work as Speaker and the 94 campaign, along with Armey, and the rest. He had a terrific opportunity as Speaker and should have focused on his job instead of the book deals that led to the ethics fine, and he could have accomplised much more.
I am ok with any Republican as president, and would take most of the bloggers here(you included, of course) over Obama, and all would be a major improvement.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 6:02PM

My apologies if I seem a bit overbearing here. There was no fine. Newt settled, admitted no wrong-doing and agreed to compensate the committee $300K for investigative costs caused by the letter which misled the committee in as much as it created a contradiction. The IRS ultimately investigated the single charge which Gingrich settled (was he using funds for his educational foundation for political purposes) and found no conflict. Score: 84 alleged ethics violation, none true. The book deal, which also came to nought, involved a limited partnership, including Republican donors, to promote the book. One presumes Newt's goal was to enhance sales of the book, rather than to enter into a partnership designed to lose money. If Newt is anything, he is a lightning rod. After toppling Wright over his book deal and flipping the House to the Republicans, he could have expected that David Bonior would come after him - which he did with zeal.

Isn't it perverse that, one the one hand, we decry professional politicians and yearn for the citizen who leaves the plow for a short stint in Washington, yet we insist that the politician have no business affairs while in Washington? The potential for abuse and influence peddling is obvious and worthy of oversight. I advocate no free-for-all, merely observe that the effect is toward a professional political class (regulated by the same political class) rather than the citizen politician. It is pernicious.

W| 2.2.12 @ 6:47PM

John,
No problem, you are not overbearing, nothing wrong with a healthy argument on facts and opinions. I know what Newt is calling it, but when you pay $300,000 for whatever reason you cannot say you did nothing wrong. He should have fought the charge with the same tenacity he is fighting Mitt. We can't change what happened. Bonior was a disgusting partisan creep and the Dems were looking for a reason to nail Newt after the Wright and post office scandals.

All these politicians, though, write books about their public "service" and cash in. Powell, Hillary, Bubba all made about ten million. Many go to DC poor, like LBJ and the Clintons, but leave as millionairs.

I like Perry's idea of a part time Congress to reduce their pay and schedule. The more time they spend in DC they think they have to pass laws to justify their existence.
Did you see the Rob Long satire on Romney phone call to Perry and Newt in this week's NR?

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 7:31PM

I haven't read Rob Long yet. I confess I let my subscription lapse after Lowry took over. My brother still takes it so I get my Rob Long fix a little later.

The part-time legislature is both good and bad. I'm currently fighting the current plague in Texas of special taxing districts. It means we have to wait another year for legislative relief to a problem of their creation. Still, I'll take that "bitter" with the "sweet" of a less active congress.

Only Newt knows why he settled that final issue. Perhaps the temptation of ending years of fighting with both dogs getting a piece of the bone was too much to pass up. I'll wager he wishes he had.

Cheers!

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:07PM

I think I ought to point out that after Newt settled so this wouldn't drag on and on and continue to hurt the Republican Party, that the IRS came out with a report that showed Newt didn't do anything wrong to begin with, which proves the ethics investigation was a farce to begin with.

VonMisesJr| 2.2.12 @ 3:23PM

John, Newt or Santorum are going to fight to repeal ObamaCare. Romney will not concede that RomneyCare was a mistake, and Norm Coleman (ex-congressman and adviser) is already setting the expectation that it will not be repealed.
My contention is that the Republican Establishment is just fine with us no longer having our "inalienable rights" or our Constitution. Mitt will be the guy to tell us a Clinton-like lie: "I've never worked so hard in my life to repeal ObamaCare. But it couldn't be done, serf."

sirbourbon| 2.2.12 @ 11:38PM

Good prediction. I hope the folks slobbering all over themselves for Romneycare remember what you predicted. It's an easy call, however, since Romney is a socialist in the mold of the socialist founder of the Republican party Alvan E. Bovay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvan_E._Bovay

WRTolkas| 2.2.12 @ 8:39AM

Why is his Nose flat?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:00AM

Typical Lib. You want everything for free.

"Why is his Nose flat?"

Why are you so STUPID?

LOOK IT UP, ya lazy fck.

Mimi| 2.2.12 @ 9:06AM

Tim .....Again you score another one...and GUTSY.
The country clubbers are not gonna take this, this time.... It will be " The folks".....and Newt is talking and saying just what were are thinking
He's tapping into the American Spirit....the TAS
" RULING CLASS" should get real !

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:25AM

I gotta tell ya, Mimi. Newt is not my first choice. Herman Caine was my guy. If I had to pick between the four of these guys? I'd pick Santorum.

Romney is a huge problem. His BAGGAGE is that he's a Rockefeller, Country Club Republican, who BRAGGED about distancing himself from Reagan, proclaimed himself a Moderate, at best, and a Progressive, at worst.

I hate these "MY TURN" nominations. The guy has Foot in Mouth as bad as anyone's ever had it. And he's ON TAPE highlighting his support for LITTLE GIRLS (10 - 11 - 12 years old) to be able to have an ABORTION, regardless of what their PARENTS say. She can BYPASS her PARENTS, and get permission from a Judge.

You tell me where he's got a single Conservative Bone in his body. (Not you, Alan. I need somebody else to answer that one. Let's try and keep this clean.)

All that being said, I WILL pull the lever for Romney, if that's what it takes to get rid of the Obamination that's sitting in the Oval Office, now.

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 1:15PM

Dear Lord! Abortions for little girls without parental knowledge? I was just stating that I felt Romney would be a better choice than Newt but, after hearing that I may have to reconsider. I'll do some research into it. That said, I don't like neither Newt nor Romney.

I was originally a Herman Cain supporter too. I support Ron Paul now but, I think Santorum is a good man. I just believe that he might legislate from the religious pulpit and, while I'm a Christian, that kind of turns me off.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:39PM

TLP: You get better and better and better...when we meet, the steak's on me.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 3:57PM

I do like Steak.

You're on.

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:11PM

seems Romney's conservative bone would be found in his belief in the private sector, in free markets, and in job creation, something he has actually done WITH HIS OWN MONEY, as opposed to careerist politicians like Newt and Ricky. Please. Newt is every bit the govt interventionist that Obama is, and Santorum thinks states ought to be able to ban birth control. How is the latter indicative of small govt conservatism?

Cain was brought down by the establishment when his numbers rose; Romney's had the conservative media bitching about him from day one; the folks who failed in shoving Perry or Bachmann down our throats, or in drafting Palin or Daniels or someone else are left with two deeply flawed establishment guys to back. Romney owes DC no favors; small wonder that both the Repub and cons. establishments do not support him.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 3:54PM

Cain was brought down by ROMNEY'S people.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 4:35PM

cain was brought down by his inability to deal with the endless parade of accusers.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:48PM

And you know this how?

I think that last woman did Cain in. He ran home to try and comfort his wife. He's a Horn Dog, like Newt. Ugh.

sirbourbon| 2.2.12 @ 11:40PM

and your news analysis come from?..... the same news pundits that have lied to us over and over at ever presidential election cycle?

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:46PM

Newt Gingrich can be seen on YouTube declaring himself to be a "Wilsonian Progressive" and another time a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican" and also a "Rockefeller Republican." Typical Newt.

He also said, on Video, that our Constitution is "obsolete" and he disses Ronald Reagan's foreign policy.

Newt tries to be all things to all people and this is why I don't trust him as far as I can throw his big fat butt.

I think Mitt is a Recovered Democrat, like me.
I don't have a problem with that because there are MILLIONS of us who dumped the DNC when they became Progressives and Socialists and Commie Nutballs.

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:57PM

Want to find that quote where Newt disavows Reagan's foreign policy. I've got one from Nancy Reagan about Newt that's even better - the one where she proclaims him to be the "go to" guy!!

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:51PM

I think I can find one where Newt skewers the Democrats over Cap & Tax, too. Seemed they made a mistake and thought he wouldn't actually read what they wanted him to support.

nathan| 2.2.12 @ 9:28AM

Briefly Jim Wright lost purely and only because he backed gun control coming from a state like Texas where you NEVER back gun control. Newt had nothing to do with it.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 10:00AM

nathan,

I'm sure you can pick up ten thousand copies of "Reflections of a Public Man" cheaply.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:01AM

Thank You.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:28AM

And, the nicest part about this "Book", is that most of the pages, only have one or two words on them.

Perfect for an Intellect like nathan.

Did I say "Intellect"?

I meant: IDIOT.

W | 2.2.12 @ 11:14AM

This book was sold mostly to labor unions and lobbyists. I have never seen the book even at used book sales. I bet the books are still in boxes assuming they were ever delivered to the buyers.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:40PM

Nathan: it was more than that. Texas was a little tired of Liberal cretins by that time, and Jim was known to be corrupt. I went to TCU, in his district, from 1980-1984.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 9:50AM

TLP,

Pollock or pillock?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:09AM

Not the Fish.

The Fat Crook with the "ski" at the end of his name, from Illinois. He wasn't just Kiting Checks. He was SELLING Postage Stamps that he was getting FREE (by way of our Tax Money) from the House Post Office.

Can you imagine the NUTS on this guy. He was so CROOKED, that he'd take the Gold Caps off his Mother's teeth, before the Coroner could get to the house. That was the DEMOCRATS, in those days. And, they're the same today, if you look at the Senate, in particular. No Budget in 1000 DAYS, in violation of the Constitution. Tabling EVERYTHING that comes out of the House.

But, don't tell Joseph.

You'll just make him cry.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 10:31AM

Timothy L. Pennell,

There is something in the water in Illinois.

Leave it to Clinton to pardon "ski" in 2000.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:34AM

I know they used to put Boxes of Voter Ballots that they didn't want counted, in the River.

Does that count?

cuban pete| 2.2.12 @ 12:08PM

TLP,
Once upon a time in the 80's following a budget meeting, Rostenkowski emerged and said that "Social Security was now guaranteed safe in perpetuity,etc, etc,...."
The next day I began funding my IRA. When a Democrat says your money is safe believe the opposite.
I was born in Chicago and except for college and a few years after I have lived in Cook County my whole life.
As always thanks for your insight.

cuban pete| 2.2.12 @ 12:08PM

Jean Tant| 2.2.12 @ 2:33PM

Daniel Rostenkowski was sent to jail by a Reagan appointee named Eric Holder.

Jean Tant| 2.2.12 @ 2:33PM

Daniel Rostenkowski was sent to jail by a Reagan appointee named Eric Holder.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 3:39PM

Jean Tant,

Reagan appointed him to the bench from which he stepped down. It was Clinton who appointed him to the U.S. Attorneys office. He oversaw the conclusion of the Rostenkowski prosecution. He most certainly was not involved in its investigation.

Perhaps he should be remembered more for his involvement with the Marc Rich pardon for whom his advice was sought as how best to proceed.

Smart guy - atrocious politics.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:42PM

Daniel Rostenkowski.

Wally| 2.2.12 @ 10:26AM

Pollock is a fish. And while most IL congressmen may smell like one...

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 10:32AM

Pollock. Pollack. Polock.

Whatever.

He's one of those, and maybe, all of them.

He sucks. Okay?

loulou| 2.2.12 @ 10:43AM

Tyrrell is pulling an Ann Coulter on us.
I USED to subscribe to TAS.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 11:42AM

He's pulling something. And I think he's looking at a picture of Romney, as he's pulling it.

PaulyD| 2.2.12 @ 6:45AM

None of the Republican candidates are any good.

So we're left with only two poor choices: Relect Obama and stay in the fast lane to Hell, or elect Romney and move over into the slow lane to Hell.

I want someone who will take the exit ramp. Unfortunately America doesn't seem to have any leaders capable of doing that.

chuck| 2.2.12 @ 6:54AM

Yep, Romney doesn't want to end the huge government, he wants to be in charge of it. Just like the rest of the moderate, establishment GOP. It's all about power, and the country continues to go to hell. Just a little slower than under Obama. Hell, I might just throw a vote at Dr. Paul, just to register my disgust.

SUBVET| 2.2.12 @ 10:16AM

GEORGE SOROS-------"We think either Obama or Romney's fine but Gingrich, he would change things".

VonMisesJr| 2.2.12 @ 3:25PM

That's why the GOP liberal establishment fears and attacks him! They win in the new serfdom, and it is easier to go along than fight Soros and the communist for OUR liberty and Constitution.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:10PM

What was your first clue...

Pierre Montagne| 2.2.12 @ 2:01PM

It will be a brokered convention

PCC| 2.2.12 @ 6:48AM

Mr. Tyrell writes: "...no evidence of Goldman Sachs' or of Soros's aiding Romney."

Why does Mr. Soros rate an extra "s" at the end and Goldman Sachs does not?

More evidence of Mr. Tyrrell's bias against Goldman Sachs, methinks.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:47PM

Or a lack of an adequate proofreader. Or Bob mixing Laphroig with typing.

calvin | 2.2.12 @ 5:06PM

How did the Greatest Generation win the war, survive the Depression, and go on to produce a generation of SDSers, Weathermen, and other slackers?
I heard PJ O"Rourke the other day say it may be the result of the West having survived WWI, the WWII with its surreal inhumanity, and gave up on God. So with no moral compass, we just drifted away. I think this is about the most generous and sympathetic explanation I have heard. And the most appealing.

Seek| 2.3.12 @ 5:15PM

Actually, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. were a tiny part of that generation. If they still exist at all, it's on paper. As for P.J. O'Rourke, like another mea culpa baby boomer, Dennis Prager, he's now just an unattractive, overrated geek. Why he even bothers calling himself a libertarian anymore is beyond me.

Mimi| 2.2.12 @ 6:52AM

I wonder what percentage of your Readers, posters, suscribers and contributers are supporters of Newt 's . This is a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY it is still going on.....Why insult to this degree ?
Newt said: " I will be PRESIDENT of All the People" enough with class warfare. Romney clearly was taken out of contect what he had said about " Not interested in helping the poor" an example of how Mitt smeared Newt in the media.
Newt has NOT exited the race...he's still running.
In his present day maturity, admitting past mistakes, living a prayerful life I see no risk of SCANDAL and most of us don't think like that.
This ARTICLE was a brutal one....one meant to destroy....shouldn't it have been more WISE to wait until he actually left the race?

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:26AM

so...let me get this straight: when the guided by his genitals Newt claims transformation you buy into it; when Romney claims claims transformation to a more conservative outlook......that's unmitigated hogwash.

got it. JANUS politics!

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 9:31AM

RET, no one is claiming that Newt is perfect. I've pointed out here a number of times that Newt is 90 percent conservative and 10 percent Progressive, and that we'd have to criticize him 10 percent of the time when he strays off the conservative reservation.

And yes he has baggage.

At least he has SOMEthing. Can the same be said about Romney? A classic example of an empty suit and and equally empty head. And you want to get behind such an uncertain trumpet?

And, BTW, your argument really boils down to the old "electability" argument. I believe you are sadly mistaken in thinking Romney is more electable than the other candidates. Every day he shows just the opposite.

loulou| 2.2.12 @ 10:46AM

"At least he has SOMEthing"--great point.

Mitt is a moderate to liberal RINO who wants to maintain the status quo. He's a Bush, a bobdole, a McCain, a McConnell, a Boehner, etc. Statists all.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:19PM

Loulou: let's say he's a Bush, for the sake of argument, OK? W Bush's two Supreme Court justices: Alito and Roberts, both excellent justices. HW Bush's nomination was the superb Thomas. RWR was the guy who put the whiffler Kennedy on the court, although he also put the Italian Stallion there as well---Scalia.

Obaminations' were: Sotomayor and Kagan. Blech. What would he do in 4 more years?

Current breakdown of justices: 4 Conservative, 4 Liberal, 1 swing leaning Conservative (Kennedy)

Next term: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest justice, is going to retire---poor health. She's 78. She's a scumbag Liberal former head of the ACLU. The great Scalia is 75. The medicore Kennedy is 75. The putrid Libtard Breyer is 73.

Kagan is 51 or 52, I believe,. Quite young, as is the 57 year old Conservative Stalwart Roberts, and the 58 year old Liberalscum Sotomayor. Alito is 61, the awesome Thomas is 63.

Romney gets in, the scum Ginsberg (no, not all Jews stick together---she's no cousin of mine) gets replaced by no worse than a Kennedy. Vote goes to 6-3 Conservative most of the time. Breyer retires to his estate in England, and it goes 7-2. Or Obama gets re-elected, Breyer retires, Ginsberg retires, to be replaced by 50 ish year olds, and the 4 Liberals on the court are ALL under 60. Then the Conservatives and near Conservatives (remember, Kennedy gets replaced under Obama it's ANOTHER 50ish Liberal, and the court LOCKS 5-4 Liberal) have to fight for their lives. Keep in mind both Kennedy and Scalia are SEVENTY-FIVE, and Scalia is overweight. Further, Clarence Thomas is 63, and male blacks tend to be subject to hypertension and diabetes.

I do not want a Libtard dominated court for the next 20 years. I also believe that Romney will run a more intelligent foreign policy than Bama and will cut deficit spending---if not the deficit itself, at least the rate of increase. But in order to get Conservative cuts through, we need a Conservative SCOTUS. Nothing can really be done without it.

Jean Tant| 2.2.12 @ 4:26PM

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was never the "head of the ACLU." She was a volunteer lawyer for them. When you misstate facts and use terms like "libtard" and "scumbag" your arguments would get you kicked off a 9th grade debate team.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 4:38PM

except this isn't a debate....and he's exactly right in the idea he is pushing....which you adroitly avoided with something tantamount to "you spelled his name incorrectly"

loulou| 2.2.12 @ 7:16PM

If Bush had had his way we'd be stuck with Harriet Miers. I suppose Romney would appoint Souters and Kennedys.

rightasrain| 2.2.12 @ 11:18AM

I'd challenge your 90%/10% breakdown. Newt himself described his "gestalt" as "in many ways conservative, but in many ways very moderate." Interesting that he puts the "very" before moderate but not conservative.

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 12:11PM

It's based on the American Conservative Union's ratings. Actually, Newt has a 96 percent rating over a 9 year period.

rightasrain| 2.2.12 @ 12:32PM

What about the rest of the time?

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 1:12PM

90+ percent over a 20 year period

rightasrain| 2.2.12 @ 1:19PM

Those words came from his own lips.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:50PM

I don't think Romney is an empty head. His governorship, working a flamingly Liberal legislature, may not have been great (but the electorate in MA overwhelmingly re-elected Barney "yeah, my lover ran a prostitution ring out of my office, what of it?" Frank over and over. The citizens of the State are known to the residents of the States surrounding them as "Massholes."

I think he'll have a better time working with decent humans like Jim DeMint and the guy from SD who should have run.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:50PM

The King of the Moon won't leave the race voluntarily, or with any sense of decorum. He needs to be kicked in the butt, hard and often, until he's forced to crawl to the curb.

Kenny| 2.2.12 @ 6:56AM

Spot on analysis.

PCC| 2.2.12 @ 6:56AM

Mr. Gingrich's chances of winning the GOP nomination are Slim and None, and Slim saddled his horse after Florida.

canuckistani| 2.2.12 @ 4:56PM

I think winning was never on his mind. It would be a pay cut - and Callista's agenda would be impinged.
This is purely a vanity project to muck up the proceedings for the entrenched interests that skewered him in 1998. Period.

Tyrell and his cabal are finally coming around to the conclusion a disappointing friend is preferable to a deadly enemy like BHO or Newtie.

Carol| 2.2.12 @ 7:11AM

Hey Mr. Tyrrell:

You should get together with Ann Coulter and write a column.

Call it: Me and Ann Love Romneycare

canuckistani| 2.2.12 @ 5:00PM

Remember, any Veep nom will have to be cheerleader in chief for Willard. Palin came across as insincere when fluffing up McCain's centrist leanings, and a Rubio, Thune, Christie option will be the same disingenuous choice.

That quiet sound you hear is the polite applause Willard receives in Tampa.

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:29AM

Plastic RINO-CINO Romney Wants To Index The Minimum Wage.

"Indexing the minimum wage would be an absolute job killer," Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said. "Mitt Romney's proposal is anti-growth and would harm our economy. It's disappointing to hear that the leading candidate for the Republican nomination believes that the government can set the price of labor better than the free market."

RINO-CINO Romney Wants America To Be The Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada & Maine.

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:33AM

the TEA Party Rebellion is wishing Drronpaul would just go away and quit damaging their credibility

John Daniel| 2.2.12 @ 7:34AM

Another problem with the 60's was the ability of college types to avoid military service, with its ethos that the good of the whole trumps individual concerns. And military also inculcated a sense of humility sadly lacking in the current cast of contenders....

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:28AM

yea....must be why we have lived through so many wonderful CJCSs!

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:53AM

The Patrician Mitt Romney Is The John Kerry Of The Republican Party.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada & Maine.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:29AM

eventually...you're going to run out of places to head to.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:23PM

Well, Clint is getting quieter and quieter as his nads get kicked in harder and harder. TREASON'SFRIEND's campaign has a good shot in Maine, apparently, but I believe that Romney will gut stomp Paul there, as well. This is the Rocky versus Clubber Lang 1st fight portion of the race, and Paul is Rocky getting his ass handed to him. It is incredible fun to watch.

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:01PM

Tool Job Is The Little Short,Fat,Agin' RINO-CINO Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Neo-Chickenhawk Mouth Coward, Who Says He Will Vote For TheRINO-CINO Frontman.Mittens Romney.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada & Maine.

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 9:00PM

Physical appearance seems to be the only thing you base your life on, you vile, shallow punk.

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:35AM

Romney will stomp mudholes in the opposition in NV; as for Maine, who cares?

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:49AM

A small vote-switch in Ohio and Kerry would have won during good economic times. Electorally sspeaking, let's hope Romney is Kerry, and he should win comfortably with our current mess. The Tea Party Rebellion heads wherever it will, but haven't you noticed that it never takes your old crank along with it?

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:04PM

We Noticed That Bibi Takes You With Him, Israel Firster Cupcake, Margo Too.

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 1:08PM

Agreed. Neither one of these men are fit to be President. They don't seem to have a clear grasp on what actions hahve taken our country down this destructive road therefore, I don't believe that they can repair the damage, only further it. I want a President who is concerned about my liberties and will repeal dangerous legislation such as NDAA. I want a President who will legislate and oversee as per the Constitution. Doesn't that document even matter to anyone anymore?

Todd S| 2.2.12 @ 9:43AM

Well that is a comment you would expect from someone who calls himself PCP Smoker, classless. Straight arrow does not refer to political positions but the morality and consistency they have displayed throughout their lives. Newt has made a sport of cheating on his wives and acting with little shame throughout his life. Can you name me one conservative who worked with Newt back in the 90's that backs his nomination right now?

Siegfried X| 2.2.12 @ 8:00AM

Why does the ONE troll who posts here waste so much time doing it? The facts are that trolling useless and we:

1) Will nominate Romney
2) We will unite behind him
3) He will defeat Obama

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 9:21AM

Siegfried,

I'm with you with 2) and 3).

Al Adab| 2.2.12 @ 10:20AM

Probably right again guys. The GOP ignores the Conservative Movement; they hold their nose and vote republican (no option); the establishment moderate republican loses. Is there really any longer a point to all this?

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:53PM

If Romney is the nominee, I may vote 3rd party.

Romney and Obama are cut from the same cloth.

benny havens| 2.2.12 @ 8:07AM

Mr. Tyrrell,

I, too, am a member of the same generation. And I agree with what you said about Clinton and Gingrich. I may have to pull the lever for Romney, but I am not looking forward to it. He is a good family man and I assume that he worked hard for what he has as an individual. However, to me that is not the issue. I don’t like him because he is another liberal progressive, who believes that government is the answer to all problems. He is not now and never was a conservative. Gingrich sat on the couch with Madam Nancy but Romney had fat-ass Kennedy over his shoulder when he signed Romneycare into law. Another government program the progressives can hang their hat on.

During his campaign he really has only given us generalizations. He spoke of his 59-point plan. 59 points? What are they? Not much on taxes. Not much, if anything, on how he will reduce the size of government. What cabinet departments would he be willing to eliminate? Will he go through Congress or initiate Executive Orders? He has stated that all of Obamacare can’t be totally eliminated so he will keep the good and throw out the bad. What does that mean?

Yesterday he said that he wasn’t worried about the poor because they have a safety net. If it needs fixing, he will do that. Big government at work again? We already have 50 % of the population receiving a government check every month. How about promoting some conservative principles to encourage people to stand on their own.

I am afraid we are about to repeat 2008 all over again. Only this time we will be voting for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. If Romney does win, how will he govern? Will he reach over to the other side, like he did in Massachusetts? Reaching over to the other side and compromising is why we are $15 trillion in debt.

I may have to vote for Romney, but I don’t like it.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:39AM

you're missing the point. if Romney is the option...so be it....he is one step toward the goal. change was TRULY started in 2010 at the Federal, State and local levels. the point is to sustain the momentum. to envelope the cancer and eventually excise it. it takes time. Liberalism/Progressivism needed 80+ years to get to where it is today. this notion that that can be unrolled in the space of a few years is ludicrous in the extreme. it will take time, a plan and commitment. Like any war there will be tactical concessions/defeats....the key is to realize operational successes that push ever closer to effecting the strategic goals.

I have to confess...over these last months.....reading AMSPEC posts....I'm astonished at just how limited the strategic thinking is, how prevalent the quitter's mindset actually is, how puerile so many self-avowed "intellectuals" truly are.

if you're in a fight...you fight to win. that requires a plan, a team and flexibility to adapt while hewing to the strategy. I see nothing but insular, myopic short-term thinking by AMSPEC posters.

too bad.....conditions are ripe to achieve some short-term successes that can prove very useful in the long-term.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:43AM

in other words...spelling it out....Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum....they are just waypoints...not endpoints. they are just one among many pieces in a complex, high stakes game. the victory will go to those who have a strategy and can skillfully maneuver the pieces.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 10:26AM

carnot,

Good points, with which I largely agree. The problem is that we have become a nation of men and the laws that support them. The leviathan which has become the federal government is a result of Congress' creation of so many agencies and entitlemenents which now must be dismantled (not patched, as Romney so recently quipped).

Definitionally, if we have reached the tipping point there is nothing to do but wait for the inevitable collapse. It is the perception that there is so little time available which drives the thinking from the strategic to the tactical (which you seem to lament, here).

As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the Army you have. If Romney is that Army, so be it. But we are still recruiting.

Renaissance Nerd | 2.2.12 @ 10:30AM

So very true! This IS what is lacking in the TEA Party and the conservative movement in general--an actual plan. Ryan's plan is also a starting point, but what we really lack is an actual overview of where we want to go and how to get there. A 50-year plan, so to speak. Presidential campaigns are always so 'first 100 days.' The conservative movement has been fighting rearguard actions long enough. Liberalism and socialism are bankrupt--time to start pushing forward. We can't go back in time, after all. What we need is not nostalgia but a forward-looking worldview. No doubt there are many readers much smarter than I am: so get working on it already!

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 12:15PM

Benny Havens is correct and seems to be the only one that gets it and has not missed the point.

He intuitively knows that the real fight here is between two world views and ideologies which he astutely has recognized is playing out in the Republican party itself. So far, the PROGRESSIVE "Republicans" are winning and the conservatives are losing. Carnot, what makes you think you are going to win the fight with progressivism and liberalism if you can not win that fight within your OWN party apparatus?

Ask yourself why is it that 40 percent of the electorate is conservative and the majority of the country is center to right but 20 percent of the liberals control the media, the government, and the educational system? Name me one conservative piece of legislation or program that has been passed in the last one hundred years. None. Why is that?

The Tea Party does have a plan. Elect conservatives to political office that are committed to liberal rollback, smaller government, less spending and more efficient government. It is not a plan that we need, it is the WILL and the ability of conservatives to unite and take back their party and the political apparatus from the progressives. You lose because you are easiliy divided, distracted, played, manipulated, and devisive. That is why you will lose this Republic and the liberals will win.

You do not reward those that actually attempt and succeed at conservative initiatives but rather you stab them in the back and have no ability to defend your candidates, your philosophy, or remain loyal to them. The liberals can do this and this is why they win.

Let us be honest.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 2:39PM

simon.......2010 was a historical watershed moment. it can be done. but it takes time....leadership...and commitment.

I'm just weary of all the belly aching over how we stand at cliff's edge....but so many are willing to quit the fight. the two messages don't square. it calls into question, IMO, real motives and intentions. it ties too closely, again IMO, to personalities and not strategies. the real problem isn't that the Paulbots and Mitty kitties...within their own framework...appear to be self-destructive...the real problem is that the disparate elements who ALL claim dissatisfaction, disaffection and detachment from status quo ante.....can't find ANY common ground to fight the real threat. again....nothing is unachievable....nothing. but strategy and teaming (however temporary) are needed in service of broader objectives. these warring Republican parties are pretend playing principles IMO.....largely based on ridiculous hypotheticals ungrounded in any sense of reality of how politics as a process works and how power is exercised. there's no subtlety to the thinking...just a heavy dose of "I give up if I don't get what I want." It's defeatist horse XXXX IMO and belies the claim to principle...if you must ask. the real world doesn't work like the abstractions in the COnstitution. it's messy...compromises are made....the struggle is to work over to time to continually push in the direction one accepts as "the goals." to do that requires achieving power - and that only happens in the now through alignments, coalitions, etc., that represent often temporary associations of overlapping interests. that's what the winners do...they have their foundation principles, but they have to navigate through a messy world that isn't absolutist. and they find a way to do so.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 4:19PM

Carnot,

Conservatives, at least the ones in this century, have not learned the art of true compromise, coalition building, and the ability to see common ground and too many really do not believe the ideas that they espouse. All Liberals need is good intentions, a set of common goals, and a hatred for thier opposition. They are willing to stand their ground and fight for the extreme elements of their argument and position. They get the conservatives to compromise themselves and move in thier direction with threat, intimidation, polarization, and name calling.

Republicans apologize for their so-called pure and extreme positions and elements (the conservatives) and move continually to a center that the Left keeps redefining that center and moving slowly farther and farther to the Left.

This the game played out on a national level and as well within the Republican party itself, which is infected with the same progressive assumptions about the role of government, the nature of man, and the inquenchable drive toward power and elitism.

If you have any doubt about what I am saying then think for a moment about the fact that the basic principles, philosophy, and world view held by our founding fathers is now considered extreme, purist, and largely irrevelant today.

I am more than willing to listen, compromise, and stand together with the Ron Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich crowd and work out a reasonable common set of shared goals and objectives meeting all of them half way and incorporating their best ideas. This is what our founding fathers essentially did. sadly, we are too immature, self absorbed, and a pampered confused generation.

I wish you well and godspeed to you and all conservatives....lets us hope that we can come together before it is too late.

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 4:44PM

well...I have no response for this! other than...I wish all the same to you! it's there if folks want to take it....but they have to see beyond themselves and abstractions to the facts if their lives and how they can change them...one anti-progressive step at a time ... :-)

Todd S| 2.2.12 @ 9:57AM

If Santorum had a realistic chance, I think RET would be supporting him as much as Romney but he just does not have the support (money etc) to win. I think he is right that we cannot trust the character of Newt, he has already shown his lack of it and that is not something that is going to change.

As RET alludes to, Romney needs to work side by side with Paul Ryan and support his plan 100% and make it the number one point in the election along with getting the government out of the way of private enterprise which includes Obamacare. It would be nice if he could admit that Romneycare is flawed and a bad system whether it is on a state or federal level, that is my number one issue with him like many conservatives. I know by now it won't happen but let Massachusetts keep their crappy system and spare the rest of us from Obamacare.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:57PM

Newt's problems were of a personal nature.

The bogus baloney about him being a lobbyist is baloney, Romney is just saying anything to be President.

As a matter of fact, I don't Romney should be allowed to be President for the simple reason that he wants it so badly that he's willing to do or say about anything to get elected (that he thinks he can get away with).

It wouldn't surprise me if he was behind the hitjob on Cain. He was definately behind the phony news story that was a blatent hit job on Gingrich.

I'm sorry, but Romney seems just as bad as Obama.

Anthony| 2.2.12 @ 10:07AM

Not to worry benny, our esteemed friend Emmett has taken upon himself the role of advisor and mentor to Romney.
As such, Emmett will insure that Romney does not do a repeat of 08, with the useless John McCain as standard bearer.
No, Emmett will be riding Romney tirelessly to insure that Romney employs the same scorched earth, hard hitting tactics against Obozo that he used against Newt, unlike Marquess of Queensbury McCain.
And of course, once elected, Emmett will insure Romney's feality to conservatism.
Isn't that right Emmett??

SUBVET| 2.2.12 @ 10:24AM

What do you think Jeffery Lord says about this Emmett guy?

Anthony| 2.2.12 @ 10:49AM

Depends on how much Jeff wants to publish at TAS.

Chuck in North VA| 2.2.12 @ 8:21AM

Bob Tyrrell is right. Newt's got more baggage than an airline in high tourism season. Newt suggests that no one notice or place high value about the hypocrisy and the vice of his life style as a Washington insider. He’s changed. There won’t be a fourth wife. His libido is now under control now that he’s old and corpulent. Forget that he was able to pontificate and sound sanctimonious about Clinton and his whore mongering while he, Newt, was similarly violating his wedding vows. Like a serial hypocrite, he’s profited from big government while it was careening out of control. Now, having drunk the whiskey of Fannie Mac and making 1.5 million dollars from it, Newt would have us believe he’s the perfect man to close the distillery. Newt’s personal character is a huge problem for people who think ethics are not situational or mere partisan weapons. His leadership style is extremely toxic. Newt’s brand of conservatism is more obnoxious than it is principled and consistent. Note that hardly anyone who has ever worked with him is supporting him. In reality, he is a man of the past who should have rested on his laurels instead of trying to re-write himself as the brain behind Reagan. For anyone who has been paying attention, Newt excels at hurly invective and fails at self-control. WE need to get President Obama out of office. A President Gingrich would be a great for Newt’s ego and bad for the USA.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 11:16AM

Help me understand exactly what a Romney WOULD DO if elected and how he is principled and consistent? You seem to like "principled and consistent" so maybe you could help me understand how making false accusations, lies, and complete distortions of your opponent is "principled and consistent."

Please help me understand exactly how principled and consistent Romney will be when debating Obama about Obamacare, abortion, government spending, immigration policy and the law, and economic issues relative to job creation.

Since you are so principled and consistent, you better vote for Santorum then, as he seems to be the only one that is the closest to Sainthood. But I bet you will not. Then Ron Paul? Little too conservative in the fiscal responsibility area for you?
One more question for you about your love of "principled and consistent", does distorting, lying, exaggerating, and smearing Newt fall into that category of principled and consistent?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.2.12 @ 9:14AM

All I know is that I'm still supporting Santorum ALL THE WAY. Period. NOW is the time for us to all vote our principles & consciences. In the end, after the primary, its up to us to either not show up & most certainly ENSURE the destruction of the Republic, or show up & vote for a President who won't veto everything the Congress sends him. To NOT VOTE is TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. PERIOD.

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.”...Thomas Paine

Tom in Michigan| 2.2.12 @ 9:17AM

Bob is spot-on about the Sixties generation (of which I am, sad to say - a member). I've railed for decades against my cadre and the entirely negative effect they've had on US politics and the US, in general. I won't mince words; I detest the left mainly because I knew them in college and beyond. As a former "liberal" myself, I was exposed to their arrogance, narcissim and self-indulgence. Frankly, most of the leftoids were only in politics to get laid. Clinton, of course is the very embodiment of that low behavior. I'm only slightly less rebelled by those who chose the other party.

I like to recall that scene in "Field of Dreams" where James Earl Jones encounters Kevin Costner at his front door and yells, "You're from the Sixties!" then starts spraying him with bug-spray. If only bug spray was all it took to be rid of these insects.

Good riddance to the selfish rats.

Now, if we can just not be stupid enough to nominate HRotten Clinton for anything every again; perhaps we'll finally be shed of the entire rotten lot.

Seek| 2.2.12 @ 3:56PM

Hey, Tom: There are plenty of narcissistic religious conservatives, too -- and they're not all female!

Before further indulging your Auschwitz-style fantasy of exterminating "self-indulgent" baby boomers, do remember that some of them invented and marketed the very software that make your sick fantasies accessible to readers around the world.

Anthony| 2.2.12 @ 9:21AM

Emmett, speaking of iconic '60s messages, do you remember "How to succeed in business without really trying"?
You must have seen this movie several times, as apparently, like the MSM, you remain a success while antagonizing your readership.

Bumr50| 2.2.12 @ 9:29AM

No one is "coalescing."

No matter how many hopeful columns you folks write.

Really. These petty little dismissals are getting old.

David March| 2.2.12 @ 9:55AM

Oh come on. Newt lost cause he was outspent in the state 65 to 1.

When Mit Rommney spends more on advertising in the state, than John McCain did for his entire Nomination bid, I think that has a bit more of an effect.

But then talking about personal foibles is easier to do than talking about inconvenient facts like that.

ncatty| 2.2.12 @ 10:13AM

This article reads like it is a personal issue, more than a political one. Surprising.

sashamanda| 2.2.12 @ 5:55PM

Yep, lots of projection going on!

Ted| 2.2.12 @ 10:16AM

Santorum: conservative, unlike Romney, and without the baggage of Newt.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:15PM

Santorum also doesn't have the charisma necessary to rally people people like Gingrich does.

JimH| 2.2.12 @ 10:29AM

If not for the 19th amendment Newt would win the election in a walk.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:53AM

That's why, between Super Tuesady and the convention, he's changing himself into a girl.

Teaghan| 2.2.12 @ 10:33AM

The goal is to get rid of obama. I will get behind whoever is our nominee. Not that anyone cares, I find Newt and his wife to be smary and unattractive people. And I mean that in their behavior. I don't trust him.
And as far as Mitt being a progressive, really? Maybe in the earlier parts of his life he was more left but can't people change for the better? Good Lord folks. Let's unite here.
Anyone see the One/Won at the National Prayer breakfast this morning? He did his "religious campaign speech" in his usual preach-y manner, telling us we need to "respect one another". ???
But when he started in about his trip to see the Rev. Billy Graham and how nice he was, I had to kill the tv. Like the Rev. Graham would be anything BUT nice. The gaul of him sullying the ground where that wonderful man lives. Sickening.
Sorry to get off track.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:16PM

We shouldn't be trying to replace Obama with another Obama.

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook PhD. | 2.2.12 @ 10:37AM

It is refreshing to see that you are now adopting the policies of propagandizing used by the same people you rail against. Your duplicity in your selective points of argument and your laser like focus on only 1 GOP candidate for rebuke while elevating the other is shameful. You call yourself conservative but your talking points are GOP party line and that is the real problem with this country and the current 2 party system. Conservative until now has never been a party but a core fundamental of ideals that both parties left behind a long time ago, to become part of the new ruling class that this country once rebelled against. 40% of the population in this country does not identify themselves as GOP or DEM but CONSERVATIVE and more than that are sick and tired of the elected representation of this Republic becoming the problem when elected to be the solution. If someone remains honor bound to their Conservative core beliefs and fights the machine that is Washington they are vilified by not just their party opposites but in most cases by their own party as well, you tend to eat you own!
If an elected representative does not commit to party then they will be ousted by any and all means necessary especially if they hold true to Conservative values. I used to respect this site and your work before I awakened to your real agenda and that is the same as the 2 party system.
REMAIN IN POWER AT ALL COSTS TO FINANCIALLY PROFIT FROM YOUR POWER.

Paul from SA| 2.2.12 @ 11:24AM

Nice post. Though, I'm not impressed with the title. Dr. and PhD. detract from your credibility. Remove them and people will take you more seriously.

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook PhD.| 2.2.12 @ 1:25PM

Your's nor anyone else's impression of my using my educational titles is a non sequitir.
My credibility is in my heart and the manner in which I express it.

calvin | 2.2.12 @ 5:15PM

Is this not a little duplicative, and say, boring?
"help! Help! The PhD. doctor is drowning!"

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook PhD.| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

By the way I do not hide with pseudonyms that are untraceable!

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:33PM

I do. This is my recreation. But you should use Dr. or PhD, Keith. The use of both is redundant. I don't normally title my letters to patients Dr. Occam Tool, MD. Usually, Occam Tool, MD is sufficient. On the second line would come, Diplomate, American Board of psychiatry and Neurology. See?

Nice note. Ron Paul is a turd of major proportions, but I believe that you are talking of the other three. I do think the other three should demonstrate who should win by showing how they would attack Obama, not each other. I am tired of the fratricide with a monster in office.

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 1:03PM

Thank you for posting this. It is something that I have been repeating for that past few years and I am grateful to see that some are opening their eyes to this fact. Thanks again.

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook PhD.| 2.2.12 @ 1:31PM

Thank You

sashamanda| 2.2.12 @ 5:48PM

Nicely said! I let my republican membership expire last week for those very reasons.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 7:59PM

sashamanda,

I beat you by twenty years :)

It was the Bush-1 tax hike.

TURK| 2.2.12 @ 10:55AM

Santorum conservative? What about his hand holding with Rove and Country Club Bush(COMPASSIONATE conservative by way of his kindler gentler daddy) in defeating a conservative who took on soon to be democrat Arlen Specter. Santorum is THAT conservative!!!!!!!!

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 10:58AM

Here you go again, Tyrrell.

Such sanctimonious hypocritical bullshit.
Just what does Romney, your RINO boy, represent? What legacy and failure does he represent since the Sixties turned the second page of progessivism and the second mortal wound to constitutional Republicanism?

Mr. Westbrook sums it up quite well.
Tyrrell, what exactly do you stand for and what do you actually believe in? Just what is conservativism to you. Seriously.

Let's put aside your lame, contradictory arguments, hypocricy, and distortions for a moment and the idea you seem to shove forward every election about electability and get down to what you actually believe.

Just what do you expect will happen if Romney is elected? What EXACTLY do you want to happen? You are the bigshot talking head here and I really just once would like an answer. I will even promise not to respond or criticize but just listen and read. So, show your some vestige of a real man and not just a putz and write an article convincing me to vote for the "conservative" Romney, what exactly you think will be done if he is elected, and what you want done according to your "conservative" values.

Can you do that? Can you do it honestly? Can you do it with some intellectual honesty and sincerity?

Cpm| 2.2.12 @ 4:13PM

You clearly lack critical thinking skills. Slow down, go back and read it again slowly and try to divine what RET is trying to say. It makse perfect sense.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 4:25PM

You clearly lack a coherent and convincing counter argument and the ability to make one. Three sentences accusing me of being stupid and unable to read does not make an argument and does not come close to making any sense.

Sure you are not a liberal troll? You sound like one.

David| 2.2.12 @ 11:15AM

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him.

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.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 1:23PM

All the above can be said of Ron Paul too. Maybe Santorum and Paul should work together against Romney and Gingrich, and expose them for the flip-floppers they are.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:35PM

Yes, Ron Paul has many interesting domestic policy positions. But his FP positions are idiotic, a point that will come home to idiots like Clint and Jack only when their beloved Vatican is a smoking radioactive ruin.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.2.12 @ 6:45PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy is bad? Why because it's not rubberstamped by Netanyahu? Tell me how its good foreign policy to support Sunni Wahhabists against Assad or Iran? You do understand these are the same people who attacked us on 9/11 don't you. Most of them were Saudis.

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:10PM

You Wouldn't Know Real Conservtism If It Jumped Up And Bit Ya RINO-CINO Israel Firster Bibi Boy,Tool Job.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada & Maine.

Purp| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

Nobody likes Santorum ... he's dry, boring and not a good presence. Nothing else matters in the TV race - except gobs of money, which he doesn't have.

calvin | 2.2.12 @ 5:16PM

Often times, virtue can be boring.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 11:04PM

Santorum carried Bush's water as part of the Senate leadership, and opposed much of what he says he opposed because he was no longer in the Senate, having been most unceremoniously kicked out in a record-breaking landslide. And he supported the individual mandate at one point (it once was a conservative article of faith, personal responsibility, yada, yada). It's easy to adopt the political position in opposition when you have no governing responsibility.

Paul from SA| 2.2.12 @ 11:20AM

I disagree with the author.

The Republican media (Tyrrell included) are trying too hard to eliminate Romney's conservative competition. They're trying to bully me, shame me, guilt me and insult me into supporting Romney.

They don't understand. I've already rejected Romney. It's final.

Romney and his allies in the media are fighting the wrong target -- they are against the Tea Party.

Trashing Newt Gingrich doesn't change my rejection of Romney. It's final. If it's Romney, I'm voting third party or not at all.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:17PM

I wouldn't go quite that far, as to not vote. But I probably am voting third party.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 11:34AM

For those in this thread who are now supporting Santorum, bear this in mind. Now that you have been successfully and once again played by the establishment GOP and the media, and have abandoned all the conservatives that WERE running, maybe this time around you might try something different.

When he becomes a front runner, maybe you could actually defend him, not swallow the lies and bullshit that will inevitably come out against him, and actually stay loyal, like the Paulbots, to their credit.

Here is a novel idea. Maybe we could not be swayed or impressed by how much money the guy has raised, what the media says about him, or the latest polls. Maybe we could actually question those negative ads as to just how much truth is in them, not parrot what we hear from the liberals, and actually put the candidates strength and weaknesses in accurate and proper context according to facts.

Nah, just keep doing what we are doing now. It will not matter in 4 more years as you will be all
anachronisms.

What is an anachronism?
Something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time, like conservativism and constitutional Republicanism.
Long live the state and socialistic progressivism!

Bill| 2.2.12 @ 11:36AM

Gingrich is an old school politico. He beat Romney in SC, a crucial state GOP must win in 2012. Romney won in FL with his "$17 million ads bomdberment" and the "Mormon Brigrade", otherwise Gingrich would have come out winning FL, another southern state with a deep root of Christian conservative and the Tea Part movement. Gingrich's problems:
1. Money
2. Ground work (failed to coordinate FL's early voters)
3. Poor debate performance
4. Mis-communication with the women voters

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:00PM

Newt scares the establishment, I think that's a good reason to vote for him.

Romney had to have 65 ads for every ad Newt had, in order to win in Florida.

Excuse me, but that goes to show us that Romney is unelectable, and shouldn't even be in the Republican party at all after resorting to chicago-democrat tactics, let alone be our nominee.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 11:45AM

Romney's campaign commercials, if a truth meter were applied, would come out more like this...

Hi, my name is Mitt Romney, and I want to be your next President. I am a east coast progressive Republican hand picked by the GOP establishment to lead this great nation into the twenty first century because they firmly believe that a real conservative would jeopardize their congressional elections and control of the Washington DC money purses.

I have a long record of liberal stances and helped author my states health care program that is now going bankrupt and is a disaster. So, do not ask me any questions about that subject as I have no intention of rescinding Obamacare if elected. I know I have said a lot about Obama and how incompetent he is but the truth is I really do not see what the big deal is about this guy. I will not call him a socialist as I really do not see him that way at all. Sure, elect me and I will continue with the same big government that you have grown accustom to but without all the class warfare rhetoric.

Yes, I know my proposals to fix this mess are long winded, complex, and so numerous that they are essentially useless but they were never intended to be actually enacted. It really is not about change it is about adapting..yes, the system has a few kinks but it really is a good one. What really matters the most is what The GOP establishment so loves to focus on...unbridled government spending, international global commerce, and corporate campaign funding. I really do not give a damn what happens domestically as the future is well beyond this country as well as the money to be made.

It's a brave new world, my fellow Americans, and there is no room for these social conservatives and there rantings about the culture, abortion, family values....so you will be pleased to know I will just play lip service to it..do not get your nickers in a twist.

For those concerned about the possibility of real change, do not be ridiculous, everything will be essentially the same if I am elected with perhaps a few changes and some new government programs that I hope to enact to stimulate the economy. Well, at least look like I am stimulating it and doing something new and fresh.....

So, it is inevitable, accept it as you have always done and get in line at those voting booths as I am going to be the nominee come hell or high water whether you want it or not, or how many articles Tyrrell, Ross, and the boys at the Spectator write or do not write tearing my opponents down and shoring me up and keeping me floating.

Romney 2012! Paid for by the Elect Romney Campaign. This message approved by Mitt Romney.

P.S. I may have cheated on my so-called conservative principles but hell, I did not do it with my wife!

JimH| 2.2.12 @ 11:45AM

Tyrrell has rushed to the defense of various convicted felons and others such as French lothario Strauss-Kahn in the past that I wonder what it is that Newt can have done to him that Newt is so eagerly tossed beneath the public conveyance.

Cpm| 2.2.12 @ 4:18PM

It turned out that Strauss-Kahn's "maid" wasn't what she said she was. RET carried water for Gingrich during the Clinton years and his myriad ethics problems only to find out Newt was exactly what his legions of critics said he was.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.2.12 @ 12:07PM

Balderdash Mr. Tyrell!!!! More of the same "let's all bash Newtie " dreck!!

Let he without sin toss the first rock!!!

Thanks again TLP for your astute reasoning and your solid facts. I get very frustrated with the way all the problems in Newt's background are continually being recycled - ad nauseum- and often with some perceived "new and juicy" details.

He has been far more open and honest with America than Mitt, who has to "think" about rather or not he is willing to allow "we the people" to learn about HIS dark side.

Having Romney in the White House will be a very small improvement at best. Personally, I want the best.

We've had the worst for too long as it is........

MarkR| 2.2.12 @ 12:58PM

Exactly true. Mr Tyrell is playing amateur psychologist with us and is obsessed with Clinton as he was in 90's. Hey Clinton was awful in many respects and Newt has more than a few faults on the personal level. But Mr. Tyrell seems to think that a moral man with non conservative bonafides is the answer. I think Mr. Tyrells personal animus for the Clinton years clouds his judgment. When all attacks are personal its apparent that its more about yesterday than today. Gingrich did a lot of good and some bad. Those who focus only on the bad, and ignore Romney's weaknesses and are hyper vigilent on personal morality cut off their own noses despite their face. I very well remember Jimmah in 1976 with his born again mantra which conservatives of many stripes bought hook line and sinker while the divorced RR was anathema. Be careful what you wish for as you just might get it!

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 12:10PM

Wait.

"President Obama offers us what Romney calls Crony Capitalism. Romney is right and Crony Capitalism means more Solyndras."

Do these people even think before the write? Solyndras v. Wall St and Solyndra is the problem? REALLY??

ronlsb| 2.2.12 @ 12:25PM

Surely you've figured out by now that your man Romney is simply in this to manage the decline of the US. He has absolutely NO intention of tackling the big items that are bankrupting this nation. And clearly, his comments about the poor and minimum wage issues leave no doubt he does not have a conservative world view. Why in the world would you be ballyhooing this guy for president?

ronlsb | 2.2.12 @ 12:27PM

ronlsb | 2.2.12 @ 12:28PM

gc| 2.2.12 @ 12:38PM

i need no information about who and what newt and his trollop "wife" are. what burns my petunias is the idiot newtbots that supported this slime ball. what where they thinking? the guy is the lowest of low life. clearly manic depressive. unfit for any elective office, let alone president. president!! OMG. why in the world any conservative vote for this trash is beyond me.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:22PM

I'm supporting Newt because he's the person that is causing the establishment to have panic attacks. He has the record of actually getting spending in Washington under control.

People need to get it through their heads that we're not nominating Husband of the Year. We are trying to get the best individual to actually reverse course from the Left's insane policies. I believe Newt Gingrich is that individual.

Also if people are saying that Newt is a loose cannon, can they explain why Mitt Romney isn't sporting a broken nose and two black eyes?

thoughtcriminal2| 2.2.12 @ 12:45PM

Does Mr. Tyrrell think conservatives are going to support his website when he falls in line with the RINO establishment and basically endorses an admitted "progressive" for GOP nominee? Facing a Wall-Streeter and the RomneyCare candidate, Obama is going to have such an easy takedown in the fall -- it's not going to be funny.

Whatever baggage and mental wanderings Newt may have, he has done the heavy lifting for the conservative cause and got the job done only surpassed by Reagan: Contract with America, taking control of the House and getting only conservative legislation passed.

And Tyrrell wants to trash him with a bunch of minutia and innuendo? How realities are being clarified for non-sellout conservatives!!!

MarkR| 2.2.12 @ 12:49PM

Mr Tyrell I think you need to stop smoking whatever your smoking. Mitt I wont repeat the Reagan years(1994) Romney and Mitt I am a progressive Romney (2002)and Mitt Class warfare king (Soledad Obrien 2012-unable to defend free market capitalism) is not a viable candidate. Newt is your obsession. Hey, you an Ann an item? Just a thought.

Susan| 2.2.12 @ 1:16PM

Very well expressed :)

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.2.12 @ 12:52PM

I'm not a big fan of Newt. In fact I'm a Ron Paul supporter however I think Newt is probably not that far from the truth. I wouldn't doubt that George Soros would be pleased with Romney, neither would I doubt that Romney is a Goldman Sach's man. Newt must have hit a nerve and that's why your saying he should exit stage left.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 1:11PM

Dimitry, excellent points and very honest and accurate comment.

It is time we stop fighting each other and start fighting the RINO's. Would it be something if Newt and Paul united combined ideas and plans, compromised on our differences(met each other half way) and ran against Romney. Why do we have to settle for just one. Gingrich President, Paul as Treasure Secretary, Santorum as VP. I would take them in any order.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:38PM

Simon---check other comments by Dimitry---he is a Paulbot on FP.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.2.12 @ 4:43PM

I like Ron Paul but I'm not a Paulbot. I actually disagree with him on many domestic issues. I am a trade unionist and am pro-labor. I am also not a complete laissez faire capitalist. I believe in using tariffs and in protecting American industry and thus American jobs. I do agree with Paul on foreign policy and I agree with about opposing NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and our membership in the WTO. I also agree with him on having a sound monetary policy backed by metals. I am more a Pat Buchanan supporter, but I support Ron Paul because he's an honest candidate and the only one who will bring real, needed change to this country when we need it most. If we cannot bring real change to Washington DC then I believe we are doomed to follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union which of course broke up in 1991. Also Occam you must still be pissed off that I called it how it is right? You know how I said that the Jews should fight their own wars instead of Americans fighting for them. I was right huh?! I hit a nerve because I am exactly right. Israel expects us to do all of their dirty work. There's nothing anti-semitic about telling the truth is there you putz?

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 12:53PM

Sorry. I have a question.

Did you ever hear of a company called Haliburton? Seems that this company which had a US Vice President as a former president of the company oddly got a whole buncha no-bid contracts for a recent war we had. Haliburton even got paid even though they couldn't provide proper documentation and performed substandard work that literally killed soldiers through electrocution.

The question is: How do you define "crony capitalism?

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 1:41PM

No takers? Not terribly surprising. I'll answer for you.

Sonlyndra didn't pay off enough Republicans and, as such, gets defined as "crony capitalism." Haliburton paid ONLY Republicans and therefore is NOT "crony capitalism." It's just friends helping out friends.

George S| 2.2.12 @ 3:28PM

What the hell... I'll bite.

I'll let you define crony capitalism but before you do, ask yourself what does Haliburton actually do? Are their services in demand? Then, ask yourself is this product or service offered by competitors.

Now apply the same standard to Solyndra, et al. What do (did) they do? Other than going bankrupt. Was their a demand for their product or services? The answer is in the fact they are bankrupt. Are there competitors to Solyndra?

Which of the two actually made more money (that is money deposited in the bank divided by the cost of doing business).

There's your answer of crony capitalism. It's really not that complicated.

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 6:56PM

Oh. I get it. Thanks.

The difference is that if you bilk the taxpayers and make a lot of money doing it, that's not crony capitalism. That's exactly what I said.

You're saying that it's ok to use political connections as long as you don't go bankrupt. Corruption used to be corruption. With the advent of K Street, that all changed. Enjoy your money.

John Navratil| 2.2.12 @ 3:56PM

Paul Day,

Those "no bid" contracts were actually bid. Halliburton, along with the other big engineering firms, bid rates for unspecified projects. When they were needed to build camps in Iraq, for example, there would be no time for a lingering bid process. Thus the bidding was done, in advance, for work which could not be specified.

Gene Smith| 2.2.12 @ 12:54PM

Why do you join the "news" media in hounding Newt, while praising Romney----Newt's term for Romney's dirty campaign was "carpet bombing" with many lies and distortion-----fact is, we may never again see a good man run for the Pres. It's for unscrupulous millionaires now. Sad!!!

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 11:22PM

That unscrupulous millionaire Gingrich was justly "carpet bombed" into well-deserved oblivion by one good man remaining in politics, Governor Romney. With the moon king vanquished, let's see what he can do with that unscrupulous millionaire at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:04PM

Sorry but Gingrich made his money by writing books that people paid for because they wanted to read them.

The lobbyist garbage is a bald faced lie, and Romney knows it is a bald-faced lie.

Romney will do or say anything to get elected, then proceed to turn his back on us the instant he gets elected.

Ell Jay| 2.2.12 @ 12:56PM

If Romney is the best the GOP can do, I will sit this election out! Romney is Obama Lite.

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 12:57PM

I can't stand either one of these guys however, I would much rather see Romney sitting in the White House rather than Newt. Newt reminds me of a live grenade, ready to go off at any second. I do not trust him for a second and I definitely do not like his personality.

As of right now, I am not voting for either one of these guys in the primary so, I don't really have a dog in this fight yet. However, I hope that Newt isn't the nominee. It doesn't make me feel any more positive about him now that Trump has endorsed him either.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 1:24PM

Rikki. Female? Thinking with your emotions?Another man hater? We do not elect personalities.
But you can trust Romney?

Come back when you have a COHERENT ARGUMENT.

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 1:43PM

"Come back when you have a COHERENT ARGUMENT"

Well put. What's yours? That she's a woman?

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 4:41PM

Well, I guess I was wrong to assume that you would get the sarcasm and the meaning behind it.

It is quite simple really. I will try again.

We do not pick presidents in a republic on the basis of personality, it is a shallow, subjective, and rather non-conservative way of thinking. We also attempt at least to be consistent and principled in our arguments and criticism whereby we apply the same standards to everyone. So when we get our little knickers in a twist because someone had an affair and a divorce and jump to the conclusion that they are not trustworthy we also apply that same thinking to the other guy regarding his 25 years of flip flopping and holding contrary liberal positions. Consistency is good and logical and more intellectually honest. We also attempt to avoid extrapolating meaning from a persons personal life, give them the doubt that they have repented, and take in account what they have ACTUALLY done for conservativism before we write them off. There, that better?

Does that satisfy your smarmy response?

Margtc| 2.2.12 @ 12:58PM

What on earth is Romney going to run on? None of you establishment types ever answer that. "Business experience"? Saving the Olympics is a big snore from where I'm sitting, and companies like Bain are why I've been laid off 8 times. What else ya got? A liberal MA agenda? No thanks.

BMS| 2.2.12 @ 1:29PM

Exactly.... but you don't have anyone else either!! These guys make McCain look positively presidential. Ronald Reagan was the last Republican candidate that I remember being anything other than a rabid anti-personnel jokester. And even he dismantled our educational system (when gov. of California), among other travesties. Ron Paul gets close- he's intelligent and stands true for what he believes. Unfortunately he has the illusion that an economy without any rules can work. (Even MMA matches have rules, but we should deregulate everything and hope that big oil, big pharma, and corporations like Bain, etc, will just do the right thing anyway?)

How's that been going?

kf451| 2.2.12 @ 12:59PM

This article is a huge disappointment. I'm not satisfied with the present field, but Newt is the best bet if we want change. It's enacted change before and I believe he will again. Sorry, I am not going to stop resisting the Romney-Republican establishment borg. I won't vote for Romney and if that means 4 more years of Obama, well at least it won't be 8 more years of Obama Lite.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:04PM

I agree.

kf451| 2.2.12 @ 1:01PM

Rikki,

The news is saying that Trump is going to endorse Romney after all, who has actively sought his endorsement for quite some time.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 1:19PM

So what! Is this a surprise. Trump thinks the mayor of New York is just great. When will you people look past the lip service to conservativism that these politicians and elites pay and see through the facades?

Resist We Much! | 2.2.12 @ 1:08PM

Pinning the CINO Tail on the Newt

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....-newt.html

RPW| 2.2.12 @ 1:13PM

Oh common Emmit, Mitt hurled wild infantile accusation at Newt also and spent 4 times what Newt spent doing it, Newt was fighting back. I admit he would have been better off had he just ignored Mitts big money baiting tactics. Did you listen to Newt's speech in FL after his 2nd place results? Not a negative word and not a mention of Mitt. Instead Newt presented by far the most positive forward looking and well articulated speech of the four contenders. Newt should press on, maybe int he coming months we will see who grows up to become the adult so that we can have an adult go up against the real infant, Obama.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 5:10PM

I think you and I are the only one's that noticed this..excellent points and observations.

Fight4Freedom| 2.3.12 @ 1:03PM

No, you're not the only one. It saddens me how many people will buy into the garbage presented instead of taking the time to research the facts. I'm fast becoming one of those people who would find it impossible to vote for Romney. Santorum, while my second choice, is becoming a non-choice the more I learn about him. Many people are buying into his being the "grown up" because he's stayed above the fray. Didn't anyway see the debate before last when he was acting like a petulant child? Let the Romney Machine guns get turned on him and see what happens. With Newt you have to research his record and listen to what he is really saying. Newt takes the time to consider ALL aspects of a problem, then comes up with ideas and solutions - POSITIVE, CONSERVATIVE solutions. I can tell most the Newt haters either have a vendetta (as in the author of this trash piece) or are just buying the caricature the Establishment wants you to believe. (Regurgitated talking points or name calling) To me, Newt is the ONLY candiate who will make truly positive change and not give a rats behind about the Democrats or the GOP establishment. People need to stop hating Newt until they've done their homework and really know what they are talking about. Then if you want to put your sanctimony above the future of this country, then that is your perogative, but at least know what the hell you are talking about and stop being led by the nose.

Susan| 2.2.12 @ 1:13PM

Well, that pretty much made up my mind to unsubscribe from a republican establishment media source. Yes, The American Spectator is OFF MY LIST!! Knowing you endorse someone who created obamacare, supports minimum wage automatic increases, and waffles on everything, not to mention his cheesy looks, is disappointing and frustrating.

MarkR| 2.2.12 @ 3:24PM

Susan dont go! Jeffrey Lord and others ARE on AS and fully see the lunacy of the attacks on Gingrich while leaving Romney alone. I know Mr. Tyrell is the main guy but at least there is resistance.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 1:14PM

Mr Terrell forgot to mention that Ron Paul is, as Terrell describes Romney and Santorum, a straight arrow and duty-bound. Yet Terrell dismisses Paul, a consistent small government constitutionalist, when Romney and Gingrich flip-flop and downplay their support for the individual health care mandate and global warming profiteers. We need a principled leader who is consistent and predictable, and Romeny isn't that leader. Mr Terrell, shame on you.

BMS| 2.2.12 @ 1:17PM

I love the way you guys eat your own. Obama's no saint, but your candidates.... whew! When Ron Paul the racist is your most intelligent offering, you've got some work to do. Imagine Newt, Mitt or Rick with their hands on the nuke button. Imagine any of them dealing with foreign governments. Definitely not presidential material. You can do better, can't you? Give me a choice: Right now, I have to vote for Obama unless I want an evil clown for US President...

simon templar| 2.2.12 @ 5:08PM

You already have an evil clown. Your real problem is that you do not recognize this...

I would suggest you spend as much time on learning what conservatives actually think and do, rather than just slopping up and eating without question the propaganda, stereotypes, and lies the Left and the democratic machine feeds you.

You are, at this point, just another "useful idiot" as the LEFT describes you.

BMS (aka Useful Idiot)| 2.2.12 @ 7:04PM

Ha- good. Write me off. That's helpful. That way you don't have to deal with what I said. Or think much at all.

Read some of your compatriots here- some of them are "Conservatives" and they are authentically looking to do the best that we can. We may not all agree, but there can be a conversation.

Forgive me if I got you on a bad day, but you, Mr. Templar, do not sound like a Conservative. You sound reactionary- with no way to express yourself except to insult those who challenge your views. A Conservative, to the best of my knowledge, is one who is interested in the world working, and has certain ideas about how to go about achieving that goal. Conservatives and Progressives can talk, because we both want to make things as good as they can be. Reactionary people can only hit back when they're under the delusion that they're being attacked.

Are you really going to try to convince me that Gingrich, Romney and Santorum represent your ideals? They don't. They, all three of them, are corporate bought and will say whatever they need to say to get a rise out of you and send you on your way spewing insults and platitudes, all because they made you afraid. You like that? Good. Stay afraid.

I'm not talking about Conservatives in my criticism, I'm talking about the jokers who have stepped out in front of you and pretend to represent you. They don't represent you. They represent big oil companies, Wall Street and the like. The don't want to shrink government, they want to hand it over to the corporations. How's that been going? (Think: educational declines, e-coli outbreaks, BP oil spill, outsourcing your jobs, do I need to go on?)

I almost hope one of your guys wins the election this year, just so you can see what another term or two of "Bush lite" would do to this country.

To all the Conservatives, You Can Do Better Than This. Call me a useful idiot, fine. But... at least I'm useful and not dangerous. Mitt and Newt? Not useful- and very dangerous. And especially, not your friend. (Any poor people here? Romney doesn't care about you, and thinks that you're already being well taken care of. Do you think Newt cares any more than that? Really?)

- U. I.

David| 2.2.12 @ 1:17PM

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him.

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.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 1:33PM

All the above can be said of Ron Paul too. Maybe Santorum and Paul should work together against Romney and Gingrich, and expose them for the flip-floppers they are.

BMS| 2.2.12 @ 1:41PM

True- you've gotta acknowledge Rick Santorum's integrity. I respect him for that, but as you pointed out, he is one of the few people left on earth that denies our responsibility regarding global climate change. That immediately makes him dangerous and frankly, very very shortsighted. And his stand for the archaic for-profit health care system that we see does not work is, well, I'll be gentle again.... short sighted. I should actually say, he's Regressive, on both counts. To deny your right to good health care is wrong, and to block attempts to have a healthy planet (our home, by the way) is bordering on insane.

Ya'all need to generate a grassroots campaign to write-in someone who actually represents your conservative values in a way that actually works. These guys... sorry, they're not your friends. Maybe Ron Paul is, but he's misguided too. The others... nope. Not on your side.

If you come up with somebody good, I'll for for him or her, but so far, I'm left with that good ol' lesser of two evils choice and I'll have to vote for Obama.

Frank Provasek| 2.2.12 @ 1:21PM

Lately the conservative media have been doing smears on Gingrinch and Dr. Paul that put even the liberal media to shame. We will not accept Romney, who is another big government liberal in the style of George W. Bush and John McCain. Shame on you, Mr. Tyrrell!

bloodredinabluestate| 2.2.12 @ 1:30PM

This is a hard-fought primary. People have strong opinions. Sorry if your delicate sensibilities can't take it.

VonMisesJr| 2.2.12 @ 3:37PM

Frank, after reading "Ameritopia" by Levin, I have concluded that the Democrat are Plato's Republic or More's Utopia socialist that want a Philosopher King or an Enlightened Prince. The Republican Establishment is not like Locke, Montesquieu or Tocqueville, but actually a continuation of Hobbes Leviathan. GOP are socialist in the statist fashion that want a federal bureaucracy to rule our lives with them ruling in the background.
The conflict is the people are conservative and libertarian and are seeking Locke, Montesquieu and our Founders in DC, and they are nowhere to be found in the leadership of either party.

Slacker| 2.2.12 @ 1:25PM

This piece is so dishonest I need to take a shower after reading it.

First, Romney was shielded by much of the 60’s turmoil because he was/is an elitist and an cultural oddball. His Governor daddy kept little Mittens shielded in an exclusive prep school. He managed to spend 1965 to 1975 between being a Mormon Missionary, a student at culturally disconnected BYU, and then to grad school (nice decade of Vietnam draft deferments).

So then his powerful daddy (now a Nixon cabinet member) sets Mitt up in business consulting. Mitt is the farthest thing from a self-made business man. Mitt and his politically connected dad and church are the definition of cronyism. It makes one sick to see his business skills praised.

Don't include Mitt with the likes of Bill Clinton or John Kerry. Clinton, for all his failings, was self-made man. At least Kerry went to Nam before tossing his medals.

Mitt is not above cutural rot. He is simply and an elitist and was never part of mainstream culture.

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 2:16PM

Dittos Slacker....

Rick| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

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

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 11:28PM

Thank you, Rev. Al.

shirley jean dobler| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

"straight arrows and duty-bound." Romney? haaaaaaa Was the kool aid that tasty?

A Massachusetts liberal backed and chosen by the establishment status quo will not change the direction of this country, he is just another Obama, like Soros articulated, Romney would just bring in different people...... we would still be on the same road to destruction.

"Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in," he told Chrystia Freeland of Reuters in a videotaped interview. "If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them." George Soros http://blogs.reuters.com/davos.....ma-romney/

Romney says he will unite the party. How? It is very obvious beginning in Iowa, as if his record including romneycare was not enough, that he is just another lying, deceitful liberal using alinsky tactics to further his agenda, trashing conservatives who love this country along the way.

How Mitt Romney feels about America is not discernible, however what he thinks about our founding principles is and he betrayed those principle with his legislative agenda. His lack of character and integrity are painfully obvious. Mitt is only concerned with winning and power. As my friend Jeffery pointed out “He has no ethical compass or direction other than being in power.” People like that can be used for any purpose. He is only concerned about himself and being at the ‘top of the heap’ no matter the cost. The presidency is just another feather in his cap.

As George Neumayer stated in “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win’ “A party that pursues victory by scrapping or sidelining its platform will have no truth left with which to govern once it does. If "electability" is the goal, why don't the politically correct plutocrats of the GOP just call for a one-party state? That way they could win every time.”
http://spectator.org/archives/.....M.facebook

No I will NEVER vote for Romney under ANY circumstances, enough already of being forced to choose between arsenic and strychnine. I refuse. Another sneaky, flip flopping liberal will not unite the party and keep patriotic, liberty loving conservatives in the fold. The establishment and Romney are destroying everything the republican party ever stood for, leaving a hollow shell in its place. The democrats and republicans might as well merge and call it the demopublican party or perhaps the Tory party since they are determined to destroy everything that made this nation great. 

BTW Newt may have lost to a mudslinging unprincipled Romney who out spent him 5 to one in Florida but that does not mean he is out. I look forward to a brokered convention in tampa.

Michael D| 2.2.12 @ 1:34PM

Yeah and so we should all fall in line behind the most liberal and ridiculous candidate since...well since the last ridiculous and liberal RINO candidate you guys wanted...McCain/Romney! One in the same!

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:27PM

You shouldn't say things like that.

Saying McCain and Romney are the same is like saying Rush Limbaugh (McCain) and Al Gore (Romney) are the same.

Lorenzo Horalek| 2.2.12 @ 1:34PM

Mr. Tyrrell, you have sunk to the desperate level of smearing a true conservative, a Catholic, and are trying to make us swallow a big government, liberal, business as usual, pro abortion, pro homosexual, flip flopping member of a cult. If you think Christian conservatives will vote for Romney, you are dead wrong. I don't like Obama, but when he was so blasted for being a member of a black Church of Christ, to turn around and endorse a member of a provably false cult is beyond madness.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 1:39PM

Mr Terrell forgot to mention Santorum admits smoking pot in college.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 1:44PM

And Gingrich smoked pot in college too. Yet Gingrich supports, or once supported, the death penalty for smuggling a commerical quantity of drugs, as little as 2 onces of pot. Gingrich also said pot was not "immoral" when he smoked it, but smoking pot is "immoral" now.

bill| 2.2.12 @ 1:42PM

Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Birthplace: Indonesia
Religion: Muslim
Party affiliation: Democratic Party
Favorite book: Rules for Radicals
Favorite author: Saul Alinsky
Mentor: Jeremiah Wright
Favorite moment: Became the POTUS
Terrible moment: Shellacking in the 2010 mid-term
Full-time job: POTUS
Part-time job: fund raising for DNC, ACORN, NAACP, SEIU, ACLU
Ambition: 2nd term
Favorite meal: Chicken, Hot-dogs, Fries, Taco, Rice, Meat, Pork..................................
Favorite beverage: Coke, Pepsi, Mt Dew, Miller Light, Heineken, Budweiser...............,and Water.
Favorite place: Hawaii
Hate: Republicans
Love: Liberals, Few Whites (The Democrat operatives and those union-thugs), All Blacks, All Latinos, All Muslims, All gays and all lesbians, Few Jews (those who make campaign contribution)
Wish: Eliminate all Republicans from the earth
Pop-singer: Lady Gaga ($$$$$$$$$$$)
Big lies: "unemployment will not go above 8% if we pass the $878 billion stimulus bill", "There are 10,000 shovel ready jobs being ready across America", "The Affordable Health care Act will reduce the cost of health premium on average American by $2500", "Yes, We Can"
Irony: will lose to a GOP nominee in 2012, 2nd term (?), it ain't happen

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 1:46PM

Guess what? Rules for Radicals is taught as a guide by FreedomWorks. Not as a cautionary tale, but as an organizational tool. You wouldn't know that because you believe what you're told without ever actually looking into it.

http://www.freedomworks.org/ne.....ains-group

Ruth Ramos | 2.2.12 @ 2:13PM

I am Catholic and I simply cannot support Romeny who is a member of a non-Christian Cult. Do the pundits that throw out Saul Alinski's name like it was "Hitler" realize that Mr. Alinski was given the Catholic Church's "Pacem in Terris" award in honor of Pope John XXIII -- others receiving it were President Kennedy, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Sargent Shriver, Martin Luther King? Helping the poor and the downtrodden by giving them the tools to fight injustice and better themselves is a Catholic virtue...even though Alinski was Jewish. But conservatives have made "community activist" something bad, and the mean-spiritiedness and willingness to lie to advance a political stance has not gone unnoticed by many Americans. I think this stance will hand another term to Obama (my choice is Santorum...where are the talking heads who stand for principal over selling out to big money and business as usual?)

Paul Day | 2.2.12 @ 2:20PM

Thanks for the info! If the GOP has a chance this election it can't be won on fear, name calling and innuendo. It's got to be fought and won on facts. Right now both Romney and Gingrich just throw red meat and outright lies to the people who want to hear there. I don't care for Santorum but he obviously believes in what he's saying. He does speak like a focus group.

Mutch Moore| 2.2.12 @ 1:48PM

Outstanding BHO dossier ! . . . very accurate info.

Rich Birkett | 2.2.12 @ 2:10PM

Obama was not born in Indonesia. He may have been born in Kenya.

sirbourbon| 2.2.12 @ 1:47PM

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

Bill O'Reilly told Mike Huckabee that Newt and Mitt were essentially twins politically speaking.

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 11:30PM

Bill O'Reilly? Geez.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:28PM

They are both saying things that are similar, but the difference is that Mitt Romney doesn't believe what he is saying.

Pierre Montagne| 2.2.12 @ 1:51PM

There is relentlessly increasing evidence that Goerge Soros is behind most Socialist/Liberal entities that seek destruction of American Democracy and its Constitution. Yet your article relentlessly attacks Gingrich and supports Romney while at the same time pointing out that Soros sees Obama and Romney as the same thing?
Soros is very much like his Fascist mentor Adoph Hitler - he plainly states what he likes and what he is doing. Soros isnot bluffing about Romney being OK to Goerge Soros's long and short term desires for the end of America as we know it. To Soros Romeny is not an impediment whereas Gingrich would be.

beebop2| 2.3.12 @ 5:38AM

You think George has ever been truthful in his entire disgusting life? HAHAHAHA ... that little comment was made EXCLUSIVELY to scare away those who would vote for Romney. Its like Limbaugh telling you to vote for Hillary ....

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:29PM

When he is gloating over something, yeah I do think he would be truthful.

Peter| 2.2.12 @ 1:53PM

Based on many of the comments here and elsewhere for Newt (or anti-Romney) supporters, it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with them, from Ann Coulter to Bob Dole, are just part of the "establishment" and should be ignored in order to nominate someone who is unlikely to be a candidate who can be elected nationally.

As a conservative I accept, as Chris Christie does (is he just another establishment figure?) that politics is as much the art of compromise as it is the solidity of principles. Romney governed as a moderate in a strongly liberal Democratic state because he had to. Elected as a conservative to be president there is little doubt in my mind that he would govern as conservative--and be willing (as Reagan was) to compromise to get things accomplished without giving up on principle.

Newt supporters seem to think that if nominated he will win without a doubt, that Republicans will take both chambers of congress and that they will then pass their wish list of legislation across the board. Silly and naive to the extreme, number one. Number two: To pursue such an agenda without building national consensus (Remember Reagan's admonishment that the public must be persuaded, not bullied) would invite the same type of backlash, and well deserved, that Democrats received in 2010 after having done the same thing. And BTW, if you look back on what Gingrinch was able to do as Speaker, which was quite admirable, it required compromise with Clinton, which drove the insurgents of his day so crazy they sought to oust him, which they did.

Romney has the money, organization, focus, character and stamina to defeat Obummer in November. He needs to articulate conservative principles and outline some specific policies to be a better candidate, which I believe he will in coming weeks and months. He showed in the debates and in his battle with Newt that he is prepared to fight, and fight with everything at his disposal to win. Anyone who doesn't understand that it will take all this, and more, to defeat the current WH imposter is fooling themselves. There is only one person running who has it all, and if Republicans want to win the election, something I see as imperative to protect if not save this nation, they should think long and hard before trying to find the perfect candidate who does not, and has never, existed.

Simon Templar| 2.2.12 @ 4:49PM

Politics seems to be the art of compromise. Yeah, the conservatives are asked to compromise their principles, agenda, and objectives to the progressive elite and those that know better.

Romney is prepared to lie, lie with arrogance and boldness, and spend as much money as he can too win the nomination. He will do the same as McCain as every other god damn RINO when he "confronts" Obama.

What do they call that thing when someone does the same thing over and over and expects a different result? Your argument of electability.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:30PM

Actually, I think Ann Coulter lost her mind and some people are so fixated on trying to get Obama out of office that they haven't stopped to consider the fact that Romney is pretty much the same as Obama.

George Potvin| 2.2.12 @ 1:54PM

"More Solyndras?" Yes, $500 million to solar research that didn't work out versus $70 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. I am an electrical engineer, and I can certainly understand why Saudi-owned Fox News and the Koch Brothers bash the Solyndra and the Chevy Volt -- I mean electricity that comes from solar and wind means less oil money goes to Arab countries that fund terrorism against us. What true American could be for THAT? And of course if a big government liberal like Obama who went to a black Christian church is bad, well a big government liberal like Romney who is a member of a cult and is part of the Wall Street culture HAS to be better.

Purp| 2.2.12 @ 2:16PM

Good point.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:31PM

It's not that Obama went to a church where the pastor happened to be black....

It's the fact that he went to a church where one of the core phrases was, "G-- D--- America!"

bobmontgomery| 2.2.12 @ 1:54PM

Grace? It as horrible of Gingrich to suggest Santorum, who had a *desperately ill daughter*, drop out of the race, but it was just hunky dory for Santorum to pop into Bella's hospital room, say "How ya feelin', kiddo?" and hop on a jet plane singin'"Don't know when I'll be back again"
and get right back to that campaign gig???? You and Coulter are gettin' mighty....shrill...these days, Tyrell.

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 2:41PM

She was better and going home when Santorum left, I believe. Bella doesn't talk, either. Trisomy 18. Profound Mental Retardation.

Honestly, I think this kid is no more a topic of politics than Trig Palin is. C'mon, folks. Really.

Peter| 2.2.12 @ 1:57PM

Pierre, Have you stopped to think why Soros and other liberals keep suggesting that there is little to no difference between Romney and Obambi? Think they many want to run against Newt perhaps? If your enemy tells you they plan to attack from the right flank you'd better double the troops you have protecting your left. Just a thought.

Purp| 2.2.12 @ 2:15PM

Or perhaps, that's exactly what they want you to think so you do exactly the opposite of what would hurt them.

Lightning Jack| 2.2.12 @ 1:59PM

Romney had to compromise his core ideological principles so far to the left (Romney Care, Gay marriage, pro-choice) to serve as governor of Massachusetts that he is beyond redemption.

If one observes the politics of people who support his socioeconomic policies it becomes quite obvious that he is the typical establishment country club (RINO) Republican.

If the Republicans try to cram Mitt Romney down America's throat this November they will lose to his ideological twin...Obama. Their conservative base will not buy Romney's charade even as a moderate conservative.

Mitt Romney is far removed from the true socioeconomic problems that a majority of American families must contend with. In his way of thinking, America is just one big Staples.

Allen| 2.2.12 @ 2:00PM

Totally agree with your article. Hope Gingrich hasn't done too much damage. Romney will have a hard enough time trying to beat the community organizer.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:35PM

Romney did the damage to himself, I will not lift a finger to support a Romney Campaign.

James| 2.2.12 @ 2:04PM

So conservatives "took a closer look" at Gingrich and then decided to vote for Mitt? That is ridiculous. Anyone that voted for Mitt over Gingrich did so on some other principle but conservatism. If someone was basing their vote on true conservative ideals they would not vote for Mitt at all and their factors would have to include Santorum at the very least. The fact is they, and you, the author of this piece, are all scam artists.

Peter| 2.2.12 @ 2:09PM

Lightening Jack, Plenty of conservatives like me support gay marriage (let gays suffer along with the rest of us) and are pro-choice based strictly on the Roe v. Wade decision (no restrictions in the first trimester) because we realize that trying to legislate abortion out of existence won't happen and will only serve to antagonize a majority of women. No Republican, once elected, has ever tried, and for good reason.

As for Romneycare, read Ann Coulter's piece on her Web site. Instead of accepting the view liberals would like you to have about it educate yourself about its details and what happened after Romney himself was out of the picture.

After what Romney did to Gingrinch in Florida, in ads, on the ground and in the debates, shows that he can take the fight to Bambi come November. No one else has what it takes, including, most importantly, massive amounts of money and a strong organization. This isn't a student council race.

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 2:12PM

Just a troll. No true conservative supports gay marriage.

GrannyRob| 2.2.12 @ 2:10PM

Sorry, Mr. Tyrell, I've voted for my last center-left Republican "moderate." The democrats, aided and abetted by moderates of all labels have done too much damage already. It will take someone with grandiose planning and ideas to even attempt to bring us back to sanity. Romney is NOT that someone and I know it in my gut which has never lead me astray.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.2.12 @ 2:12PM

No kidding. Does Mr. Tyrrell think conservatives are going to support his website when he falls in line with the RINO establishment and basically endorses an admitted "progressive" for GOP nominee? Facing a Wall-Streeter and the RomneyCare candidate, Obama is going to have such an easy takedown in the fall -- it's not going to be funny.

And Tyrrell wants to trash him with a bunch of minutia and innuendo? How realities are being clarified for non-sellout conservatives!!!

TESTING, TESTING -- will this post be removed again? If so, you can be certain that I will not contribute again.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

Please overlook the final 2 sentences above. For some reason my "find" feature did not work on this page. My bad!

albert constantine jr| 2.2.12 @ 2:12PM

I have come not to bury Emmett Tyrell, but to praise him. For more than 25 years, I have enjoyed The American Spectator as a thoughtful publication. I appreciate TAS online, and have enjoyed the opportunity for the last couple of years to peruse the AMSPEC Blog, and occasionally post my thoughts. I also have contributed modestly to the Foundation to help show my appreciation.

Mr. Tyrrell’s previous assertions about his thoughts on Mr. Gingrich notwithstanding, I have difficulty disputing his assessment of the Baby Boom generation. As a member of the cohort of those born between 1946-64 (like many others who post here), it is at times difficult to defend against Mr. Tyrell’s condemnation.

Sometimes, when I look at the debt and decay wrought by the first generation raised around the cultural ubiquity of television as a mass medium of information and entertainment, I feel great shame. Unfortunately, the best defense I can often muster is that other generations are almost as bad, or might be worse.

While the suffering in the Great Depression of the 1930s and the sacrifices of the Second World War are credited with shaping what has come to be called the Greatest Generation, these are also the folks who helped expand the size and scope of government, along with many of the social and other problems that lead to our cultural decline (increased divorce/ promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.). The Baby Boomers were enabled by their forebears.

Unfortunately, in looking at the hypocrisy of those before us who said to do good things while semi-secretly indulging in bad things, the baby boomers responding largely by indulging in the bad things and pretending they were good.

Unfortunately, Dr. Benjamin Spock passed away before our generation could have begun to redeem itself, and given him the blanket party (or dare I say spanking) that he deserved for the role he played to our enablers.

Seek| 2.2.12 @ 4:01PM

Our generation has been spanked plenty...especially by professional dominatrixes.

Purp| 2.2.12 @ 2:13PM

"Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has served up a budget to cure the nation's ills and head us on a course that will not end like Greece has ended. " - you're kidding, right? His budget doesn't balance anything for 80 years! 80 years! That's ridiculous.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:49PM

WRONG! You must have read Obozo's Budget instead of Paul Ryan's.

Paul Ryan's Budget was the best one for saving our SS and Medicare programs, reducing the Deficit and it balanced the budget within a few short years. Read it again!

helen| 2.2.12 @ 2:19PM

I agree with Mr. Tyrell about Gingrich. i don't understand why the Palin's, who say they are conservatives, are endoring him. Somebody please explain!

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:45PM

I think it is total IGNORANCE. I can't believe a true Conservative would vote for someone who says our Constitution is "obsolete," and at the same time describing himself as a "Progressive Republican" and on another YouTube video he calls himself a "Wilsonian Progressive." This fits Newt Gingrich to a Tee. He is NOT a true Conservative and neither is anyone who would vote for Gingrich, unless they are pathetically ignorant.

This explains a lot about why Newt Gingrich would hop on the Couch with Bela Pulosi to hawk the Global Warming Scam, and why he supported a Federal Mandate. He might be a good Debater but he is also pugnacious, mercurial, conflicted, undisciplined and prone to
temper tantrums. No thank you. I'll vote for Mitt Romney, even though he was not my first choice he is now the only choice and I think he will do just fine.

Slacker| 2.2.12 @ 4:46PM

Palin may have come to recognize the disaster that will follow a Romney nomination. I just contributed to Newt, Santorum, and Paul. I don’t care for any of them. I’m simply hedging to stop Romney.

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 2:19PM

troll

Vern Crisler| 2.2.12 @ 3:23PM

This was just a stray insult. I forget who it was directed against.

Thom| 2.2.12 @ 3:01PM

From a man who promised the Republicans would be back in charge of Congress in 08 after getting taken to the wood shed in 06 following W's "moderate" lead..... Mitt is to the left of W in deeds so excuse the lack of "faith" here among those that don't put much stock in political forecast about the future ..... with this electorate.

An articulate Howdy Doody could beat the current "King" if he spent the per capita funds Mitt spent in Florida on just telling the truth about what and who he really is.... The Mitt "dummy" seems more comfortable promising to bring management "efficiency" to our decline and fall from grace ....

The moment the Titanic hit that iceberg the fate of the ship was a mathematic certainty and at least 700 people were going to die. With Democrats in charge of the ship of State you are certain that twice that many will die. What Mitt promises is to make sure the life boats are filled to capacity rather than steer the ship of State away from the damn iceberg in the first place. Indexing federally mandated minimum wages to inflation is the same as drilling more holes in the aft hull of the Titanic to counterbalance the flooding forward .... It isn't just going to be the "rats" leaving the doomed Titanic as things now stand.

Mike| 2.2.12 @ 3:25PM

Nice spin! No mention of the only veteran and real conservative Dr. Paul. Just some mumbo-jumbo about a corporate raider out to fulfil his fathers failed dream...goodbye to your rag of a website/magazine..

Soljerblue| 2.2.12 @ 3:27PM

Mitt Romney will not become POTUS. Emmett and his RINO, faux conservative, elitist buddies will survive. The rest of us can just bend over and spread 'em.

Kay B. Day | 2.2.12 @ 3:31PM

Romney does get aid from Goldman Sachs--it's a matter of public record. GS (employees and others, technically not the corporate entity) is Romney's largest donor. Go to Open Secrets. Romney's top three donors are entities dubbed 'bailout bandits' during the meltdown.

Yesterday, Romney said he believes the minimum wage should be on auto hike, indexed to inflation. That is a position I would expect from the Left, not even from a moderate. If Obama proposed it, all of us would be calling him a socialist.

Aside from that, Romney's policy as governor placed Mass. in the AGW camp, with the state being the first to limit emissions. That in turn led to Mass. v et al, the court case ruled on by SCOTUS enabling the EPA to tax the air we exhale.

My God, your premise is so far off the mark I may never read this magazine I once respected again.

As for Gingrich, at least he got Clinton to bring the budget in line and at least he was part of bumping Dems from their 40-year chokehold on the House.

You think Romney isn't a big-government techno type? Dream on.

Newt is damaged goods I admit but at least he's got the decency to admit he's wrong.

Pretty soon the Dems and GOP can just take turns at the presidency. We won't even need to hold elections anymore. Think of all the money we'll save! Ack.

avagreen| 2.2.12 @ 3:42PM

Agree with you, Kay B. Day. It seems that all the major news media have gone totally nuts.

The whole generation is......infantile? LOL! And, he talks about Newt hurling wild charges.

American Spectator into the trash.

Bill| 2.2.12 @ 3:45PM

Romney enacted Romneycare in MA, and helped craft Obamacare. When Romney said, 'I'll repeal Obamacare." I don't believe him a dime. He won't repeal it because Romney is a "New England big-government liberal RINO." He is no conservative. FL made a "FATAL" mistake. Thanks to SC, the state that revolted against tyranny in 1861.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:34PM

You are forgetting one thing. "Romneycare" was mandated (which is perfectly legal for a State but not Constitutional if the Federal Government tries to use the Commerce Clause to Mandate to a NATION,") because 9% of the population in MA refused to get HC insurance and used the Emergency Room as their "HC Provider." The rest of the population who already had Health Insurance, and those who qualified for Medicaid, were not affected. Mitt Romney says he will issue waivers to every State in the Union and then set about repealing this disastrous mess called Obamacare as one of his first acts in the Oval Office. He will do it because this nation cannot afford nor do we want this burdensome, costly Socialist pile of junk!

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:38PM

Actually if Romneycare is constitutional, then Obamacare is constitutional.

In my opinion they are both unconstitutional for the same reason.

Sunnyr| 2.9.12 @ 5:30PM

You are wrong. STATES have 10th Amendment Rights, the Federal Government does not and falls under the U S Constitution, which makes Mandated H C UNconstitutional!

Lorinda| 2.2.12 @ 3:46PM

From the article: "Newt's failure is part of a larger failure, the infantilism of the 1960s generation. In his narcissism, impulsiveness, and deviancy ..."

Isaiah 3:4-5
"And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
And the people will be oppressed,
Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor;
The youth will storm against the elder
And the inferior against the honorable. "

Mike Smith| 2.2.12 @ 3:57PM

Disheartening, the more you politico's torch NEWT’s character, the less physical support will show up come Sep. Laughable, the more you politico’s disparage NEWT’s ideas, the less distinction between the RNC and DNC. Sadly, the mo mo mo more, you fo fo fo force Mitt (the mumbler) on a sector of the party that cling’s more to their core principles than their party, the more likely the TEA PARTY walks away.

Why should I not just wait for the day when the "People’s Republic of America" renounces all debt belonging to the “United States of America". Then, “We the People” can rise again.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:01PM

Newt's CHARACTER? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Newt's Character is why I am voting for Mitt Romney, among other reasons.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:12PM

Sorry but Newt's problems are just in his personal life.

Mitt is blatently lieing to our faces and has every intention of continuing Obama's destructive policies.

Sunnyr| 2.9.12 @ 5:33PM

Call me crazy, but I am of the opinion that our President and Commander In Chief should have good Character. Newt in not fit to be the leader of this nation and he isn't even qualified.

Janadele| 2.2.12 @ 4:10PM

Excellent article, with which I entirely agree :-)

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:21PM

I agree with Mr. Tyrrell. Newt is his own worst enemy and doesn't know when to shut his mouth. And he is NOT the Conservative he claims to be. He is on YouTube describing himself as a Progressive and a "Wilsonian Progressive," among other things. Anyone who has read about the Woodrow Wilson era knows that a Wilsonian Progressive is not a Conservative.

Newt also has issues with our Constitution, saying it is "obsolete." Really? Comrade Obama says the same thing. I don't think we need Newt Gingrich in the White House. He's too much like the person who lives there now!

Newt is Moot
Mitt is It Because Character Counts

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:13PM

You really aren't a good judge of charecter if you think the equivalent of a dishonest used car salesman has good charecter.

Sunnyr| 2.9.12 @ 5:34PM

Pfft! Who made YOU the arbiter of Truth?

Cpm| 2.2.12 @ 4:28PM

RET is correct, if you have ever spent any time around the various levels of Student Councils, particularly the collegiate level, you will recognize the Newt Gingrich type. Egotistical, authoritarian, entitled, fast talking BS artist who enjoys manipulating the system for no other reason than because he can. They and their minions thrive on creating and exploiting chaos and they live for it.

ron arnott| 2.2.12 @ 4:45PM

Tyrrell needs to do some research before writing, Goldman/Sachs is one of Romney's biggest financial supporters

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:57PM

Goldman-Sachs contributes to BOTH parties as everyone on Wall Street does but Goldman-Sachs has donated more to Barack Obama than anyone else is many years.

I fully expect Wall Street to donate to Republicans, they always do, but not in the same amounts that they give to Dems.

wisdomcries| 2.2.12 @ 4:54PM

My vote for Newt isn't because he is polished, not because he speaks oh so glowingly and fakes concern for everyone of God's little creatures like the rest do.
I'm voting for Newt because he doesn't need to lie and to tell everyone what their itching ears want to hear.
I will vote for Newt because he is right.

I will vote for Newt because he actually has plans and has told use those plans and they make sense.

You can have fluff and polish...I want backbone and truth.

Cpm| 2.2.12 @ 4:56PM

..And a colony on the Moon.

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 4:58PM

I would be down with that Moon Colony if Sarah Palin and her husband were the first inhabitants!

loulou| 2.2.12 @ 7:31PM

Hmmm. Something tells me that you're no conservative. You're either a Mormon or a Democrat.

Sunnyr| 2.9.12 @ 5:37PM

Try again. I am a Catholic Conservative who thinks Sarah is a DOLT and a phony conservative. Her endorsement of the PIG, Newt Gingrich, say a lot more about her than it does about Newt Gingrich.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:15PM

I'm perfectly fine for putting a colony on the moon, especially if we send Obama/Pelosi/Reid there.

BMS| 2.2.12 @ 5:26PM

You're right. Newt doesn't need to lie. But he does lie. And he's smart enough to know better. That's what bugs me the most about him. He's obviously somewhat intelligent, but he still plays in that oily sandbox with the other Regressives. AND, he's offensive- comparing Iran's work on a nuclear bomb (assuming that they really are doing that) to the Holocaust! I would be surprised if he gets one Jewish, Gypsy, or Gay vote after that (the major groups who were slaughtered in the death camps). Obviously, he'll say anything to try and instill fear. But it didn't work this time. I think we want some substance now, not offensive and inaccurate platitudes.

I was hoping for some sanity from Mr. Gingrich. Hope's are now dashed. Unfortunately, there's no one else running for the Republicans who's qualified to lead the country. I guess that just about leaves Mr. Obama as the only viable candidate for president, doesn't it? Can't you all do better than that? Half the people posting on this site, while I disagree vehemently with some of the opinions, look like better candidates than the four in the race.

Fight4Freedom| 2.3.12 @ 1:58PM

Me as well. And, of course, I notice the little cracks about the moon colony, etc. Any of you bother to research what was really said? That 90% or more would be privately funded? That part of the reason for that base is in restoring the mission to Mars and the water that the moon could supply for various missions? I'm sure you all think JFK was an idiot too. I am sick of the condescending know-it-alls who are sooooo above all us "dreamers" and judge people by how they look or the mistakes they made in the past. YOU are the reason we get a bunch of politicially correct, milque-toast, do-nothing Republicans who allow the status quo to continue.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:15PM

Amen

Drew| 2.2.12 @ 5:20PM

Newt is a loose cannon, spitting out fire while crashing about on the deck, hitting his own side as often as the enemy. His moon fantasy when America is facing economic ruin and needs attention to boring but careful daily management speaks of a manic out of control immature mind. The mishmash he's spraying out is wrong as often as it's right (just like Paul) and such an ADD mind is not one to put on the bridge of the Titanic heading for the iceberg.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:16PM

If Newt was such a loose cannon, I think Mitt would have a broken nose by now.

David| 2.2.12 @ 5:29PM

Way to go, Slacker - you put your money where your mouth is. Good man. That said, I sure wish you would have given it all to Santorum.

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him.

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.

Nancy G| 2.2.12 @ 5:36PM

Mr. Tyrrell:
The $12.9 billion payment to Goldman Sachs to which Speaker Gingrich referred was funneled through the $43.7 billion TARP payment to "AIG in 2009 as repayment of a debt owed by AIG for credit swaps--100% of the debt, by the way, at a time when other creditors were lucky to receive 10 cents on the dollar. Most of the rest of the $43.7 billion went to other financial institutions, both domestic and foreign.

As to George Soros, yes, he said exactly that. Google "Soros Obama Romney".

There's nothing wrong with disapproval of a candidate, but let's keep it factual and honest, please.

I disagree with you. Once you wipe away the truckload of manure dumped on Newt Gingrich lately, most of it from Mitt Romney and his super pac, but also by vindictive former colleagues and by the uninformed, you should be able to recognize the one candidate who has actually advanced the cause of conservatism.

Newt Gingrich is also the only one of the candidates who knows how to deal with the federal government. He's done it. Make no mistake. a government is not a simple corporation amenable to passive dismantling by a new owner. It is a behemoth of entrenched bureaucrats highly skilled in turf protection. It is also an organism needing careful pruning by an expert who knows the species well, not a general practitioner who's merely fixed other kinds of organizations.

Some of your readers may remember what Newt Gingrich has already done for us. For those who don't or weren't around then:

In the 1980s, the young congressman broke through the media barriers--except for The National Review and a very few columnists, we had no spokesmen--with Special Orders speeches on C-Span--some in strong, persuasive defense of President Reagan, some as wonderful lectures in conservative principles.

In the 1990s, after launching GoPac, the first effective fundraising tool for recruiting and electing candidates, he led the effort to give us the first Republican majority in the House in decades.

As Speaker of the House, with a Democrat president in the White House, he took Rick Santorum's welfare reform legislation, persuaded Bill Clinton, and passed it into law. By doing so, he also incurred the wrath of Bob Dole, who had wanted the issue for his presidential campaign.

He also gave us the balanced budgets developed by John Kasich, but it took a shutdown of the government, the wrath of disgruntled House Republicans, who saw their re-elections threatened by the criticism, and who also resented the Speaker's priorities. He wasn't paying much attention to their professional concerns.

Yes, Newt Gingrich was charged with eithics violations--84 complaints, all but one brought by David bonier (D, Michigan). Gingrich was exonerated of all of Bonier's complaints. For the last, that he had signed a disclosure containing an erro, he was reprimanded, even though the error had been made in the drafting of the document by his attorneys.

Gingrich did not pay a fine. He paiod the bill for the investigation into the complaint.

And yes, he was forced to resign as Speaker. Why? Remember all those disgruntled caucus members? Yes, Newt Gingrich ruffles feathers. But he also leads. And he gets things done, even when he is not in a position to correct gross mistakes.

You've heard that he was a consultant with Freddie Mac. Do you know what advice he offered tham as a consultant? First, if people inexperienced in home ownership were to be given mortgages, he suggested that they should have access to instruction in the responsibilities they were assuming. Second, he warned Freddie Mac of the disaster ahead, Third, he advised Congress NOT to give any further funding to Frddie Mac. That's lobbying?

I could go one, but I think you get the idea. Rant and rave about stinky Newt if you wish. But will you at least consider the source of the stench.?

Drew| 2.2.12 @ 5:46PM

The President is only one prong of a three pronged fork, but he gets to choose who sits on the Supreme Court prong. If Obama gets two or even one more SCOTUS appointment, it will ingrain socialism and make it impossible to save the American idea. Obama MUST be defeated. Does anyone seriously suggest that Gingrich if he got the nomination would be electable against Obama? With Romney, the outcome is at least in some doubt. The lousiness of the Republican field is a heart breaker but conservatives are supposed to look unpalatable facts in the face. The SCOTUS must not be handed to Obama's red anti-American hands.

BMS| 2.2.12 @ 7:15PM

Drew, there are plenty of things to complain about Barack Obama. Believe me, as a Progressive, I'm in there.... However, he is far from being a Socialist. Remember all of the Bankers he hired on his staff to "help" our financial crisis? Barack Obama is as much of a corporatist as anyone. Not that this is such a good thing either... look how it's going.

You're tilting at windmills. If you really took on what Obama HAS done and plans to do, you could have a valid case and could probably get someone else in office. But when you shoot off weird things like calling him Socialist and anti-American, you just look silly. And that's why you get the Romneys and Gingrich's who say the same stuff.

Sorry.

Cindi Lafontaine| 2.2.12 @ 5:59PM

How can any Christian Conservative support Romney? What kind of judgement does a man have who believes in a false religion where it's book is a rewritten Bible with names and places changed to the supposed ancient United States (including typos made in the 1611 KJV) Unlike the Bible which archeology proves is true, the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have never been found, no coins found, no artifacts, no evidence of a "reformed Egyptian" language, horses were never in pre-Columbus America. Nor cattle, sheep, swine, silk, wheat, barley, steel swords...all supposedly in Pre-Columbian America! Plus strange doctrines such as God was once a man, and humans can become Gods, and that Eve was one of God's many wives....It is an absolute demonic falsehood. Worse even than IsIam, because it's followers claim to be Christians and belive in the Bible, which clearly says nothing can ever add or take away from the Bible...and right there on the title page of the Book of Mormon it says ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. Anyone who is a true Christian is warned from the beginning that the whole thing is a lie!!!!

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:40PM

Seriously, don't drag religion into this. You're giving Mittbots credibility that they quite frankly do not deserve.

Robert M. Simon| 2.2.12 @ 6:24PM

Mr.Tyrell is obviously suffering from early onset dementia.Mr. Romney is less of a conservative than even Newt who is not a conservative either.I have news for mr.Tyrell.If Mitt gets the nomination(barring a total economic collapse),his chances of beating Obama are less than 50/50.He has too much baggage and conservatives(and certainly not libertarians) are going to vote for him.A larger question needs to be answered.Why does the GOP(an allegedly conservative party) keep nominating non-conservatives and expect conservatism to triumph?Democrats have no such problem.

Drew| 2.2.12 @ 6:41PM

Oh, so conservatives are not going to vote for the Republican candidate. In other words, they're going to make sure Obama has another term to finish the job of wrecking the USA beyond any repair with left wing SCOTUS appointees. Well, that's certainly intelligent. Dems are laughing themselves silly at their foolish opposition.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:17PM

We are not going to vote for Obamney simply cause he has an R by his name instead of a D.

Nancy G| 2.2.12 @ 6:35PM

I'm beginning to think that much of the dislike of Newt Gingrich expressed in these comments derives from a dislike of having to deal with the uncomfortable criticism he attracts.

Do we really want to go back to the good old days of going along to get along?

Don't we realize that the best measure of a conservative leader is how loudly and how viciously the progressives protest?

Fight4Freedom| 2.3.12 @ 3:08PM

For all the whining about PC politicians, apparently that is exactly what they want. They don't want to hear what needs to be said. Newt says what has to be done, offers ideas to resolve it and is willing to get down and dirty and take the darts and arrows to get it done. That's called "leadership" folks. I know we aren't used to it anymore, so it's hard to recognize..... So I suppose, no, they don't recognize that the howls coming from every angle are the progressives worrying their apple cart might get upset. Also, your write up above is right on target. Do you know how many people I have tried to explain this to over and over who just don't want to hear it? Apparently, it's much more fun to bash Newt and vote in the guy who "looks presidential" and is "electable".

Leo| 2.2.12 @ 7:42PM

What a ridiculous article. Newt is the only electible candidate. The only one with ideas. The only one who has proven he can get things done. And the way he scares Republican go alongs to get along like you is just delicious!

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 8:46PM

In other news, Pope Obama is out there telling us that Christ says we need to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

He not only thinks he's King but Christ's "Vicar on Earth".

And yet, he, like the Popes throughout all time, twist the Holy Scriptures to suit themselves.

When all they and he are doing is MOCKING GOD.

Move over, Benedict. You have a competitor!

As is seen in this video:

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

Margie| 2.2.12 @ 8:49PM

'Unto whom much is given, much shall be required': Obama reveals his Christian faith is behind call for wealthy to pay more taxes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1lHNfL0jE

stmichrick| 2.2.12 @ 9:33PM

Without disputing anything that you've said, Bob;
Newt has one advantage over Mitt: the ability to enunciate the conservative message to the masses, i.e., to pierce the Kultursmog without coming off as a rich (very) white guy.

Unfortunately for us, the opposition is less the elitists than those that, through the conditioning of popular culture, value 'sensitivity' and 'tolerance' towards those who blanche at being culturally 'judged.' Mitts' recent backtracking on who he is 'concerned' about shows the same political tin ear demonstrated by HW Bush.

In other words, we need to game the mainstream rhetoric like the Left does; sound moderate but be a Rightward Trojan Horse in order to win. Mitt's lame efforts to sound conservative are just grist for the mill on MSNBC. I think Newt's cynicism may be what it takes.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:18PM

Actually he has more than one advantage.

Newt actually believes what he says.

POST American| 2.2.12 @ 9:37PM

-----Speaking of 'exits', one and all will
want to check out Alex Jones's yesterday
coverage of the ramping up exit of elites
-------------------from America.

The Globalist-RED China takedown,
the unfolding police state, deliberate
contamination of the food and enviornment,
and now -----fallout from a host of scarcely
reported nuclear 'incidents'.

"Everything OLD is NEW-remberg!"

stmichrick| 2.2.12 @ 9:55PM

Hey POST
Your meds are on the kitchen table.

POST American| 2.2.12 @ 10:47PM

"-----NEW-Remburg ---------AGAIN!"

---------------------------------------CAN'T WAIT!

Julian Alien| 2.2.12 @ 11:01PM

I thought this was going to be informative in some way,but it was just a hit piece on Gingrich.I hate Gingrich.Romney sucks too.Both are getting investigated for vote fraud right now.Why not write about that?

Georgia Smith| 2.3.12 @ 12:09AM

As I wrote the Editor, I am tired of:
"Disgusting narcissistic, juvenile, irresponsible, hyper-unendorsement 'journalism'!
Nomo$ till you apologize" - to Newt Gingrich, to me and to the readership of the Spectator.

The extravagance, narcissism, malevolence and dishonesty of the so-called conservative pundits in this presidential election is only matched by that of Romney's Sherman March campaign through Florida, in particular.

As for dishonesty, Mr. Romney lied seven times (I counted) on stage during the last Florida debate. Mr. Romney spent far more than 17 million in continued lying and character assassination. His campaign's only truthful statement, "We don't want to defeat Newt Gingrich, we want to destroy him."

This is evidently what Mr. Tyrrel has bent do as well.

I could not vote for Romney or Obama at gunpoint.

Nor would I consider donating to the Spectator until Mr. Tyrrel apologizes.

Georgia Smith| 2.3.12 @ 12:14AM

PS - I could not vote for Romney or Obama at gunpoint. Romney is not a conservative.
He would be perfect for Obama's VP running mate.

Larry| 2.3.12 @ 2:24AM

Bob Tyrrell speaks: "Moreover, we have to put someone in the White House who can govern."

And who would THAT be? Romney? How has he proven that he can govern? With his lame statement that "I'm not concerned about the very poor. . . we can just fix the safety net if it's broken." Which misses the point entirely - that the safety net is now a strait-jacket, strangling both the poor by increasing their dependency culture like an addictive drug, and the rest of us by making us pay ever higher taxes so that idiots like Romney can go spend it on idiotic entitlement and other wasteful government programs.

Then we have this unintelligible gem from Bob:

"In his narcissism, impulsiveness, and deviancy he [Newt] is at one with the Clintons."

Et tu, Brute? That describes just about every other politician out there now, including Romney. So why reserve your scorn for only Newt? Why savage him? Has Romney promised you a fund for investigative journalism like Richard Scaife did?

See, I can be as cruel as you, too. It is classless and unbecoming of you as much as it is of National Review. And I wish you would stop it, because it is getting to the gratuitous stage now. You need to be reserving your eloquent poison pen for Barack the Usurper.

I will make you one promise, Bob: if Romney wins the nomination and loses to Barack the Usurper, I will cancel my subscription with The American Spectator. But I will be far more classy than you: I will vote for Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee. Because the country can ill afford to keep Barack the Usurper.

The truth is, no one can govern this country anymore. It has become ungovernable.

KShannon| 2.3.12 @ 2:53AM

Mitt Romney was a successful republican governor in a very blue state. He erased a $3B deficit and left Mass with a surplus in one term. He gave the people of that state healthcare reform, but he has never advocated a federal mandate because he believes healthare to be a states' rights issue. That is exactly the way the founding fathers designed our government.

Fight4Freedom| 2.3.12 @ 3:19PM

KShannon, do you live in MA? Because I do. Romney would be a joke if it wasn't for the damage he's done. My insurance has tripled and is going up again in July. Dr. appts are harder and harder to get and now articles are appearing in the Boston Globe that rationing will need to begin. (Yes, you heard that right.) Does a state have a right to mandate health care. It appears so. Does it make it right? NO! You wouldn't believe the problems it caused some of the people here who were out of work but didn't qualify for the state plan and were therefore facing a fine. And it certainly is NOT a conservative point of view. Gun licenses? Well instead of $25, they are now $100, along with harsher gun control laws. What do you consider "successful"? Because he certainly wasn't popular. He would have been even less popular had he remained in the state the last half of his term - but he was too busy out campaigning.

beebop2| 2.3.12 @ 5:35AM

Grinchgrinch is the LAST republican who would receive my vote. Contesting the rules in Florida? Kvetching about "negative" campaigns while CONDUCTING a negative campaign and then wrapping himself in the mantle of a former president? He is the LAST person the republicans should run against 0bama ....

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:21PM

Actually, if you look up how you can get standing to sue on something, you have to be able to prove you've been negatively harmed.

Romney and his lackey's have been participating in cheating Virginians out of being able to vote for candidates. Perry actually won that part of the lawsuit, but was told he sued too late which is bull, because he couldn't sue until after he could prove he had been hurt by the shannigans being pulled by Team Establishment/Romney.

gary siebel| 2.3.12 @ 6:00AM

I am a little surprised the mad, Rasputin-like genius, the Nudist Grinch, hasn't started playing for the VP position.

He knows how to suck up, but will he do it? By now he knows he can't pull it off, that to continue in his tone of attacks only makes him look vengeful, which seems likely anyway. But Romney will not take him as VP if the Nudist Grinch goes too far. I expect Nudist to start hinting and angling for VP soon.

If Rommel has not rolled it up by convention Paul's delegates will increase in relative importance. Convention will have to let him speak.

Mr Guy with the stuffy name who probably got teased about it back in his school days, you are just flat out wrong about the 60's generation. They wrought great change in America and on the planet, and aren't done yet. Obama will win this election because of them. It galls you, I know, but facts are facts.

Plus, you reveal a certain degree of wackiness when you attribute a decline in universities to allowing students a say in how they are run.

Unfortunately, the 60's liberals have decided to act just as absurdly self-righteous as the most extreme evangelical or indignant Catholic, which has led liberals to go to far. They are ridiculous in their adamant demands for absurdities, based on flawed views of civil rights that have become entrenched because of the 60's tendency to equate sympathy over some perceived cultural wrong with need for government redress. Gay marriage, for example, a 60's gen favorite issue since they abandoned the unions, is patently absurd, yet they defend it on a spurious connection to civil rights. On the other hand, environmentalism is a product of the 60's too, and lakes and rivers are definitely cleaner now. Only those old enough to remember the difference would know that however.

Mr Guy-With-The-Stuffy-Name (why not Thurston Howells?) just must not have had the fun the other 60's gen folks did -- too bad for him.

David| 2.3.12 @ 9:03AM

Don't think for an instant that Mr. Romney is above his own version of Crony Capitalism. His version of Crony Capitalism is to provoke conflict with other nations, like Iran, so as to keep the military industrial complex fed. As well it is to keep the American people in fear, subjection, and slavery to the US government by continuing this nutty and endless war on terrorism.

Dennis J. Rudz| 2.3.12 @ 11:19AM

As a recent graduate. Newt applied for a position as president of a university. How's that for chutzpa? Did you see his college photo? Striking resemblence to Dwight Shroot (The Office).

Brian Lee| 2.3.12 @ 12:23PM

I can't believe I'm saying this but not only will I not vote for Mitt, but I will vote for Obama. After 25 years as a rock solid conservative, I am throwing my hands up in disgust at the republican establishment. For years, I've watched the republican party fight the stigma as the rich white party. So what do we do, we nominate the whitest rich guy we can find. And in the process we savage our own people. Someone was finally doing what I have been begging for, sticking it to the media and calling them on their bias and anti-christian bigotry. What's his reward? He gets taken out by people like you, Mr. Tyrell. As near as I can tell, no one is going to stop the slaughter of the innocents, no one is going to stand up to the vicious assaults from the left and the media. So I might as well join the gravy train and get what I can from the government and the rich. No one who has known me for the last 20 years would believe that I am saying this. But there it is. You and the rest of the republican power brokers can go to H E double hockey sticks for all I care.

Gary| 2.3.12 @ 9:25PM

Brian, we should somehow stay on the same side through these primaries so I write gently. The Presidency of the USofA is not about "sticking it to the media". The issues at hand are of serious consequence to your family, my family and the entire country. Agreed, Newt has been great denigrating the media, sometimes it's nice to hit back. But we have a chance to elect a conservative who understands business and budgets and who has a gift for turning things around, a moral man who is intelligent and experienced at fixing problems. Mitt Romney is a Washington outsider who has the genius to turn this country around. He has proven that he can fix just about anything, so lets be smart and give Mr. Romney the opportunity to fix Washington. As for me, though I prefer Romney, I will campaign, give money and vote for ANY of our republican candidates over the far-leftist Obama. We have seen mad, Newt in Florida. We have seen smart, Romney in Florida. At the end of the day, it is better to be smart.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:43PM

I'm actually leaning towards voting third party because I'm not voting for either Obamney.

Seek| 2.3.12 @ 2:07PM

A question: If Mitt Romney is a fake conservative, then how come Ann Coulter is pitching for him 24/7? Coulter, a hardcore conservative, is going gung ho for Mitt, while tossing barbs at Gingrich without reservation. Is Ann now somehow a liberal?

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:22PM

Because Ann Coulter has lost her mind or is so obsessed with beating Obama, that she has bought into the leftist Narrative that Romney is the most electable.

Stephen Boone | 2.3.12 @ 2:17PM

gosh. There is a name for the system of government where government STEALS from people or groups of people and then awards their businesses and/or money to "friends" of the leader. Usually characterized by a charismatic leader. It starts with an F. Well know economist Thomas Sowell, perhaps protected by his race has had the nerve to SAY the word. I will not. Most of you know it. Certainly many won't mind applying it to the current regime, but hesitate to apply it to Newt. To me a F______ is as a F_____ does. It's another loaded word meaning "leader" often referring to a scout leader or guide. In German. The only difference is that Newt hasn't suggested a class of people he will steal from, perhaps because he KNOWS he will NEVER move into the White House. That doesn't stop him from destroying the GOP's best hope of moving SOMEBODY in there. PLEASE, people, don't fall for it. AGAIN. Skin color doesn't mean a thing.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:46PM

I think Newt is running because he's so disgusted with what has been happening and he's scared for his grandkids' futures. I think he doesn't want to be President, didn't even want to go back into politics but after all of this he's come to the conclusion that he can't trust Romney as far as he could throw the Empire State Building, and Santorum doesn't have the experience to know how to get the idiots in Washington to do the right thing.

Amy| 2.3.12 @ 3:49PM

Gingrich groupies are like Obama groupies: listen to him talk, like what he says, & make excuses for everything else. Research people! If Newt is smart, career politician, and an expensive historian then tell me why he didn't realize the 2 big things he would need to run and win a national campaign were organization and money. He has very little of either. Newt is an idea person not a leader- has little ability to focus and plan and organize and you see that with his campaign. The "anti establishment" candidate?! Seriously?! Who else could brand their former coworkers the "establishment" so when they give him a bad reference it could be seen as a good thing? A career politician who is used to saying and spinning anything to get votes. Look how Newt is trying to screw Santorum and Paul and their supporters. He let everyone go into Florida thinking it would be a "winner take all" state knowing full well that if he lost he was going to cry foul but did he mention that BEFORE the vote? No! Newt wants them out- "Florida has made this a 2 man race". When he couldn't talk "friend" Santorum into dropping out he decided to push him out. Paul Ryan was right- with friends like Newt who needs enemies? Perhaps all those former coworkers aka "establishment" remember this kind of friendship and leadership from before and just maybe THAT is why they don't support him.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:24PM

The more you spit out garbage like that, the more likely that I will actually support a third party campaign as a volunteer.

I will not devote any of my time to help the Romney Campaign. I think he is just as bad as Obama.

ltw| 2.3.12 @ 4:37PM

I fail to see why you don't address what Soros actually said. Is there basis for it on the high finance side, which is the world Soros lives in? The clip has been on a number of outlets. For gosh sakes, Soros has a lot of name recognition due to all the Drudge links over the last number of years. It's not like his comments passed under the radar.

ltw| 2.3.12 @ 5:00PM

Mitt's going to have to win this on his own anyway and convince conservatives that he's a reliable conservative. Santorum can just wait for Gingrich to implode if Gingrich can't make the case for his ideas, the plan to implement, and that he is a reliable conservative (Gingrich and Romney are going to go after that vulnerability in each other, it's hard to unring the bell once it's been rung). And, if neither of them can make their case, which neither of them have, they can just take out each other and the nomination fall to Santorum.

There's nothing anyone can do about it now. Sorry.

Gary| 2.3.12 @ 8:38PM

Romney, of course, has already captured the conservative vote. It is the bottom third of the group, the so-called, very conservatives, who prefer Gingrich. Oh yes, and less than half of the very conservative group prefer Newt over Romney. Santorum is far more conservative than Newt, far more presidential than Newt and certainly is a better example of a moral human being. If you truly consider yourself in the "very conservative" category then support the right guy on the right. Vote Santorum.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:49PM

Looks to me that Romney has alienated much of the conservative vote so badly that they are more likely to vote for Obama than Obamney.

I mean seriously, I was looking forward to Obama getting thrown out of office but the establishment candidate (Romney) has succeeded in angering me to the point I won't lift a finger to support him, and will probably vote for anyone else on the ballot as long as Romney isn't on the ticket and Obama isn't on the ticket.

ltw| 2.3.12 @ 5:01PM

It's not worth getting angry about....as Romney says.

ltw| 2.3.12 @ 5:09PM

And finally, Santorum may be in it at this point to throw the election to Romney. We'll see. So, the only way Newt can win is by articulating the conservative message better than others and a vision of his own of that that resonates. I prefer that he's back in this as his path to win, since that's what I'm looking for as a reason to vote.

Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 8:25PM

Romney is propping up Santorum's campaign to split the vote.

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:44PM

Emmett, have you looked at our Food Stamp President's approval ratings lately? He wins nine states - NINE STATES.
Republicans can and should put up for election, the MOST conservative candidate we can because the Republican - any Republican - is going to win because they're not Barack - the Food Stamp President - Obama.
Obama v Romney is going to be a debate between two Ivy League educated elitist who are going to sound EXACTLY the same.
If you're an independent, why would you bother to vote?
We need a man with vision - the Metternach of our times - and that man is Newt Gingrich. You know and so do I.

John Bowman| 2.4.12 @ 1:54AM

You actually think Newt, who wants to give amnesty to upwards of 20 million illegal aliens that will eventually result in the USA being replaced by the North American Union, is a conservative? I suggest you need your head examined. Santorum is the most conservative.

Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 3:16PM

How about you look at what Newt actually said. It isn't amnesty, they are barred from being allowed to become United States citizens for starters...

Furthermore, Gingrich wants to get the border fixed first.

Gary| 2.3.12 @ 8:27PM

Finally! A grown-up article from a grown-up conservative. In a few paragraphs Tyrrell summarizes the problem with Newt and explains how an intelligent experienced Washington outsider, Mr. Romney, can use his genius to correct the course of Washington. From your pen to the eyes of America! Congrats on a great article.

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:51PM

Isn't this condecending attitude that you are showing the same attitude we see from Obama supporters...

That wasn't a question btw.

POST American| 2.3.12 @ 9:12PM

-----As James Cameron buys --BIG-- into
New Zealand real estate as a prelude to
his own relocation.

sirbourbon| 2.3.12 @ 9:15PM

Yes, "geez." The point is that if Bill O' can see that there is NOT a dime's worth of difference between tweedle Dee (Mitt) and tweedle Dum (Newt) and even Governor Huck agrees with Bill O's analysis, what more do you want? Evidence of Newt and Mitt agreeing on "single payer?" Oh, Newt championed Mitts plan too but I guerss you missed that one too?

Newt endorsed Mitt's "health care" plan for Massachusetts: google: did Newt endorse Mitt's plan in 2009?

http://search.incredimail.com/.....cid=1&gc;=

John Bowman| 2.4.12 @ 2:00AM

In Florida the biggest PAC supporters of Newt were the illegal alien hiring billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and Democrat aligned unions. Do you really want another President indebted to those groups?

Neil| 2.4.12 @ 10:41AM

You may be right about Gingrich's foibles and propensity to melt down. However, Romney is not the answer as Romney is not a conservative. Romney is at best "Democrat Light," and will not be supported by traditional conservatives. Furthermore, Romney is the candidate Obama wants to run against. We learned with McCain in 2008, that you don't beat Democrats by running Democrat Light. The Republican leadership assumed that given the choice of Obama or McCain, the conservatives would hold their noses and vote for McCain. They didn't, they stayed home. This time the Republican leaders are apparently assuming that Obama is so bad that the conservatives won't dare stay home, and will hold their noses and vote Romney. Don't count on it.
Obama an his crew are counting history will repeat itself, and the republicans will fall into the Democrat Light trap in again in 2012. It's beginning to look like the dems will get their wish, and we'll be treated to another 4 years of the foodstamp president.
My father always said "stupidity is its own reward," or perhapd another quote is more apropos "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result." My disgust with the Republican Party leadership continues to grow.

Lynn| 2.4.12 @ 11:21AM

Exit Newt - Enter Obama

I will never vote for Romney - no matter how hard he is rammed down my throat.

Scott| 2.4.12 @ 11:23AM

Tyrell, your comments are unwarranted and demonstrative of your role in the Republican Establishment. Say hello to Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, and John McCain for me...oh, and Ann Coulter who has lost any credibility she's ever had (as have you with your insane rants about Newt).

You, along with the rest of the Republican Establishment, are succeeding in doing only one thing if Romney is nominated...you are guaranteeing the end of the Republican Party. Mitt, if elected, will be the last Republican president because conservatives will rise up and never vote Republican again.

I say this as a man who used to be very much against 3rd parties. But given the choice of having a dishonest candidate like Romney crammed down our throats and going with someone who I can have pride in voting for...I'll vote my conscience.

Thanks for ensuring the destruction of the Republican party...not the conservative movement, btw...just the end of the blue-blood "we just want to get back in power so WE'RE in control of the money for a change" Republicans. You're doing their work quite well.

Nick099| 2.4.12 @ 11:53AM

Tyrell seems to have a personal bone topick with Gingrich. It would be nice if he just admitted it, instead of slinging mud while pretending to be an advocate for the People.

Interesting that Newt´s charges are in facts true:

Soros did in fact say those things about Romney.
Goldman Sachs money is going to Romney Campaign coffers as is much of Wall Street in general.

Gingrich has been saying that to Santorum since New Hampshire and also in South Carolina...long before Santorum´s daughter was known to be ill. But you knew that Tyrell...just another slander eh?

Removing the slander of Tyrell´s Santorum accusation, how is any of this mean????? How is this baseless?????? But it is OK to this hack Tyrell and his brothers and sisters when Romney runs ad after attack ad calling Gingrich an influence peddler...and worse when there is no evidence of lobbying or any other impropriety....that is OK?????

Also Tyrell....the 60´s that you refer to were contaminated by Statists of all stripes... both Left and Right of the Marxist scale. Gingrich is a Conservative...that is not failure. He helped usher in modern Conservatism in Government.

What you call short-comings, I cal a lack of patience. To listen to imbeciles like yourself, who think so much of themselves and their overrated ability to analyze ( by anyone other measure) is enough to drive anyone mad. Your short-sighted and superficial perspective would be amusing if you did not have the power of the bullhorn attached to it. Then is becomes almost dangerous, for in your charade you give the air of legitimacy and importance to the sheeple with whom you hold sway. You throw your support behind a plastic Ken Doll who is a Corporatist...not a Conservative...in the hopes he will be able to save the Nation. Never-mind this businessman comes from the same sector of the economy that helped in it´s demise. Never-mind that it was businessmen from that same sector as Romney who threw their support and money behind Obozo.

Nope, businessmen are good at one thing generally...business...which is amoral and simple in its´ nature. They are not leaders and seldom visionaries. Romney...who was never a Republican til he decided he might challenge Kennedy for a Senate seat engages in the same language as Obama...class rhetoric...which is the language of the Marxist. I doubt Romney even knows this...which demonstrates how vacuous he really is. No, you would be short-tempered like Gingrich too, if you had to read drivel like yours with its´ idiotic conclusions. Freakin Imbecile.

Chris| 2.5.12 @ 3:44PM

Newt= a distinct version of "Mrs. Doubtfire" without the costume.

TomH| 2.6.12 @ 3:03AM

Time to expose a number of media myths about the 2012 GOP primaries.

Myth #1: The majority of Republicans are for “anyone but Romney.” According to this story line, even where Romney has done well, the majority of Republicans prefer someone else — therefore, Romney’s candidacy lacks credibility.

Problem is, in 2008 the same could have been said of Barack Obama. Indeed, more people voted for Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats combined than voted for Obama alone. So what? A crowded primary field inevitably dilutes support for any one candidate. Nobody questioned Obama’s viability when he failed to garner more than 50 percent of primary votes. Nor should they question Romney’s.

Of course, you would think that Romney’s decisive 46 percent victory in a four-man race in Florida would put Myth #1 to bed. Unfortunately, many in the media are invested in the notion that Republicans lack enthusiasm for Romney and will continue to minimize his support as long as possible.

Myth #2: Romney’s support is based solely on electability. Here the media attempt to undermine the substantive case for Romney’s candidacy. On this point the media has it backward. It is true that Romney is electable. But he is electable precisely because his experience, character and vision make him the best candidate for the job. Not the other way around.

Myth #3: Romney represents and draws support from the moderate establishment, while Newt Gingrich represents and draws support from movement conservatives.

It is certainly true that several conservative icons (Rush Limbaugh; Sarah Palin) have expressed support for Gingrich. But it is Romney who has garnered support from the broadest array of movement conservatives, including the Tea Party’s favorite governors Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Chris Christie of New Jersey, conservative leader Bay Buchanan and right-wing media maven Ann Coulter.

Moreover, it is Gingrich, with 20 years in Congress and 10 years as a K Street lobbyist, who reeks of insider politics, yet journalists will look you in the eye and describe Romney (who spent just four years as a governor) as an insider and Gingrich (who has spent the last three decades in Washington) as anti-establishment. Go figure.

Myth #4: That 2012 is the nastiest election year ever.

Actually it’s not even close. In recent history, there was the infamous 1964 “Daisy Girl” ad that portrayed Barry Goldwater as a warmonger and the 1988 “Willie Horton” ad that depicted Mike Dukakis as soft on crime.

But the early years of the republic offer even more stunning examples of attack campaigns. In 1800 John Adams’ supporters started rumors that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children; in 1828 Andrew Jackson’s opponents claimed his mother had been a prostitute; and in 1884 Grover Cleveland’s opponents claimed he had abandoned an illegitimate child. Is that negative enough for you?

Today’s media describe Republicans as unusually nasty. But say what they will about super-PACs and robo-calls, the notion that 2012 marks a dramatic departure from civilized political discourse is simply bunk.

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Current Crisis

Exit Newt

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (431) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

spike59| 2.2.12 @ 6:20AM

Jack in Wi.| 2.2.12 @ 7:19AM

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 9:15AM

typical white woman| 2.2.12 @ 12:36PM

The Bigfellah| 2.2.12 @ 12:58PM

Mike| 2.2.12 @ 3:22PM

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:28AM

Tina| 2.6.12 @ 7:10PM

typical white man| 2.2.12 @ 3:21PM

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 1:46PM

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:04PM

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 2:15PM

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:52PM

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 5:21PM

jmulcahy| 2.3.12 @ 12:14AM

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 2:41PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:15PM

Rose CD| 2.6.12 @ 4:15AM

SeymourGlass| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.2.12 @ 2:35PM

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 2:54PM

Sha44ss| 2.2.12 @ 7:51PM

SeymourGlass| 2.2.12 @ 2:55PM

Amanda Fitzhugh| 2.2.12 @ 4:10PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:20PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:22PM

beebop2| 2.2.12 @ 6:01PM

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 9:19AM

richard blaine| 2.2.12 @ 9:38AM

Renaissance Nerd | 2.2.12 @ 10:18AM

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:34AM

Rikki| 2.2.12 @ 12:50PM

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:34PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:29PM

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.2.12 @ 7:23PM

Rick Johnson| 2.2.12 @ 1:31PM

Alex| 2.2.12 @ 1:36PM

Occam's Tool| 2.2.12 @ 1:32PM

carnot| 2.2.12 @ 4:31PM

Liberty4AllNow1| 2.2.12 @ 2:59PM

Clint| 2.2.12 @ 7:21AM

Renaissance Nerd | 2.2.12 @ 10:07AM

Al Adab| 2.2.12 @ 10:17AM

cowgirl| 2.2.12 @ 10:32AM

Jean Tant| 2.2.12 @ 3:36PM

W | 2.2.12 @ 11:06AM

crookedwren| 2.2.12 @ 10:52AM

VR Enscoe| 2.2.12 @ 1:26PM

WJ| 2.2.12 @ 2:17PM

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:01PM

Marco2| 2.2.12 @ 10:36PM

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:02PM

Joe Mudd| 2.2.12 @ 3:39PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:35PM

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:30AM

LDG| 2.2.12 @ 1:51PM

WJ| 2.2.12 @ 2:19PM

Sunnyr| 2.2.12 @ 5:37PM

Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 3:04PM

Alan Brooks| 2.2.12 @ 5:51PM

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:31AM

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:46PM

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 2:44PM

luci0001| 2.6.12 @ 3:02PM

somnolence| 2.2.12 @ 6:24AM

Anthony| 2.2.12 @ 10:42AM

Pierre Montagne| 2.2.12 @ 1:59PM

canuckistani| 2.2.12 @ 4:49PM

spike59| 2.3.12 @ 6:31AM

tpaine| 2.3.12 @ 5:47PM

Steve| 2.2.12 @ 6:38AM

L. Ross| 2.2.12 @ 7:08AM

oldfart| 2.2.12 @ 7:13AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.12 @ 7:28AM