The American Spectator

George| 2.14.12 @ 6:21AM

I'm a Reagan Republican and I like Romney. He's a good man. Santorum was a Bushie who voted for the Iraq invasion, amnesty, No Child, etc. etc.
And he helped elect Arlen Spector who became the 60th vote for Obamacare. Something about Santorum's personality just grates on me....

Jack in Wi.| 2.14.12 @ 7:00AM

Santorum is a disaster fro the conservative movement and the pro-life moveement. You can't be for endless war and call yourself pro-life. Santorum wants agressive wars and has always put the agenda of the Neoconservatives far above Life. For 10 years we have sat back and done nothing, when more babies are exterminated in this country everyday then died on 9/11. Both Gingrich and Santorum are unelectable and unaccepable to most Americans. The only 2 people who have ever had a chance to beat Obama have always been Romney and Ron Paul. They are the only ones who can get the independent votes necessary for the Republicans to win The country needs a real debate on the issues. Instead all we get from the 3 stooges Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich is more of the same. The tiny minority voting in these primaries is mostly brain dead followers of talk radio and Lox snooze.

Ron Paul has already won. No prowar Republican is elecable, in this country. The party of the the Neocons and their Republican enablers are only going to be remembered as the guys who destroyed the American Republic. Obama will win, as the guy who got Bin Laden, ended Iraq and is bringing the troops home from Afganistan. On the economy he will blame the banksters and the Republicans. How you going to beat that with chickenhawks and banksters? We have 4 more years of misery ahead of us. Of course if the the neocons win it would be even worse. Because with Obama in the White House we know who the enemy is.

Mac Jehoff| 2.14.12 @ 7:53AM

Another cheesy Islam Firster posting from the anti-Zionist in Wisconsin. Romney/Paul is as close to president as your hero will get.

Nemo| 2.14.12 @ 8:26AM

Only one thing wrong with Ron Paul: He's nuts.

Still, Ron Paul would give the US two presidents for the price of one: the next, and the last.

Ward Bond| 2.14.12 @ 8:41AM

Nemo, good one. These Paul bots love Ron more than their country.

Ohiolad| 2.14.12 @ 9:30AM

Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I haven't yet heard anything from Ron Paul that I particularly disagree with and nothing that would make me think that he is mentally unstable. Too many people have gotten into the habit of just throwing out these monosyllabic ad hominems against Paul with nothing to back them up, and then what? - we are just supposed to accept it? The libs might think this kind of retort substitutes for a well-reasoned argument, but I never have.

Ward Bond| 2.14.12 @ 9:41AM

I'll tell you why I can't support Paul. Although I agree about a lot of things he says about domestic spending and individual rights you can not put your head in the sand about a very dangerous world out there. It's always been the problem with Ron Paul.

Clint| 2.14.12 @ 10:09AM

" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968).

" Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. He also sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Nemo| 2.14.12 @ 10:57AM

So he may be good at treatng snffles. Doesn't mean he knows anything about foreign policy, trade, balance of payments, space, etc. etc.

SUBVET| 2.14.12 @ 11:08AM

NEMO........I agree with you on Paul....no way will he get elected, but all of the things you mentioned don't seem to matter we just experienced it for the last 3 years.

JJ| 2.14.12 @ 12:38PM

Making Paul a bit old, don't you think?

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:41PM

Clint, he started at the rank of Captain.

Paul has a lot going for him domestically. It would be nice if Santorum would listen and adopt Paul's domestic agenda. Santorum is a Big Gov type, and not much of conservative either. But Paul's foreign policy can only be said to be insane.

Loadmaster| 2.14.12 @ 8:56PM

While in the USAF Ron sole duty was to give physical's to flight crews and doing "sick" calls.

Newt not going anywhere. Stick it guys.

Jason| 2.14.12 @ 5:11PM

He has repeatedly said that if the congress declares war while he is the President, he will go to war, win it and come home.

The main difference is that he will make congress declare the war. This means provide objectives and funding so that the wars are defined and don't drag on longer than necessary.

TrueBlue| 2.14.12 @ 6:15PM

But he also said Iran should be allowed to get nukes and doesn't see the problem there. Also thinks that trading with everybody and ignoring international politics will work out just fine.

Doctor Right| 2.14.12 @ 11:46AM

One is left to surmise that you've never heard Paul speak about foreign policy..?

Occam's Tool| 2.14.12 @ 5:10PM

Ohiolad: "Bradley Manning is a hero." Look it up, 'nuff said.

Clint| 2.14.12 @ 9:39AM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist,
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."

Mike Rogers| 2.14.12 @ 10:21AM

Got up a bit later than Jack this morning?
A few others got their comments in between you!
What would you say, this Valentines day, if you suspected your beloved was cheating? No, not Jack, but Ron Paul - he seems to be dallying with Mittens in the hope of a cabinet post - why else would he give up an easy win at CPAC, and arrange for Mittens to win the same way he did in the past - busing in hundreds of students.

Jason| 2.14.12 @ 5:09PM

It's easy to say someone is nuts. It's hard to explain why.

The only veteran left in the race.
The only candidate proposing real spending cuts.
The only candidate who has never voted to raise taxes.
The only evangelical Christian left in the race.

Interesting facts:
He returns the unused portion of his congressional office budget to the US Treasury to pay down the national debt every year.
Although he has earned it, he opted out of the lucrative congressional pension plan because he thinks it's an immoral use of taxpayer money.
He was a doctor, and never took medicare or medicaid at his practice. He didn't turn people away, he did the work for free.
He was beginning his medical practice, and had a wife and two young kids, but when he was drafted, he went.

Occam's Tool| 2.14.12 @ 5:13PM

Actually, Paul went to an Air Force residency. No doubt his Med School was paid for with a ROTC scholarship, so his service was expected and already paid for.

Can the balloon juice. I took Medicaid and Medicare, AND treated indigent patients without insurance and without pay when I was in private practice. It is a VERY common practice.

Paul thinks the Iranian mullahs should have nukes. Clint supports child rape and enjoys reading about little Israeli children being beheaded.

Jason| 2.14.12 @ 5:20PM

His medical school was not paid for by an ROTC Scholarship. You're either misinformed or telling lies.

He also doesn't want Iran to get a nuke. He just has a different approach than war. He has said numerous times, that if congress declares war, he will take the troops to war, win it and get it over with. The only difference is that he will make congress declare the war which provides objectives and funding. That way the war doesn't drag on any longer than necessary.

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:45PM

He's misinformed. It's also true that many MDs were drafted. I met a bunch of them while my father was in the Air Force during the 50s and 60s.

Crassus| 2.14.12 @ 10:06AM

Yada, yada, yada.

Clint| 2.14.12 @ 10:10AM

Crackass, The Bibi Plumber.

Doctor Right| 2.14.12 @ 11:48AM

...Clint!!!

Ron Paul!!!!

...See what juvenille hero-worship gets you, Clint?

Then again, you are a teenager, so chalk it up to a lesson learned.

JJ| 2.14.12 @ 12:37PM

Confirmation once again that we have a Romney/Paul alliance. Notice Jack going after Gingrich and Santorum while supporting George. Because of this alliance (like a game of Survivor), Newt needs to have his own alliance with Santorum and go after delegates. The key is for the two of them to get more delegates than Romney/Paul. Then they control the convention. If Newt bows out now Santorum would have to beat the combination of the other two buy himself. So no don't drop out now Newt.

Jeremiah Smirking| 2.14.12 @ 1:02PM

To make the statement that Santorum is a disaster "fro" the pro-life "movemeent" reveals a stupidity hard to imagine.

libertyhillpatriot| 2.14.12 @ 9:52PM

Thanks! I may not vote for Ron Paul, but you're spot on.

It's funny how freedom just isn't that popular any more.

As an independent Conservative, it's sad to see the GOP self-destruct. Their policies are fiscally insane and they love to take liberty and freedom for the sake of their
"WAR ON __________" (fill in the blank)

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 11:20AM

George:
Unless you are actually George Romney which I doubt since he opposed Reagan at every turn, your view is inconsistent. You may like Mitt personally, but philosophicaly you cannot be as you self-describe.

This election is about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the social welfare state, not about who can better manage it. Mitt could run it, but will he reverse it?

loulou| 2.14.12 @ 11:37AM

You're not Purp, are you?

albert constantine jr| 2.14.12 @ 12:54PM

There seems to be an epidemic of "Purp"-like posters impersonating Republicans or conservatives in a not too credible manner lately.

W| 2.14.12 @ 4:38PM

Albert,
I agree. The pattern is that the poster will say that two of the candidates are terrible, and the remaining one is maybe ok and still not worth voting for because he is like Obama.
This sounds like one of the cons that Rockford would do, like when they set up the phony oil drilling well on the condo grounds that Dennis bought.
You have invented a new word to describe the lefty trolls "purplike."

albert constantine jr.| 2.14.12 @ 9:19PM

Perhaps I could post as "Jimmy Joe Meeker" I write with an Oklahoma drawl.

The sad thing with trolls is that Purp, while obnoxious, is far from the worst. For some reason, though, they fear a site that is not polluted by their deceit and vitriol.

When they write, though, they generally reveal their intolerance towards others, and the shallowness of their ideas.

On the other hand, I think POST American has some Oracle of Delphi thing going on, and might reveal a great truth someday (but if not, I'm working on setting his posts to music, and taking it to the post-apocalyptic version of Broadway).

albert constantine jr.| 2.14.12 @ 9:20PM

"post as "Jimmy Joe Meeker" I write with "

sorry, 'I' should be 'and'

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 12:13PM

Newt ought to go to Mars right away- and stay there.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 12:17PM

... Jonah Goldberg published in NR just this month a piece on what an incentive the Space Program has been in inspiring America (if nothing else). WEll, Jonah, an incentive is to send Gingrich and all his ilk into space to rid us of their 3-color glossy-jacketed future-assed books forever.
THAT is progress.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Brooksie:
In the early years of the 15th century, the Chinese snt great ships into the aceans of the world. They reached Africa, probably Australia and perhaps other places as well. A great age of discovery loomed. They decided not to follow up on those voyages and as a result it was Europe which "discovered" them rather than the other way around.

What a sad historical irony it would be if the West, having followed America into space, turned its back on that promise and left the ultimate exploration and colonization of other worlds to the Chinese.

Such societies in the far future would certainly not be liberty loving ones. If human freedom matters to you think what such a humanity might be.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 1:54PM

Al Agab,
all you Rightists really care about deep down is business- progress is incidental to you, your sublime concept of progress is building Wendys and Burger Kings on Mars.

Occam's Tool| 2.14.12 @ 5:15PM

What's wrong with a Wendys on Mars? I like Wendys.

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:48PM

Brooksie is a regressive. They like to claim they are progressive, but they are as progressive as Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The result of what they want will be much the same as the policies of those on the list I just gave.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 7:24PM

Tear down those Confederate monuments down here in America, and then you can discuss tyranny.

Loadmaster| 2.14.12 @ 9:02PM

Sir - you are an OFFF. The South lost a lot of good men and women fighting for a cause. How dare you tell us what we should do. It will be a cold day in hell before that happens. You don't want to go there. You have read the wrong history books about the south. States right are still a big issue in the USA. I/We oppose slavery in every sort but it was more than that. We are proud of our southern heritage...and don't thing for one minute we're going to let it go, just because you said so.

luci0001| 2.16.12 @ 3:17AM

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%).

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.12 @ 6:27AM

Santorum can't win a general election. He has little support. If he knocks Romney off with his phony conservative campaign, he can take pride in knowing he ensured a second Obama term.

By the way, your statement that Santorum has nothing on his record like Romenycare is untrue. Santorum was a big supporter of Medicare Part D, whose costs and size dwarf Romneycare.

On many other issues Santorum voted for big government and not the individual. Santorum's claims of conservatism could easily be dispelled by reviewing his record:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....servative/
Club for Growth’s Verdict: Mostly True

Analysis: During a particularly touchy exchange at the ABC News debate, Paul attacked Santorum for being a “big-government, big spending individual.” To back up this claim, Paul offered four substantive examples: that Santorum voted to raise the nation’s debt limit five times, that Santorum voted against “right to work” laws, that he voted for No Child Left Behind, and that he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

Research shows that all four substantive allegations against Santorum are true. Santorum did indeed vote to raise the debt limit five times. (Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #54, 2006; Senate Roll Call Vote #213, 2004; Senate Roll Call Vote #202, 2003; Senate Roll Call Vote #148, 2002; Senate Roll Call Vote #209. 1997)

The “right to work” vote Paul is referring to is a little-known 1996 cloture motion in the U.S. Senate. The vote was on a bill called the “National Right to Work Act of 1995” that would “amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to repeal those provisions of Federal law that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and for other purposes.” Santorum, along with all Democrats and liberal Republicans like Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Frank Murkowski of Alaska, and his fellow Pennsylvanian Arlen Specter all voted against cloture, which would have allowed a final vote on the bill. (Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #188, 1996)

Paul is also right that Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, which massively expanded the role of the federal government in education. (Senate Roll Call Vote #371, 2001) Finally, Santorum did vote for the new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 (Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #459, 2003)

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 8:38AM

I agree - he's a terrible candidate who I dislike for many reasons.

He is openly hostile to Libertarians and has a wide authoritarian streak that is truly disturbing. Warren Meyer hit the nail on the head today. "I-am-nominally-for-small-goverment-but-support-authoritarian-solutions-for-a-range-of-random-issues school."
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyo.....hnson.html

Dai Alanye| 2.14.12 @ 9:42AM

It's past time for the Mittsters to recognize facts -- that Romney can't sell himself to the base because he's recognized as a false conservative, someone acting a part. Mitt's only hope now is to so exaggerate Santorum's record as to make him look like a liberal, but we all know who is the actual "moderate conservative" in this race. Those who criticize Santorum's slips from perfect conservatism never to seem to mention Mitt's previous big-spending ways or his flip-flops on issue after issue.

Mitt has done as well as he has due to two main narratives -- first, that he's the inevitable nominee, and second, that as a "businessman" he'd know how to fix the economy.

Santorum's recent successes have frayed Mitt's aura of inevitability, and national polls don't bode well for him. So much for "inevitability."

As for the second, perhaps we can agree that the worst problem facing the economy is government over-spending. Who is more likely to correct this -- the candidate who spends tens of millions to buy votes and endorsements, or the one who is able to campaign on a shoestring?

Mitt fans should gracefully face reality. Their man is fading when up against a true conservative.

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:51PM

At least against some one that is a bit more to the right than Mittens. I doubt any of the midgets running can beat Obama. I hope I'm wrong, and that Santorum is the man who does it. But I'm under no illusions that Santorum is a Conservative. Paul has the Conservtive core on fiscal matters, but Santorum is just another Neocon.

Vern Crisler| 2.14.12 @ 11:07AM

And as Catron doesn't seem to understand, the Romney smear machine hasn't gone after Santorum full force yet. Santorum doesn't have the money to respond to all of Romney's lies and distortions, and his momentum and poll numbers will accordingly reflect that.

In a way it would serve Santorum right, since he's now running a smear attack ad against Newt, claiming that Newt is a big-government politician. All these attacks against Newt by Romney, Paul, and Santorum only serve to guarantee that the moderate snake, Mitt Romney, will be the Republican nominee. And that's the end of the Republican party, and the end of National Review and American Spectator as well, as conservatives leave in droves.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.12 @ 11:47AM

Nobody has to lie about Santorum His record speaks for itself.

The Big E| 2.14.12 @ 12:21PM

With all due respect, anyone who thinks Mitt Romney can beat Obama without the support of the base is delusional, and does not have, and will ever have, the support of the base. It's that simple. As a result, Romney is the one candidate (aside from Ron Paul - he doesn't count) who almost certainly CANNOT beat Barack Obama.

Santorum is certainly a flawed candidate, and Newt is . . . Newt. But for all their flaws, they, at least, CAN count on support from the base. Mitt cannot.

Right or wrong, many conservatives have decided that they will no longer hold their nose and vote candidates who, from their perspective, differ little from their Democratic opponents. Even those conservatives who will hold their nose and vote for Romney will not go that extra mile for him. They won't be donating their money or their time. They won't be talking him up at work or other places because they see nothing worthy to talk about.

Romney is a fake conservative and every true conservative knows it.

Now, for years, conservatives have gone to the polls, held their collective noses, and voted for candidates they detested, and who were either soundly thrashed, or, if elected, proved to be monumental disappointments. Many have decided that if they're going to have a liberal in White House, they would rather it be an honest liberal than one who tries to sell themselves as something they are not.

If you don't believe me, just look through the comments in this very article and see how many conservatives say they will NOT vote for Romney AT ALL.

Romney does not energize the base, and without the base he cannot win.

A Romney nomination equals an Obama re-election.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.12 @ 12:49PM

The base put McCain out there.

The Big E| 2.14.12 @ 3:09PM

In 2008, McCain was determined to pander to independents and "moderates." He even refused to go on the offensive against Obama for fear that by doing so he would become offensive to those precious moderates. But what did it get him? A 52% to 44% drubbing among independents. And those "crucial" moderate voters? McCain got creamed 60% to 39%.

And that's the road you want to travel again this time around?

How about this for an idea - give people a choice.

Instead of running a candidate who says, "Hey, I'm just like Obama, only not so much," or "I'll do a better job of running the liberal bureaucracy than Obama will," why not offer them a candidate who can honestly say - "I am unlike Obama in every way."

Republicans never win elections by being Democrat lite.

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:53PM

A choice, not an echo.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 2:52PM

"time for Newt to do the honorable thing"

Blow his brains out?

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:53PM

That would be the honorable thing for you, however.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.12 @ 7:27PM

You like Newt?? what sort of auto did your grandpa buy? an Edsel?

xymbaline| 2.15.12 @ 1:10PM

Next time you wash your mouth out, leave it out.

JimP| 2.14.12 @ 6:46AM

It's too soon for Gingrich to drop out. Especially if one is using a Democrat party polling outfit like PPP as a basis for doing so. Newt should stay in to the end and perhaps then throw his support to Santorum during the convention.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.14.12 @ 8:35AM

Or if Newt is not collecting enough contributions to win or to go the distance, he should drop out right before Super Tuesday. His endorsement of Santorum would be fresh for the big slate of primaries, and Romney can not focus his barrage of negative attacks on Santorum until after Rick mounts a potentially solid lead.

xymbaline| 2.15.12 @ 1:12PM

Subtract the number of representatives from the Caucus States, where they aren't even bound to vote for him, and Santorum is dead last.

Clint| 2.14.12 @ 7:22AM

Big Government Ricky Specter-Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Damage Him With Tea Party Patriots.

However, Ricky Specter-Santorum Is A Useful Dupe To Grab Delegates, And Head To A Brokered Convention.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

JJ| 2.14.12 @ 12:42PM

So Clint, where is you criticism of Romney? Did you get a memo from the Paul campaign to not attack Romney?

John Sargent| 2.14.12 @ 7:45AM

Santorum looks good only because he's the last "conservative" alternative to Romney.

I wonder if Perry is wishing he'd stayed in, and I'm so disappointed that Palin didn't run.

I'm backing a potential winner in Romney over a sure loser in Santorum.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 8:30AM

Except he's not even a little bit conservative.

Stormzeye| 2.14.12 @ 9:28AM

Yes, O.S. and more importantly, he's not even a little bit Obama.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 11:01AM

But a Romney, like any accomodationist republican candidate will deliver the election to Obama. We have followed these losers since Tom Dewey. Why follow them again?

Red in Denver| 2.14.12 @ 11:18AM

I could buy that he's not been consistently conservative throughout his adult life -- but when people make comments to the effect that he's not AT ALL conservative, you lose all credibility.

There is NO ONE in this race who could truly be called a consistent, reliable conservative. And as for SMALLER GOVERNMENT -- you certainly couldn't say that either Gingrich OR Santorum could be seen as championing that cause throughout their lengthy political careers.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 12:29PM

I live in NJ close enough to PA to get the Philly media. Until 2011, I never heard Santorum utter a peep about small government. He always seemed to be just fine with big government, as long as it was big Christian government. Nothing is conservative or restrained about his vision of government.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 8:41AM

John - don't know where you live, but in VA Romney (and Santorum) will cost George Allen the Senate.

If the establishment forces a crap sandwich on us; we need to have control of the Senate even if its just establishment Rs. They can at least pass a budget.

Doctor Right| 2.14.12 @ 11:49AM

Santorum is and always has been a stalwart Conservative.

Not sure where you folks get your definitions from.

And you're supporting Romney? That's logical.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.12 @ 11:58AM

Stalwart conservatism defined al la Santorum:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/.....r-norquist
Spending and Entitlements

Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt. . . .

Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.

Conservative | 2.14.12 @ 2:27PM

Here is Ricky's voting record:

http://libertycounselaction.or.....ing_record

Quartermaster| 2.14.12 @ 5:58PM

It's not pretty. WE are so utterly screwed this time around. Again.

martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 7:50AM

What Newt should do is stay in the race but basically attack Romney and Obama. And in the end support Santorum--if--Santorum continues in his rise .

But: If not this will be a brokered convention:
a) Paul is a big fat NO.
b)Romney is an even bigger and Fatter NO
c) If Santorum and does not get off the ground and Newt does not do a major comeback then:

Anew face ( as I have said it all depends on whether this is real or playtime--a candidate that is agreeable across the board who can carry a Center right message for Capitalism and American and against Socialism will be the chosen one. If this is all playtime--the decision has already been made, the candidates will join in a kumbaya party and and away we go.

wodiej| 2.14.12 @ 7:51AM

LOL...is this article a joke? Why doesn't Romney or Santorum drop out? Neither have the legislative accomplishments Gingrich has. How pathetic for this writer.

W| 2.14.12 @ 8:13AM

Newt should stay in.The race is fluid with the polls constantly changing. Let the voters in the primaries decide. In 2008 Giuliani and Hillary led in the polls then lost the primaries.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 9:03AM

I think he'll stay in long enough to keep crapping on Mitt, then drop out at the last minute & throw his support to Santorum.

Drunken Sailor| 2.14.12 @ 9:39AM

Perhaps in return for a VP slot or cabinet post? Interesting strategy.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 11:04AM

All three of them need to meet in that "smoke filled room" put their egos aside and pick the GOP nominee and probably not one of them. Who can carry the States of FL, VA, NC and Ohio? That is the person we need.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 11:11AM

Now that WOULD be interesting. Not exactly what I'd hope for, but interesting nonetheless. I'd rather see someone like Rubio, West or even Mike Pence as VP (yes, I know I keep pushing Pence, but I think he'd the man).

W| 2.14.12 @ 12:54PM

We should know the ticket in March after the Super Tuesday primaries. I think it is Romney-Rubio. Newt will be ambassodor to the UN, Santorum will be head of HHS to replace Sebellius.
Ron Paul will be ambassador to Iran.

The only way to repeal Obamacare, reduce the size of government, and reduce the deficit is to elect a Tea-Party type of conservative Congress.The president alone cannot do it. We cannot afford any more liberals or compassionate conservatives.

I agree Newt hates Romney and will stay in just to attack him, and his ego is too big to withdraw. There is no reason for him to withdraw. Let the voters in the primaries choose.
I like the idea of a smoke filled room to select a nominee but it is now illegal to have a smoke filled room anywhere in the USA. They would have to travel to China for the meeting., or else get a waiver from Obama.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 1:30PM

W:
As I sit here with an A Fuentes Gran Reserva in hand, I imagine the possibilities. Was our leadership better then or now?

W| 2.14.12 @ 1:41PM

Al Adab
I envy you. I don't know if it was better before, have to think about it. On a similar note we were discussing whether arranged marriages worked better than our current model. There a pros and cons.
Don't forget about Valentine's day for your wife!!

Occam's Tool| 2.14.12 @ 5:17PM

Ron Paul needs to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:38PM

I really don't want to have to flip a coin as to who to vote for on the Presidential ballot...

I'm either voting third party, or whoever wins the coin toss between Obamney and Obama...
Preferably third party.

If Romney is the nominee, I don't care if his VP is George Washington, I won't support him.

W| 2.14.12 @ 7:05PM

You are one of the pretend Republicans trolling around bashing the candidates. Who cares about your "opinion." Be honest and just say you are voting for obama.

CD File| 2.14.12 @ 10:07AM

If you look at the big picture Newt's accomplishments are his biggest problem.

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:35AM

That has zero to do with. The whole slate is damaged. BHO can keep his powder dry until Labor Day, then the carpet bombing will start.

The cave on the payroll tax cut and the stunning overreaction to the BHO overreach on church contraception shows that the GOP brand is severely lacking in credibility and a fallback to old behaviors is occurring before our eyes.
Between Willard's "severeness" and Santorum's "emotions" cracks, the public has already begun to steel their preferences as the GOP dawdles along looking for the bottom.

BHO is no Kerry or Carter. He is an enigma that has the GOP driven to distraction. With Grover's speech saying they only need a willing sycophant in the WH jumps two places and ignores A) selecting a toady nominee that will acept the mantle of toadyism and B) selecting a toady that has any hope of beating BHO in a stable economic climate.
Newtie will not get out. He has no job to go back to, and callista has only started her PR tours for her DVDs and pamphlets.
Plus, Adelson still needs his name on the zionist of the year plaque at AIPAC headquarters.

Doctor Right| 2.14.12 @ 11:50AM

Once again, you say the opposite of true...

Tommy Frisco| 2.14.12 @ 10:45AM

"If you look at the big picture Newt's accomplishments are his biggest problem."

That doesn't make any sense. Newt's accomplishments aren't a problem for him, They ARE a problem for the GOP establishment who want to maintain the status quo. Compare Newt's record to John Boehner's. Boehner, by the way, helped lead the covert coup to remove Newt from his role as Speaker of the House. How's that working out for ya?

SUBVET| 2.14.12 @ 11:23AM

Tommy your the man................most here are blinded by their feelings. You want someone to kick the ball back into HIS court and that means it comes from experience. Newt has been there and played in that court. I want a guy to pull a gun in this knife fight. Newt may have some baggage but who doesen't. No one is the perfict canidate but we can't afford 4 more of this POS.

Like it or not put your park your feelings and get behind the only guy that has the real experience.

He is the "unfair advantage".

Jennifer| 2.14.12 @ 4:20PM

I agree. While Newt has his baggage, as the media loves to point out, he is the only candidate, besides Ron Paul, who is offering bold solutions, such as those he mentioned at CPAC. Santorum's tax reform plan is timid, and Romney's 59 point plan--where do I start? Our country is in real trouble, and we can't be "tinkering" around with things as they are, we do need a "reset" button. I hope Newt stays in for the long haul.

Mimi| 2.14.12 @ 8:14AM

The only candidate who shows REAL Leadership is Newt Gingrich....thru all those debates and all those candidates, he was the one looked up to, referred to, respected by the others, the crowds, and cheered by the T. V. audience! His plan for our future was by far the very best...he rose above.
All may come to this conclusion too late!
He has admitted, apologized for the old warts and lives a most religious, and admired life of goodness now. His gifts are offered to serve this NATION in its hour of greatest need.
Why he is not coming up in the polls and succeeding in this nominating process is a mystery to me . He will do the right thing...but NOW is no time to give up.....TRUST the mans WISDOM !

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:44AM

It appears to any observer that the only wisdom Newtie possesses is the wisdom to seek pathways to personal success - at the expense of everything else. He is a zero-sum operator - I take, you lose, and anyone that has had the pleasure of working 'with' him knows this to be true.
If you listen closely to his rhetoric, he is an absolutist on the podium, but a willing dealer at the negotiating table that he heavily tilts to his own benefit. Between Freddie, his caucus mismanagement, and his being rolled by Willie countless times, you should realize this.

His venom against Willard for being a capitalist was obvious, juvenile and deeply troubling. He did it as an ad hominum attack to raise his prospects, but at the same time lowering us all.

Be wary - he has not changed. And marrying your mistress does not indicate a path to piety to any of us.

Mimi| 2.14.12 @ 2:48PM

What about Newt scares your gang so...and why do you want us to nominate Mitt..? Is it NEWT the one you most know will tell the country what the deal is .....you guys really fear him don't you... WHY?....what did your BOYS do so wrong?....Interesting!!!

Vern Crisler| 2.14.12 @ 11:13AM

Mimi, I think Republicans have sold their political souls this election season. They'd rather go with a country-club Republican than with a true conservative like Newt. I'll be laughing when Obama wins reelection, laughing at Republicans that is -- though unfortunately I'll also be crying for my country.

Mimi| 2.14.12 @ 2:49PM

ME TOO Vern...I cried this morning when I wrote that POST!

scotchieguy| 2.14.12 @ 11:44AM

I would have agreed with you 2 months ago. But he has more recently shown his true colors. I believe he is nothing but a narcissistic opportunist--a sick combo platter of Clinton, Mitt and Trump. He SAYS all the right things. Big deal. So does Romney. We all know what a fraud he is. Where Newt lost me completely was when he went after Romney's successes as a businessman. Obama could have not done a better job ripping capitalism. As is always the cases, Newt is his own worst enemy. BTW, I know no conservative women who like him. You don't cheat on your wife twice, then marry your mistress twice, and not be hated by most women. He is only useful in attacking Romney, then he must drop out.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:41PM

How many times has his campaign been declared dead?

Anyways if you want to blame anyone for this race going into the gutter, look no further than your beloved Mittens whom started it with the smear campaign.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 8:37AM

Newt wins SC and increases turnout - no caucus; just ordinary concerned citizens and not activists. Newt has 3x the votes Santorum has yet received with his SC , Florida, and smaller contest totals combined. Why should he drop – he attracts more voters than Santorum.

Romney carpet bombs Newt with pride and his campaign team gleefully rejoices in trying to humiliate a fellow Republican and offers no conservative policy or principle authentically presented to give any conservative a reason to vote for Romney. All Romney has is a 65:1 negative ad spend – How’s he going to use that against Obama? A $65Billion Presidential campaign and all Romney can do is get 49% of the depressed voter turnout?

Santorum defeats Romney in non-binding no-count primaries and caucuses. So Santorum attracts activists – great. Most activists are Anti-Romney – hence Romney losing. How does Santorum do when the contest is more reflective of the general and advertising is about equal as it will be in the general – let’s see – 15% tops – underwhelming. And BTW in VA Santorum will sink George Allen’s Senatorial campaign.

In the realm of Governing, Ron Paul has never governed and would drop our defenses and let mortal enemies have nukes; Romney governed as a Progressive; Santorum governed as a Companionate Conservative giving us bigger government, no child left behind, Arlen Specter, empowered unions, More earmarks than Hillary Clinton, and Medicare part D.

Compare these ‘leaders’ to Newt who governed as a conservative and actually CUT the federal government. Compare that to Newt who actually fought against progressives and beat them. Romney and Santorum seek accommodation and advance liberal policy. Ron Paul foreign policy is truly frightening.

For Newt's trouble, he was attacked by the liberals and backstabbed by Republican establishment figures who abandoned the Gingrich revolution and led us to 2006 after which we promptly got Obama. If we're all concerned about the government being too big, why are we not supporting the only candidate who cut the government? A lot of us out here in Hobbit-land are wondering if Republicans really do want to cut government. Personally, I think Washington is afraid of the one conservative who has done that.

The other issue that impacts what going on is the establishment’s concern about down ballot races and turnout. If we're beginning to see that both Romney and Santorum can't get conservatives to come to the polls to help down ballot races, how come we're not supporting the one candidate who, where he wins (North Florida, South Carolina) has increased turnout?

Here's a warning to the establishment - you think our hatred for Obama is so great that we will accept any crap-weasel politician you shove down our throats. We've got news for you - 4 years ago we all humiliated and embarrassed ourselves supporting John "Hobbiteses hating" McCain.

WE ARE NOT DOING THAT AGAIN.

Establishment - think very carefully about YOUR choice of 'devils you know.' Obama is incredibly bad, however, the Republicans who practice an accomodationist policy are NOT ANY DIFFERENT. We see it now. We’re not supporting it. We will let it take 20years to fix the damage if we have to. We have rebuilt the farm team. The local politicians coming out of the 2010 election are the BEGINNING of our re-taking our government back from you. You may force crap-weasel this time, but you won't the next.

Think of this as the 'civil cold war' where conservatives play the part of America. We're going to fight the Mittstablishment and the faux union loving companionate 'conservatives' tooth and nail. We're going to take over state parties. We're going to vet out leaders at the local level before promoting them. We’re watching governance. You either increase ordered liberty within the constitution or you decrease it. If you decrease it we will work to throw you out. If you are corrupt we will hunt you from blogs. Ask Spencer Bacchus how that's working out.
We’re really not at all discouraged or defeated.

We’re simply going to wear you down, no matter how much you disparage us, attack people who do what’s needed to be done, or how you game the system with faux conservatives.

Sorry for the long post but it needs to be said - the establishment Republicans supporting Mitt are as bad as the Democrats regarding liberty stealing government growth.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 8:54AM

Unfortunately, Gingrich didn't "CUT" the federal government. He cut defense deeply and slightly slowed the growth of the civilian side. He voted to create the Department of Education, and he has always been a big government medical care guy who enthusiastically supported Medicare part D. Just another crap-weasel politician.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 9:03AM

Sorry he cut government - I checked the numbers - here's the link; narrow the search window to Newt's tenure as Speaker and a few years after:

http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....011lcn_F0f

The only other time the federal government shrank was Calvin Cooligde's admin.

...And I am not demanding perfection. I along with my Tea Party group demand conservative Governance. That means governing with people not against them. Newt repudiated his mandate loving ways - humorously in one of the debates in response to St. Rick.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 9:12AM

There are no details in that link. I stand by my statement - not a civilian employee or penny of actual spending was cut.

The U.S. Army was pretty much halved during the 90's. If my memory is correct, we had 18 active divisions in 1990, 10 in 2000. Some of the independent brigades (like the Tiger Brigade) and our airborne armor were also eliminated.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 9:22AM

Yep - We won the cold war and demobilized. When Saddam did his thing we beat him. When we had to go back in after 9/11 we won. Bigger is not the end-all in Military strategy - it's not a great idea to have large concentrated forces in the age of smart weapons - which the One is letting the Chinese steal. Massed forces are big targets - that's what every military planner absorbed in their strategic thinking after Gulf I; Gulf II was the object lesson for the "C" Stategists. Massed forces = easy target.

Don't blame Newt for cutting defnse after we've won a war. It's the natural progression of a healthy Republic. I designed comm systems for weapons in those days and understand the dynamic well.

As far as no details at the link - it does require you select the time frames - judging from the time stamp of you posts I know you did not take any time to study. It's not like establishment and media want to advertise conservative success - it's why the Coolidge administration is rarely discussed in textbooks. Reagan modelled his Presidency on Coolidge - it's a good model.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 9:33AM

I'm not blaming Newt for cutting defense (although they cut too much), I'm not giving him credit for cutting the rest of government.

That chart is simply the federal government riding out defense cuts, the wind-down of the S&L bailout, and decent economic growth - along with relatively slow growth of the rest of government.

Mike 3/505| 2.14.12 @ 10:01AM

Old soldier...were you there when the Air Forse LAPSED that Sherridan on Sicily DZ and crashed the C130? What a mess.

Regards,

Mike
AKA GATOR-6

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 11:11AM

Heck no. I was in the Marines back in Desert Shield - saw the Airborne Sherridans and thought they were pretty cool.

Old Soldier| 2.14.12 @ 9:27AM

Now It's coming back to me... spending was sky high in 1990 because HW Bush just did the first Rino government bailout - the S&L's.

If he had not bailed out the S&L's, the budget would have been balanced during HW's Presidency - and he wouldn't have had an excuse to raise taxes.

Dai Alanye| 2.14.12 @ 9:49AM

The S & Ls were done in by Bob Dole's "tax reform" in the late '80s, thus leading to the dominance of Fanny and Freddie. I wonder if Old Bob ever thinks of that?

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 11:09AM

This is the record that the accomodationist republicans have left us. Do we actually think there is something to gain by following them again? We call them RINOs but in fact they are the GOP establishment. It is only when Conservatives prevail that the GOP enjoys sucess like '80 '94 and 2010. We must be slow learners.

W| 2.14.12 @ 1:44PM

Which tax law, or reform, by Dole?

Tommy Frisco| 2.14.12 @ 10:33AM

Excellent comments, NVA Patriot.

nibblesyble| 2.14.12 @ 10:47AM

That was the best run-down on why Newt is the best going forward I have ever read here. Well done you!

Vern Crisler| 2.14.12 @ 11:26AM

Excellent post NVA Patriot. We conservatives may have to go through a Valley Forge period before we arrive at Yorktown. We may even need to go third party, and perhaps even start a good conservative magazine, not a sell-out magazine claiming to be conservative.

It's better to fight the wolf in front of you than get bitten by the puff adder hiding in your path.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 1:34PM

Vern:
Haven't we suffered through our Valley Forge with Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain and so on? Isn't it time to tell the GOP that unless it heeds our presence we will not follow?

Conservative| 2.14.12 @ 3:52PM

Hoover, Ike, and Nixon in particular weren't fun either.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 4:58PM

Si, es verdad.

Otis the Hand| 2.14.12 @ 8:51AM

Mitt needs to do service to his country by dropping out and letting the country choose between Newt and Santorum.

Jennifer| 2.14.12 @ 4:23PM

Agreed!

Ward Bond| 2.14.12 @ 8:53AM

We need Newt's voice in this election, however, I believe we need Santorum as our nominee. Newt can go after obama like no one else can and he still can even if he is supporting Rick and not himself.

Mimi| 2.14.12 @ 3:00PM

If he can GO-AFTER Obama and defeat him, he deserves to be elected PRESIDENT!

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 6:50PM

LOL....Yeah, I am now confident, Rick could win..

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 9:00AM

From the Article:

"Santorum's 2006 Senate defeat notwithstanding, he has won four out of five elections in a heavily unionized state where Democrats far outnumber Republicans. And, as Don Surber points out, it is a state that no Democrat presidential candidate can afford to lose: "President Obama can win without Florida.… But no Democrat has won the presidency without Pennsylvania since 1948." Obama isn't polling very well there at present. Santorum is probably the only Republican running who has a chance of winning Pennsylvania in November."

This is the most concise explanation of Rick's "electability" factor. To those who cry about his loss because of his support of ExSpecterate, I've said it before, & I'll say it again for those who haven't read it. Santorum supported ExSpecterate for TWO reasons. John Roberts & Sam Alito.

ExSpecterate was THE "gatekeeper" (for better or worse) on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. It was HIS thumbs up or down, when it came to contentious judicial nominees, that would sway enough Dems to confirm said nominee. And even those of you who DON'T live in PA KNOW what a vindictive old putz ExSpecterate was. Had Santorum backed Toomey, ExSpecterate would've most likely done nothing as the Democrats killed the nominations of 2 of the best Justices we could've ever hoped or prayed for on the Supreme Court.

Now Toomey is a Senator. This state went Repub in a big way last November. Both chambers of the State House as well as the governor are Republican. Many of the unions who've taken it in the pooper the hardest from their "allies" in the MaoBama admin. live in this state. The coal miners, whatever steel is left, even trades unions? Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO WORK. And I'm just speaking about PRIVATE sector jobs (since this is a union state, you couldn't find a non union contractor if you put a bounty out on one). People aren't putting in that new bathroom or adding that new deck, or they're holding off on that new roof just a little longer.

Santorum appeals to these people. These are the Reagan Dems of old, who in many cases are now grandparents, & who's kids vote the same way. With Santorum's appeal on the rise in places like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, & PA, the whole, "he's too conservative" meme starts to not hold water. He'll also clean up in Dixie. Take that to the bank. He's the type of conservative that people in the South LOVE. Whereas Romney, as he does with almost everyone ELSE who's a real conservative, would come off as a fraud from central casting.

I can only hope & pray that his success continues. I have no worries about his ability to weather the sure to come shat storm that the Romney folks are surely churining up as we speak. Nor would I have those worries if he were to become the eventual nominee. Rick's a political fighter. And he's never been one to knuckle under to things like that. Its why I've always liked the man.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 9:12AM

Glad you like the guy and I'm originally from PA. I know about Specter and I also know about St. Rick. It's why I support Newt.

Santorum owes his initial success to Newt and Newt's revolution. When Santorum had the chance to lead he became first Trent Lott's pet conservative and then Bill Frist's. Santorum's electability has not been proven this cycle just look at Florida and South Carolina where he failed to get support.

I like Ron Paul too. He's not a choice.

Santorum will get crushed in VA. His Union loving ways are a death kiss.

His ties to the 2006 Senate + George Allen will make an easy dem target and cost us a Senate seat. There's much more in play than the Presidency.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 11:14AM

I didn't think he was even on the ballot in VA.

In the end, I remain an anyone but Obama voter. I'm just more of a fan of Rick's than I am Newt's. As far as skeletons & dirty laundry, I'd be willing to be that there's more of that in Newt's past than there is in Rick's. That's just my guess, though.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 12:06PM

Regards the Ballot - If Rick wins the nomination he gets on the ballot in the general.

Regards skeletons - aside from the editor of American Spectator attempting to give Newt the Cain treatment - the expiration date on Newt's past sins have passed. His Catholic conversion helps - converted Catholics are remarkably faithful people, but most improtantly, Newt's big idea's camapign built around lifting everyone out of poverty into "owning the job" is exactly the inspiring message we need to run with in this campaign. It's not enough to chant liberty and freedom - you need to tie liberty and freedom to the fruits of liberty: a richer more abundant life than what the government gives you living on the dole. Newt can do that.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 12:29PM

To you & I they've reached their expiration date. To the national liberal/regressive media, you know that everything old is new again. I don't give a wit about his past indescretions, either. That's between him & G*d.

Like I said, though. We could run Mother Teresa, the Virgin Mary or G*d himself, & by the time the media got done with either of the 3 of them, they'd be the second coming of John Wayne Gacey.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 11:19AM

Ah, Bill Frist. I voted for him & Fred Thompson in my very first election when I lived in TN. I personally like Dr. Frist because he tried to get me a waiver on my ostomy when I was 18 & trying to enlist in the Corps. He was unable to get me the waiver, but he was very nice about taking his time to see if he could do anything for me.

Again, that's just personal. I'm not speaking to his politics.

W| 2.14.12 @ 12:59PM

Santorum won his elections in Pa without any help from Newt. He did win with the help of snarlin Arlen Specter. Santorum took the lead in his first terms as congressman to expose the Post Office bank. He won the Senate race in 1994 beating a the same year Newt became Speaker.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 1:39PM

Sorry - no dice - Santorum got help from Newt - how come folks always re-write history condeming the conservative...

Santorum himself says Newt helped him, in the Senate Santorum was not Jim DeMint, St. Rick's all establishment all the time...

W| 2.14.12 @ 1:51PM

I did some work in the 94 Rick senate bid, and do not recall any campaigning by Newt for Rick in Pa. I am sure that the general Republican surge in 1994, thanks to Cinton's overreaching on Hillarycare, and Newt's Contract with America helped all Republicans. There is no question the Contract with America helped.
Nobody is condeming Newt. Don't jump to conclusions. Jus asking what exactly did Newt do to help?

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 10:23PM

GOPAC

JimH| 2.14.12 @ 9:06AM

In light of the One’s call for a Global tax, Newt’s proposed lunar colony is positively prescient.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 9:18AM

Gingrich records:
1. engineered the 1994 GOP revolution
2. balanced the budget 4 straight years
3. reformed the welfare
4. passed the Crime Bill
5. impeached Bill Clinton, too bad Senate screwed up
His strength:
1.experience
2. great debater
3. southern heritage
4. SC
His weakness:
1. women voters
2. Money
3. Organization
4. "risky" campaign strategy
Gingrich must stay on the race and fight back. He gets a break while Romney campaign starts pounding on Santorum, and that will benefit Gingrich going into the Super Tuesday, and he can surprise as he did in SC.

Stormzeye| 2.14.12 @ 9:37AM

Bill, I agree with just about everything you've noted and it proves that he can't win. His "weakness"(es) make him unelectable. Without women and without independents, which you know he can't woo, he will surely loose and guarantee Obama a second term. His lack of money and discipline only compound his problems. Let's do what ever we have to to get rid of that creature in the White House, even if it means voting for a RINO. The Congress will not let Romney move to the left on any important issues.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 10:08AM

My man is Newt Gingrich.

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:47AM

Where's Rick?

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:15PM

Racist Troll Bill...."says That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."

Tommy Frisco| 2.14.12 @ 10:13AM

According to exit polls in SC, Newt received 38% of the women's votes and more of the independent's votes than either of the other three candidates.

We can defeat Obama with any of our candidates. We do no have to nominate a RINO to get the job done.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 11:10AM

I pray for Newt Gingrich.

SUBVET| 2.14.12 @ 11:31AM

George Soros....."We think either Obama or Romney's fine but Gingrich, He would change things".

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:16PM

Racist Troll Bill...."says That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 3:02PM

Racist troll Simon Templar.............Shut Up!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 5:50PM

Bill, these are your words not mine. If anyone has any doubt look below this thread at his post.

scotchieguy| 2.14.12 @ 11:55AM

That is SC. How did he do with women voters elsewhere? Based on his miseable results, probably not too well.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 11:14AM

The election of a "RINO" will not prevent, but may delay, the collapse of the United States. Sadly under those circumstances the blame will acrue to the GOP. Future generations will have a better chance of rediscovering Liberty if the blame is placed squarely on the statists Left. It may prevent the new dark age of tyranny from lasting a thousand years.

Mtncougar| 2.14.12 @ 12:42PM

"proves he can't win" Why do you think Romney can? 'Cause everyone says so? Haven't you noticed that the MSM smeared Bachmann and Cain and did a hatchet job on Newt - all without laying a glove on Romney?

Any polls that show Romney doing well against Obama are before "media destruction machine unleashed." They WANT Romney to be the nominee. He's the prototypical country club wall street corporate Republican rich guy. And Bain Capital is his achilles heel.

Here's an interview with a Reagan conservative venture capitalist, easy to understand and credible description of Bain's shady-but-legal way of doing business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Romney will get crushed because of Bain. So who's electable? It's not Romney, that's for sure.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.14.12 @ 9:34AM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.14.12 @ 9:39AM

DO NOT DROP OUT NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Help me (us) Obie- Newt...you're my (our) only hope"

(...with apoligies to Star Wars)

florin| 2.14.12 @ 10:00AM

When has gingrich ever done the honorable thing? Now he says he was wrong to ask rick santorum to drop out of the race so he, gingrich, could be the conservative choice...now he needs to back out...but I don't think callista will allow him to do that...even if he gets down to 1% in the polls, he needs his vengeance against those who brought out all the facts about his dysfunctional life, past and present..

flyovermark| 2.14.12 @ 12:10PM

It may be smart politics to attempt to make the race for the nomination all about personal baggage, or who is the "real" conservative, but let's not lose sight of the battle yet to come. Obama is desperate that the presidential campaign be a debate about ANYTHING but his record in office. Our one advantage is that we get to decide, by who we nominate, which issue defines the presidential campaign.
If we nominate "Mitt-the-one-percenter", Obama succeeds in defining the debate on his home turf of OWS/class warfare, and we lose.
If we nominate "Rick-the-social-conservative" Obama succeeds in defining the debate on his home turf of Planned Parenthood/abortion, and we lose again.
If we nominate "Newt-the-rollback-40%-of-the-Obama-administration-on-Jan 21 2013" WE define the debate on OUR home turf, and Obama loses.

Newt is the right man for the job.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 7:36PM

Agreed, Newt can define the debate on issues, while the others can't.

Nite| 2.14.12 @ 9:13PM

I agree with you. Newt should stay in. Romney campaign said he would not repeal Obamacare, just pieces of it. I want that thing GONE! Newt is a much better choice than Romney ever was.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 10:11AM

Santorum's record:
1. voted for raising debt ceiling 8 times, adding to the national debt $3 trillion because PA was a blue state
2. voted against "Right-to-Work" law because PA is a pro-union state
3. voted for the Medicare Part D because PA has a large population of retirees
Time and time, santorum surrendered to his liberal constituents and failed to stand up with the majority of people of PA, and that is why he lost his senate bid by 18 points to a "silly" liberal Bob Casey in 2006.
wanne be the President? You wish!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:17PM

Racist Troll Bill...."says That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 3:03PM

Racist troll Simon Templar................Shut Up!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 5:51PM

Bill, these are your words not mine. If anyone has any doubt look below this thread at his post.

PattyMor| 2.14.12 @ 10:16AM

Bill, you are right. Newt is the person with the best record at governance. Its there in black and white with green dollars all over it. Is he perfect? No, but he is basically conservative, with some liberal wanderings while he was a private citizen.

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:48AM

He has not signed one bill into law in his life, and his caucus mutinied. What record?

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 11:14AM

Gingrich orchestrated the GOP revolt in 1994, taking control of the House after 40 years, and the Dems were bitter with his leadership in the Congress from the beginning. They waged a war on Gingrich from day to derail all his pro-growth agenda. Despite of the liberal conspiracy, Gingrich succeeded and helped create 11 million jobs. That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress. Gingrich is a her and invincible.

Vern Crisler| 2.14.12 @ 11:29AM

"nigger lover President Clinton"

I think we can do without language like this.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 12:39PM

Vern Crisler, Bill Clinton raped Monica Lewinsky and committed perjury in front of the grand jury. All the Black lawmakers in the Congress defended Clinton, saying "this is just politics." Clinton got away because of those Blacks, who used to worship him for being the "first black president."

Nick| 2.14.12 @ 8:07PM

You are a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:26PM

Bill,

You owe the bloggers out here an apology.
Never use that language here again!

Me thinks you are nothing but a liberal troll, no conservative, true conservative would ever use that language.

If you will not apologize, then get lost and do not come back here again as you HAVE completely discredited yourself.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:29PM

Bill, I will hound your filthy mouth and posts forever. I will remind everyone of what you are!

You represent nothing and you damn well do not represent conservatives or conservativism!

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 12:36PM

ST, calm down! That was a typo. Blacks seek big government because they love living on welfare. Blacks live on poverty and commit most of the crimes. They are lazy and have no respect for America. I exclude 3 prominent black politicians:
Justice Thomas, Rep. West. and Rep. Scott. Rest of them are "garbage."

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 1:44PM

Bill - please get back under the rock you crawled out from under...Republicans liberated Blacks from Slavery; enabled civil rights and don't need trolls like you denigrating us.

If you want to be a racist - become a Democrat - it's a place for racists from Dred Scott; to the Klan; to Woodrow Wilson; to Franklin Roosevelt; to LBJ and to recently that wonderful Klan leader of the Senate - Robert Byrd...you really belong there

W| 2.14.12 @ 3:51PM

Don't forget KKK member Justice Hugo Black, appointed by FDR to the Supreme Court

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 6:01PM

Bill, you a bigot & a fraud. No one wants your racist ass here. Go back to Stormfront or play with yourself while reading your copy of "The Turner Diaries," you unreconstructed douchebag.

W| 2.14.12 @ 7:10PM

ConChef,
Albert Constantine is right. He said we have a lot of pretend Republicans trolling around saying stupid stuff, bashing all our canidates, and racist remarks.
We have a new word, "purplike" comments. What do you think?

W| 2.14.12 @ 7:12PM

Bill,
Bubba did not rape Monica. Bubba did lie and paid a $200,ooo fine for the lie during the deposition. I agree with Simon and ConChef, get lost.

Die Limbeckity, Die!| 4.26.12 @ 5:07PM

Yeah Bill, you should know conservatives only use racist words in private, never on a public forum like this!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:32PM

Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE EDITORS AND MONITORS!

Delete this jerk and ban him!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:32PM

Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE EDITORS AND MONITORS!

Delete this jerk and ban him!

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 1:44PM

You go to hell!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:09PM

KKK Bill has made himself clear.
Go away racist troll......

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 3:05PM

KKK Simon Templar has made himself clear. Go away unemployed racist troll..................

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 5:54PM

Bill, these are your words not mine. If anyone has any doubt look below this thread at his post.

Bill own up, it is right there in your post. You can not pretend otherwise and dismiss it by calling me what you are like a child on a playground.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 6:02PM

Aw, poor Grand Kleagle Bill doesn't like when people use his own words against him. Cry us a river, bigot.

You should love Clinton. His mentor was staunch segregationist William Fullbright.

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 11:15AM

PettyMor, thank you for your kind word.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:18PM

Racist Troll Bill...."says That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."

Tommy Frisco| 2.14.12 @ 10:30AM

Ahh....Mr. Catron. You want us to think Santorum's "victory" in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri were more damaging to Gingrich than to Romney. Pawlenty couldn't get the win for Romney in his own state and Romney got fewer primary votes in Colorado than he did in 2008, yet you want us to believe Gingrich should drop out?

Oh, Gingrich should drop out because of his current position in the polls? As up and down all the candidates have been during the 2012 GOP primary season, you can't be serious...or taken seriously.

If any GOP candidate should drop out, it should be the one who supports automatice increases in the minimum wage. That is not something a Republican should support. When Santorum's voting record is vetted properly, we'll see that he, also, supports increases in the minimum wage.

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:50AM

They are all damaged, folks. Focus on winning.
Newtie can't win, period. So drop it.

daboss| 2.14.12 @ 11:16AM

can any of them win? or can we hope for a white knight to ride in during the convention.

Especially after Santorum's anti-libertarian comments from CPAC.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 11:39AM

I think the other commenters are making the better case for Newt - Prove what you are saying - who has more voters besides Oamney?

Bill| 2.14.12 @ 12:00PM

canuckistani, Is it from the playbook of David Axelrod or "Mormon Death Squad"?

martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 10:52AM

Newt stay in do your thing and ignore anyone who says to quit. Santorum keep on your roll. And the others--Jump in the lake or whatever. If there is a brokered convention Paul Ryan could be the one.
Bushes cannot apply.

David| 2.14.12 @ 10:54AM

Con Chef, thanks for bringing a little reason and common sense to these posts.

I am not saying Gingrich should drop out now (as Newt did to Santorum over a month ago!!!), and I hope Santorum doesn't suggest it himself.

The stupid claims that Santorum is not conservative is ridiculous. For one, yes, he did help scuttle the National Right to Work Act (17 F_CKING YEARS AGO), and has repeatedly said he will support such an act as president. I believe him - I trust him - unlike Mitt and Newt.

Ronald Reagan did all sorts of things when governor of CA that he regretted. He even made abortion more prevalent by some of his actions. He could never get the repub nomination in 2012.

None of the candidates are PERFECT conservatives, but Santorum comes the closet. And always being the underdog he knows how to fight and win. You will not see his support slip as happened to Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich - it will continue to grow.

Santorum IS the real deal who we can trust to do what he says.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.14.12 @ 11:22AM

Well said, my friend. No one's the "perfect" candidate. This is because no one's perfect. As I stated above, I've always been a fan of Rick's. I think he's the guy to take Obama to the wood shed & our country in the right direction.

W| 2.14.12 @ 1:07PM

Today Reagan would be attacked a flip flopper because as governor he signed an abortion bill and raised taxes. "Worse," he had been a liberal Democrat and president of a labor union. We have people criticizing Santorum because he did not support a Right to Work law, which would have ended his political career in Pa before 2006.

We should not criticize a candidate becaue he has changed his position provided he changed to a more conservative position.

Al Adab| 2.14.12 @ 5:09PM

W:
Some posed those criticisms of Reagan at the time. However, he took on the mantle of the Conservative Movement in 1964 with the Time for Choosing speech and then of course during his 1968 campaign for the GOP nomination. I still have my "Wouldn't you rather have Reagan" button from then. We got Nixon of course.

Then in 1976 he opposed Ford for the nomination and in turn was opposed by among others Cheney and Runsfeld. In losing that campaign Reagan became the frontrunner for 1980. He was of course opposed by the mainline GOP establishment, you know Romney, Rockefeller etc.

Times have changed since then and the issues continue to evolve. The wise statesman understnads what is acceptable to the public and, while maintaining his principles, seeks to encompass those policy wishes to the times.

Recently, the rules have changed and only a couple Next among them seem to realize it even while not understanding, like most of us, just what the new rules are. Santorum also seems to have grasped the change while also not fully understanding it. It may be too early for a full definition, but post-election we will likely find out.

W| 2.14.12 @ 7:20PM

Al Adab
I agree about Reagan. He was a great president. My point was he signed an abortion bill, raised taxes, was president of a labor union, and had been a liberal Dem. He changed and nobody doubts his change to conservatism. He used to say he did not leave the Dem Party, it left him. Today, he would be attacked for supporting unions, like Santorum is, for signing an abortion bill, like Romney campaigning as pro choice in Massx, and for being a liberal, like some charge Newt and Romney. None of our candidates are perfect, or a Reagan, but the daily sport here is to tear down our three guys. One of the three will be the nominee, and all three are better than Obama. I will vote and work for any of the three.
You are wise. I saw you habla espanol above. I used to be decent at it in HS and college. Going to V dinner now. Have a pleasant evening.

flyovermark| 2.14.12 @ 10:58AM

Mitt was Obama's "plan A"; the OWS crowd was already warmed up to make the presidential campaign all about class warfare and a republican one-percenter.

Santorum is Obama's "plan B"; the Planned Parenthood shock-troops are already warmed-up to make the presidential campaign all about social issues.

It is crucial for Obama to make sure that the presidential campaign be about ANYTHING but his disasterous first term, and Newt is the only candidate who has made this the central theme of his campaign. Newt should stay in the race.

He is the best man for the job.

OLDRAY| 2.14.12 @ 10:58AM

Newt has the brains and daring to reenergize this wonderful country of ours. Sure he is apt to make mistakes. Any great leader can. But we don't need (can't afford) a patsy for President and certainly not a Romney. Obama would wipe the floor with Romney. People don't like Romney and with good reason. He is the perfect empty suit.

Dave Jeffers| 2.14.12 @ 11:25AM

Least conservative of 4 remaining GOP candidates is Mitt Romney, so I am officially asking Willard to step down. You would think truly conservative magazines would do the same. Perhaps they are more GOP establishment than conservative?

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 11:41AM

Exactly - and why did Santorum invest so much energy in Romney 3 years ago? And why is Romney not carpet bombing St. Rick? What deal has been cut?

Seek| 2.14.12 @ 11:40AM

Romney has the money and clout to go all the way. Consider the alternatives: Santorum is a gussied-up Catholic authoritarian who is far less free-market than he pretends to be. Gingrich is a bombastic hybrid of Jack Kemp and Rick Santorum. And Ron Paul is a defiant outlier who will lead his troops to the Promised Land of his own mind.

Romney is the strongest because he is the most electable. And we've got to vote out Obama. I can't take four more years of that guy. I'll take my chances with Mitt.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 11:43AM

Catholic Bigot - way to win over supporters Romney-bot.

This is exactly the kind of crap we get in VA from nearly EVERY Romney supporter. It's what endears us top the man's quest for the Presidency - so Norm Coleman can impose Romney care on us instead of Obama care.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:12PM

Seeks a liberal troll, NVA. I have been watching him for nearly a year. He is out here to cause trouble.

They want Romney nominated badly.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 1:58PM

You're right...Romney is the Weakest candidate our R-leadership could find who is viable.

And I am v. suspicious of Bain capital owning the radio stations of conservatives.

There seems like a concerted effort to push Santorum as the alternative to Romney - As Rush said today, be suspicious. My suspicions are that the establishment needs some one who is "in the club" to keep the gravy train going. Romney is flailing and being told not to carpet bomb Santorum - 3 months ago I would have accepted the surface logic that carpet bombing is bad. Bad has never stopped these people before, why now?

Why is the flawed candidate who grew government more conservative than the flawed candidate who cut government?

Half the reason I support Newt are his enemies - specifically his Republican establishment enemies.

Tommy Frisco| 2.14.12 @ 3:21PM

NVA Patriot, you are saying the same things I've been saying for months.

1. Bain Capital bought Clear Channel in 2008. Clear Channel owns Premiere Radio Networks which syndicates nearly all conservative talk radio shows. That helps explain why almost all conservative talk show hosts attacked Newt as being anti-capitalist. Newt was questioning Romney's claim to have created 100k jobs. Gingrich also had questions about the BC companies that failed. Did they fail because of the debt that BC forced them into? Were they broken up because it was more profitable to do so? If BC can be guaranteed a profit, through dividend recaps, even when a business fails, is that free-market capitalism? Finally, did Bain Capital put pressure on conservative talk show hosts to prevent investigations into their business practices?

2. Who orchestrated those coordinated attacks on Newt on the day of the second debate in Florida? was it Romney's campaign staff, or Bain Capital, or GOProud?

3. I like Rick Santorum, but his voting record indicates that he is more like GWB and a strong supporter of the GOP establishment than Rick Perry ever thought about being. I would not expect much change in DC with Rick Santorum as POTUS.

What is clear, to me, is that Mitt Romney is doing his best to buy this election....and I resent that.

Who Knows?| 2.14.12 @ 11:54AM

Someone should ask Ross Perot if he regrets running as a third party candidate in 1992, and thereby foisting Buckaroo Bill Clinton on the country. Seriously, would the USA be better off today if GHWB had gotten a second term, instead?

I find it quite eye opening that the self-declared “historian”, Newt Gingrich, is so enthralled with his own prospects of winning the Whitehouse that he fails to remember or take into account all previous HISTORICAL elections for the president, HIMSELF. One way or the other, Newt is making history, that’s for sure.

As of NOW, it looks like he will enjoy his presidential run for all it’s worth, and the hell with the country. It really IS no country for old men, but then, there still exist many of these people ready and eager to go for their own narcissistic gusto---and, who’s going to stop them?

Personally, I’m completely surprised about how the race has FOR NOW come down to Romney verses Santorum. Ron Paul was always unelectable, as all SANE people know, and Gingrich as well---at least for people like me, who are aware of all his foibles. But, golly, gee---Rick Santorum? And a Mormon, Mitt Romney, who governed Massachusetts and is most famous for his Romneycare?

What a country---of OLD MEN!

I know---let’s reelect Obama, and see how close we can come to destroying America. That should be enough of an incident to snap us out of our fat headed and bodied stupidity.

Words may not be enough—especially dubious is whether “trillions of dollars in debt” passes the MEGO barrier.

The American “horse” has ALREADY been led to the “water”, and hasn’t drank a bit of it!

Actions speak louder than words!

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:08PM

Catron,

Stay in the consulting business for hospitals.

There is no reason why any of these candidates have to drop out, at this time. Why, so Romney, the MSM, and the progressives can clear the field of one more conservative even more than they have already?

We need the voices of Ron Paul and Gingrich, and the strengths each has in their own articulations and ideas.

The real problem here has been the typical conservative tendency to prima donna our candidates and emphasize their weaknesses rather than their strengths. The idea here is to pick the candidate with the greatest amount of strengths not the least amount of weakenesses.

Ones mans so-called baggage of a candidate is overlooked in his chosen candidate.

Has anyone noticed besides myself that there have been some really strange, contradictory, and bizzarely hypocritical criticim leveled at these candidates. Romney supporters claim that Gingrich has too much "baggage?" Are you kidding? Romney?

Romney claims he is the true conservative and Gingrich is not? Please, I am sure you can find some actual mistakes and reasonable criticism of Gingrich, you do not have to insult people intelligence and lie about other candidates to make the claim that you are a better choice.

Sad thing is all of them have fallen into this at one point or another. You are not helping the cause of conservativism or helping the general public gain a greater understanding and appreciation for it and those representing it. You are doing the dirty work for the Democrats.

Ron Paul and Santorum are good examples as well.

Paul is never really asked to clarify his positions on protecting this country from foreign enemies and his policy on national security. Yes, I have some concerns about what I have heard him say.
But has anyone clearly asked him to sit down for an hour and really clarify those positions so as to remove all doubt as to where he stands? No, it is easier to dismiss someone thereby throwing everything out for what he has to offer.

Santorum. Easier to dismiss him as a crazed right wing social conservative that wants to institute a christian version of Sharia on the US. What the hell are we doing to ourselves?

Maybe we should just send a consulting bill to the democrats and the MSM for services rendered on their behalf and be done with it.

Nick099| 2.14.12 @ 12:37PM

Simon,

Well Said!!!!! It was refreshing to read your comment. Nice to know there are some clear thinkers out there.

Terry| 2.14.12 @ 12:08PM

Newt has no honor. Neither do the people who support him.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:18PM

Terry,

You have no honor and do not act honorably. Your explicatives with no evidence or fact or reasoning betray you.

Nick099| 2.14.12 @ 12:35PM

And you are an imbecile.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 12:16PM

Thanks, you are a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Back up your insults and ridiculous claims with some fact, jackass, otherwise take a hike. Anyone with half a brain working has no use for your peanut gallery explicatives.

Rick| 2.14.12 @ 12:20PM

A vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama Care...FACT! He will not beat Obama! The independent voters will not elect a right wing BIGOT! Nice guy, but, has too much hate baggage!Also, just ask yourself why Main Stream Media is now pushing hard for Santorum & not Romney??

Slacker| 2.14.12 @ 12:23PM

I say all four to do the honorable thing so Republicans can take a mulligan.

The best conservative still in the race is probably Gary Johnson…and he’s running as a damn libertarian. It makes one's head spin.

ltw| 2.14.12 @ 12:24PM

Why? So only Romney is standing once this is done?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfe.....t-santorum

Santorum's plan and Romney's plan have been about the same, to try and convince people, "I'm the conservative".

Newt has a plan of reform, unlike the idea that Grover Norquist seemed to have that the president just needs to be a signer (his CPAC speech was disturbing...).

Nick099| 2.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Another genius back-bencher ( as Mark Levin would say). What...did this writer read the NRO article yesterday and decide to chime in????? Talk about mindless groupthink!!! The New Media has been trying to spoon feed Romney to the Conservatives for years. It is not working. So now, after Romneyhas so destroyed Gingrich in colusion with many so-called conservatives in the New Media( Coulter, Drudge, Kristol, Krauthammer, etc) as well as the Left, their only choice to save face is to throw their weight behind Santorum.

This clown cites analysis of recent polling data and the recent elections. Problem is: those elections were of extremely low turnout ( 7.5%) and meaningless with no delegates awarded. That is hardly a mandate. That is hardly enthusiasm for Santorum or Romney depending on which state we are talking about. Heck, Romneyt barely beat Ron Paul in Maine and that was less than 5K votes of all cast there.

Also as of today Erik Erikson is doing some serious probing of Santorum's record. It does not look pretty right now and will probably take some time to figure out. Newt? We already know Newt. The big-brained, big idea guy, who is among the top ten of greatest Conservatives in the last 50 years has made some mistakes, but boy his triumphs sure outweigh any mishaps. Bigger than life, with big ideas and a unique ability to convet those ideas with a backbone of titanium, the former Speaker of the House is absolutely fearless when speaking....to anyone...friend or foe...about his positions. He is powerfully convincing. His candidness often gets him in trouble wit the press...but at a time when Congress is led by lily-livered tongue-tied weaklings, Gingrich woul be a breath of fresh air.

The point: This race is far from over and I suspect this writer knows that, but his small-mindedness and selfishness overrride what should be his desire of what is best for the people and America as a nation. For if you truly believe Obama is destroying America, and you believe in the Electoral Process, you would shut your mouth, let the candidates duke it out and hope the best one wins, instead of attempting to clumsily shape the outcome by influencing the sheeple. Democracy, like nature itself, is seldom sterile, clean, or perfumed. It is often messy, but in the end creates the best possible example for survival.

So shut up and let the primaries roll.

somnolence| 2.14.12 @ 12:35PM

Let me rephrase the question posed above: Can the so-called "BASE" count on Mitt supporters like me? I wouldn't be too sure, I wouldn't be so sure.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 2:01PM

You can count on most of them because they seek power - they'll follow the power - If conservatives have it and use it properly; they will follow.

martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 12:52PM

somnolence--Who are you really ? I find your post above very interesting because if your only acceptable candidate is Romney-or so you say--do as you please. Black mail will not work neither will lies. The voters will decide not you ( oh yes you are a voter but what kind will be never be known ) . But I would rather have a good fighter
against Obama than a coward or a loser or a fraud.
Even if s/he lost. Romney will surely be a loser as was John McCain.

martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 1:03PM

Let me add this: Would Romney refuse to support another candidate if he lost or was not chosen ? If so he would be a true loser. Would the Republican Leadershit not support the candidate chosen by the voters ? If so say good by to the Republican Party--in that case there surely would be a third Party. Could this happen?-Of course it can.

David| 2.14.12 @ 1:20PM

Simon, you want facts - okay - three terms for you: Nancy Pelosi - park bench - global warming. That is all anyone needs to know that your man Newt is a live wire and too willing to jump on any bandwagon that comes along. People who have known and worked with him for many years have said the same thing.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:00PM

David,

Once again, you seem to be unable to think beyond what you have heard, your bias, your agenda, and the tendency to make sweeping generalizations. Look, you need to question everything you hear and see, especially coming out of the MSM about our candidates and the establishment Republicans.

You make the assumption that Newt is my man and seem to have completely missed my overall point. This behavior of yours is what I am talking about.

What you take as "facts" are inferences, assumption, and exaggeration. He is willing to jump on any bandwagon? Really? Can you not see the illogic in your so-called argument? Many more people who have worked with him say otherwise. Who are these people you refer to, you name no one. I should just accept this as true?

The man has admitted that his couch sitting was stupid. One mistake, that all you got. You could actually do better than that. Should I cancel my subscription to the Heritage Foundation because they thought at one time a mandate was a good idea and later after more research realized it was actually unconstitutional?

Think! Do not just react.

Worried for the country| 2.14.12 @ 1:21PM

IF Newt were to drop out the honorable thing would be to endorse Romney.
Why? Santorum is a light weight. Newt knows this and has said this many times.
This is nothing against Santorum. He is a good man but he just doesn't have the executive leadership experience to prepare to lead a nation in crisis. We tried that with Obama and it was a disaster.

David| 2.14.12 @ 1:24PM

"Why did Santorum invest so much time supporting Romney" in the last election. Because I think Fred Thompson was out of the race at the time, and because Huckabee was a liberal republican. Who would you support between Juan McCain and Romney? I was pulling for Romney, too.

Will support Romney if he is the candidate this time, but I sure hope not. All he does is try to destroy his opponents with distortions and outright lies. But, I will take him over Bam Bam.

cindy| 2.14.12 @ 1:25PM

I couldn't have said it better George. I have been a conservative all my life and I can't stomach Santorum. I too think Romney is a good man and would make a good president. There is NO ONE I have ever agreed with 100% including Reagan who I consider one of the greatest presidents in modern times.

David| 2.14.12 @ 1:26PM

And just what "executive" experience does Newt have? He was a leader in the House, and Santorum was a leader in the Senate.

NVA Patriot| 2.14.12 @ 1:59PM

And look where they led us - Newt to smaller government; Santorum led us to bigger government - Thanks!

David| 2.14.12 @ 1:41PM

Well Cindy, Reagan could not get the repub nomination in 2012. Aren't you aware of the many things he did as governor of CA, including signing a bill that made abortion more prevalent? Reagan did many things as governor that he regretted and publicly stated so.

Romney on the other hand, did nothing wrong according to his own words. He will not admit Romneycare was a mistake. HE IS FLIP-FLOPPER DELUXE. For him to say that he has lived a conservative life and has fought the conservative fight his entire life would be laughable if it were not worth crying to think that he could actually be our nominee.

But no worries, Santorum is on the march. Let's see if Mitt attacks Santorum's record, which is FAIR GAME (without distortions and lies like he did to Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Cain), or let's see if he plays the personal destruction and lying game, which IS NOT FAIR GAME.

Let's see what kind of man Romney really is. He has already shown us. The question is, will he continue?

David| 2.14.12 @ 1:55PM

Who is conservative. The fact is that conservative groups (both on social and fiscal issues) show that Gingrich has been the most conservative of all the candidates still in the race. But, Santorum is right on his heels. There is not much difference when it comes to their voting records.

The difference comes when we look at what each man has publicly supported or rejected since leaving office.

Newt and Mitt believe(d) in man-cause global warming, and all of the restrictions and regulations that come from such nonsense. Santorum does not.

Newt and Mitt support(ed) the TARP, Wall Street bailouts, auto bailouts, Fannie and Freddie bailouts. Santorum did not.

Newt and Mitt have always supported the idea of an individual mandate for health insurance. Santorum never has.

Newt and Mitt have slapped conservatives (especially Christians) in the face many times during their public lives. Santorum never has.

Santorum was the first or second prominent repub to back the conservative running against Dede Scozofavva a couple of years ago. Newt and Mitt backed Dede, the establishment candidate who left the race and voted for the dem.

Santorum is the strongest candidate when it comes to foreign policy. His knowledge of world affairs dwarfs Newt's and Mitt's.

Yes, he helped scuttle the National Right to Work Act (17 years ago), but has said repeatedly that he would support such an Act as prez.

The question is, do you believe Santorum will do what he says more than you believe what Newt and Mitt now say?

Answer: Emphatically, YES.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 2:07PM

David,

Ok, some exaggeration and innacuracies but you are getting better.

You need to support your claims. Santorum has more knowledge of the world? OK, how is that. Has he traveled more, majored in geography, sat on international committees, what?

Stroker97| 2.14.12 @ 2:06PM

Yet another media hack on the Romney payroll. Both the AS and NRO are in Romney's bag. I will LMAO when they have to eat there words yet again! GO NEWT!

somnolence| 2.14.12 @ 2:48PM

Martin J. Smith, just who are YOU? Is Santorum or Gingrich or a hand-picked candidate out of the blue at the Convention your ideal choice? My position is no more radical than yours, mainly because the only true conservatives are among the population at large; the candidates certainly aren't. My dear sir, Romney has been a consistent "conservative" since at least 2002, and you have to start from somewhere. Ronald Reagan was an FDR liberal for many, many years. Once again, my premise is no more sillier than yours. I just tire of this idiotic talk about stench when voting for Romney, and it not also being applied to the other three. So I see a helluva lot of validity to my argument that if Romney isn't the nominee many WILL stay home. And once again, just who the hell are you?

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:03PM

Simon, what are the exaggerations and inaccuracies in my laundry list?

I have closely followed politics for 25+ years. For many years, about 75% of the television I watched was C-SPAN. That is where you see the congress people in action. What I write is what I know from my own observations- not what I get from other sources. Now, you may not agree with my opinions or interpretations, but tell me what is factually inaccurate.

While you do that, I will get together a list of those who worked with Newt who oppose him, and will provide you with the info on Santorum's foreign policy qualifications.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 6:12PM

C-Span? Ok. I take it you watched the actual congress in action, great.

The point I am making is that the Gingrich supporter is going to claim that his candidate did not do these things and you have taken these issues out of context very much like the Romney campaign has done when they clearly lied on 4 different issues relative to Gingrich's past.

So, who is to believed? The Santrorum critics have their laundry list and claims with the same gusto and conviction that you offer up.

So, who is that poor voter out there to believe in this age of misinformation, deception, smear, and disrespect for reason, honesty, and truth?

Wow, we do this to the very people that should be our allies, share the same values ( at least many of the same), and who we will need when we come and face our real enemies. I think I have said enough, you are not going to get my point.

Thank you the nevertheless for looking up the info on Santorums foreign policy experience. I look forward to reading it and would appreciate any links you may have that support your points on his background if you have the time.

DavidD| 2.14.12 @ 3:17PM

The establishment and their useful idiots are constantly calling for us to surrender, "do the right thing" and let the big government Mitt and Ricky in the door - so we can have a false choice between them. Ricky can play the Faith/Imaconservative card all he wants, but his big government voting record and authoritarian attitude screams out to anyone willing to do a little Googling and Thinking. And Mitt, bless his heart - he's having a tough time fooling real thinking Americans. The establishment Republicans are terrified at the thought of Gingrich in the whitehouse. Based on that, and his record of achievements, Gingrich is my choice among those left in the race - yeah with his hideous flaws and all. To the Republican establishment, and their useful idiots, I say "NUTS". America is at a crossroads. I just sent Noot some more money. Hang tough Noot.

Nick099| 2.14.12 @ 3:24PM

Amazing how I do not read anyone looking for Ru Paul to get out of the race. He has not won anything, and he continues to be a thorn in the side of Conservatives.....not moderates. But NO!!! The Media chucklebutts would never make that kind of demand because inthe end it helps their boy....Mitt Romney. Disgusting behavior.

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:24PM

DavidD, yes, please do Google. If you did, you would see that Gingrich does get better scores from conservative groups, but it is not by much. For you to call Santorum big government is ludicrous.

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:29PM

The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing. From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government). The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%.

Actually, Newt's score was 61.9%, and guess what..............Santorum's was 75.2%. Hmmmmmmm?!!!

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:36PM

The following is from lessgovisthebestgov.com.

“The Reincarnation of Newt”
2008 Records the 'We Can Solve It' global warming TV commercial for Al Gore along with Nancy Pelosi

2009-2010 Travels around the country with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Obama's new educational policies: i.e. increased local control of schools with increased Federal subsidies and regulations from Washington. (Sounds like quite a contradiction to me.)

2010 Supported ultra-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-union, establishment candidate Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd Congressional District in a special election, over conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

More to follow.

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 6:29PM

Wow, too bad we know Newt and you are wasting your time with inept comments.

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:48PM

More on Newt.

But first, recall that I told you about Newt's handwritten notes in which he said things like "I am the definer of a civilized society". Sounds like the planet-healer now in office - doesn't it? Newt doesn't have the temperament to be prez. Here goes.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a fan of the ideas espoused in the book, The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable. He [Newt] said that in order to understand him, you should read the book, The Third Wave by Toffler. This book is written from the perspective of someone who is writing a letter to America’s Founding Fathers, in which he describes the Constitution and the principles of limited government that guided our Founding Fathers as becoming increasing irrelevant, and obsolete, and hence in need of being radically redesigned and replaced! In fact the book goes on to state that our current system of government must be overhauled and a new system of democracy for the 21st century must be developed! This is the New World Order that Toffler speaks of, and that Newt Gingrich is a BIG FAN of! And not just Newt, but this has been the special pet project of the Progressive Establishment in this country for over 100 years! When Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House in 1994, he recommended The Third Wave as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues! He also wrote the forward to another one of Toffler's books, The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization. That doesn’t sound much different to me then a New World Order. So the former Speaker’s ideas about Toffler’s book, The Third Wave or his ideas about a new civilization sound remarkably similar to the New World Order or the One World Government embraced by progressives! Is this just a coincidence or is there a connection?

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 6:25PM

What a joke....you only have to read the first sentence to realize the ineptness of this comment.

David| 2.14.12 @ 3:57PM

In a speech given to the Center For Strategic and International Affairs in 1995, Newt Gingrich said, "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.”These are Newt Gingrich’s own words!

Newt Gingrich has always been a strong proponent of increased federal funding of public education from his earliest years in Congress. He helped to get the support needed to pass the legislation that created the Department of Education in 1979, under President Jimmy Carter. Since then, federal spending on education has skyrocketed with no corresponding improvement in academic achievement. Under Newt Gingrich's leadership, the Congress increased federal spending on education in 1996 by a whopping $3.5 billion dollars.

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 6:22PM

You had to go all the way back to Newt's first year in office to find something you define as a mistake. As for 1996, In order to lead, one must compromise....regardless of how much you want to think it can be done otherwise....Wow, 2 votes in 20 years....

Stroker97| 2.14.12 @ 4:25PM

David,

I'll bet you have a subscription to Glen Beck TV don't you. You've just re-worded all of Glen's talking points in your last several posts. It's really sad to see the conservative movement feasting on each other at the expense of the American people. You've labored to produce and re-post all these things concerning Newt's record in congress. Please, oh wise one, tell us who has done more for the conservative movement in congress, either before or after Newt's time there. Or do you need to check in with Glen before you answer?

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 5:30PM

Next they'll be calling for Santorum to drop out too.

Get this, I don't think Santorum is the man for the job, he's better than Romney, by far, but fact remains I don't think he can undo Obama's damage to the country.

I think Gingrich is the man for the job, I think people telling him to get out should shut up.

Santorum hasn't really been vhetted yet, or taken the charecter assassination that Gingrich faced from the dishonest slimeball known as Romney.

When you look at people's plans, and actually study them, you'd know why Gingrich is the man for the job.

I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, only reason he did well lately is Romney's propping up Santorum's campaign to hurt Gingrich backfired and now Santorum is showing that none of us want Romney.

In my opinion Gingrich should stay in, when Romney (and Romney will do this) smears Santorum, we'll see if Santorum can weather this.

The fact the establishment wants Newt out of this so badly, shows why he should stay in this, and why he should be our nominee. They are afraid he'll upset their cushy world.

Sue| 2.14.12 @ 5:34PM

After reading Chuck Norris's commentary today on "Why I Chose Newt over Santorum" I would urge Newt to say the course. He may be the last one standing- -hopefully.

Lynn Otting| 2.14.12 @ 6:15PM

Based on the results and polls to date, the Republican Party must think this is true. Let's not vote for the candidate that has the only workable tax and energy plans. Let's not vote for the candidate that can actually beat President O'bama. Let's not vote for the candidate that has set and achieved goals for the advancement of conservatism. Newt has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than anyone in the presidential race. He not only ended 40 years of Democratic control in the House, he ended Democratic control of southern states like Georgia too. Republicans forget how much Newt has done for conservatism. Regardless of how he did it and whether he made a few mistakes along the way, he accomplished his goals. For example, he didn't quit until Republicans controlled the house. It took him over 12 years to achieve this goal. (Funny, how people are so quick to conclude that Newt quit the speakership because he was scared he didn't have the votes to win. How difficult is it to understand that he would rather step down than risk the Republicans losing control of the house.) Unfortunately, people just don’t get that the one and only reason Newt has ever done anything is for conservatism, not individualism. This race is for more than the idea of conservative values, it is for American principles and Newt will not give up so easily.

Simon Templar| 2.14.12 @ 6:26PM

I want to thank some of the bloggers here that shared their views on this election without trying to destroy the other guy. This is a tough decision and it is more confusing when so much trash is thrown about that often is exposed as lies and smear. Sue and Garfield, you are certainly entitled to your opinions and I like the fact that you are out there reading various opinions and articles and searching for the truth. Keep thinking about it, reading, and weighing all this out as best as you can do given the tons of misinformation and distortions.

For those that use destruction approaches and stress the negatives, it just might turn out that two of these candidates will join together and form one ticket. It has happened before. So, do not put too many holes in each other so by the time they are chosen, they are already swiss cheese.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:29PM

I'm going to pose some questions to everyone.

If Gingrich was really so unelectable, why did the Obama-loving press pull out all the stops to sabotage his campaign? Why are they propping up Mitt Romney? Why did they push for Santorum and temporarily prop him up, before trying to run Santorum into the ground? Why are they try to get Gingrich to drop out?

I think I know the answer. I think it's cause they are scared that Gingrich probably could beat Obama. I think they are scared that a President Gingrich would throw a monkey-wrench into their plans. The establishment is afraid because they know a President Gingrich wouldn't tolerate the shannigans.

Given whom they spent all this effort to destroy, and the fact he keeps bouncing back. I think the person Obama is really scared of facing in the general election is Newt Gingrich.

David| 2.14.12 @ 6:32PM

Okay folks, no I do not get talking points from anyone, including Beck. I just happened to be in the car when he was on for 5 minutes, and that is where I heard about Gingrich's notes about "I define what a civilized society is" and "I make the rules for a civilized society".

As to where I got the quotes, in my first post I wrote that it is from "lessgovisthebestgov.com", and also wrote there would be more to come. Now, if Beck got is info from there, so be it. Just because you don't like Beck (I am not a big fan either) does not mean that his message about the notes is false. Do not let the messenger destroy the message.

Now, are you saying Beck was lying about seeing them or having them? Or are you saying Beck is mistaken and they aren't really Newt's notes but someone else's?

If Gingrich is a fan of Alvin Toffler and if Gingrich recommended/required Third Wave to be read by congressman..........well, those are the facts.

Sue, I also read Chuck Norris on Santorum. You can bet that many of those votes Santorum made were part of monstrous bills that probably had a lot of good in them and Santorum had to take some of the bad with the good. I bet very few of the votes Norris cited were stand alone bills.

Again, conservative groups do rate Gingrich as more conservative than Santorum, but only slightly so. Those rating are based on what their votes were when in congress. Again, they are so close in their conservative ratings that it is meaningless to argue about who is more conservative.

What is important now is the positions they have taken since leaving office, and I will suggest that on the big issues that started the Tea Party, Santorum has been on the right side of those issues, and Newt and Mitt have been on the wrong side.

David| 2.14.12 @ 6:40PM

By the way, I have commended Newt for what he has done in the past and have completely defended him on this site with regard to the so-called 68 ethics violations. I just think his time has passed and he has held some really disturbing opinions in recent years.

Hey, I love Palin, but I do not want to see her as our nominee or as prez.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:50PM

The Obama-loving media and the establishment wouldn't be spending all this effort on trashing Gingrich if they weren't genuinely afraid of him.

If they were scared of Romney they would have expended the effort on him.

They are waiting till Gingrich is out to slime Santorum and knock him out of the race because he, in their mind, stands a chance of beating Obama, however they want the real threat to Obama's re-election knocked out of the race first.

Obama felt threatened by Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. If you look at who all has gotten attacked the most, smeared the most, we know who Obama is scared of running against.

Our best chance of beating Obama and stopping Obama's destructive policies, is Newt Gingrich as the Republican Nominee.

David| 2.14.12 @ 6:52PM

Lynn, first of all, when Newt says "that America's challenge as leader of the world is COMPOUNDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION" and "that we need to RETHINK OUR CONSTITUTION" are not votes. Those are quotes by Newt Gingrich.........it reveals his core beliefs about this country and its governing document.

Further Lynn, no I don't have to go back to 1996, I will just mention Pelosi, couch, and global warming, which Newt himself admitted was a HUGE mistake, or maybe he said it was a BIG F_CKING MISTAKE. Newt has political and personal baggage that he has been dragging around his entire public life.

I don't have to misrepresent him.......he does a good job of it all by himself.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 7:09PM

Which could have meant any number of things...

Seriously, when we don't have the context for the remarks it could mean he's supporting Ron Paul's views on one hand, but it could also mean that he's for a one world government.

It could have been just plain frustration with something, you know how sometimes you say something on the spur of the moment that you don't mean.

To just throw a snippet with absolutely no context in an attempt to smear Gingrich, isn't going to work anymore.

David| 2.14.12 @ 7:21PM

Fair enough Garfield and Lynn. Time will tell. I am not trying to UNFAIRLY smear Gingrich.

It was a planned speech given to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs. I don' t see how frustration of being irritated was the cause of his utterings. Now, if he can say things like that, and I sure do want to provide you with the full context, when he is upset about something, well............like I said, he does not have the temperament to be prez.

Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 7:27PM

He's better than the Golfer-in-Chief that we have now.

Kedar Vandan| 2.14.12 @ 8:37PM

Santorum is not as conservative as the country requires in order to save us from social and economic disaster. To save the country we need to vote anti establishment. If the country continues on it's present path we're finished...

somnolence| 2.14.12 @ 9:16PM

Stop the fibbing about Romney supporting Dede Scozzafava. Newt did that, not Romney. Romney did support the pro-life Ann Marie Buerkle in NY 25 and she won. Once again I read so much fiction about Romney on this page it makes my head spin.

Bill Jones| 2.14.12 @ 10:19PM

Doing the right thing for Newt, would of course be suicide.

The note is the only piece of his writing I would read.

Steve| 2.14.12 @ 10:27PM

why don't you do a favor for all conservatives and resign your position pronto for you are charged with being a dumbass! how dare you you arrogant prick...

Barbara Bridwell| 2.14.12 @ 10:29PM

David Your an idiot!! Gingrich has more brains and plans to heal this country than Romney and Santorum put together!!!! American voters want NEWT to stay and fight!!!!

POST American| 2.14.12 @ 10:54PM

---KEY player in the Globalist RED China
handover, sellout, TREASON and EUGENICS OP.

----------ALLLLLLLLLLL we ever need to know---------

Nate| 2.14.12 @ 11:03PM

Actually, if Newt were to drop out, it would make things easier and, in the long run, less costly. The base is having none of Mitt, and we good reason.

I hate to add that Newt bothers me for the mere fact that he, too, supported an individual mandate. He, too, fell for the global warming alarmist hysteria. It's the thinking that goes into that that bothers me. And his prior support for the Fairness Doctrine - all troubling.

Neither Newt or Mitt can draw the sharp contrast needed against Obama, in my humble opinion.

That said, Newt has to do what he thinks is best. I'd take my chances with him rather than vote for Mitt.

Rongordo| 2.15.12 @ 2:34AM

Newt has no contrast to Obama? except for the FACT that he ran a MASSIVELY successful House of Rep, shrinking the deficit to a surplus, and shrinking the entitlement class- two things we DESPERATELY need to do now. HE could show and clearly explain his striking contrast to Barrack in what would be hilarious and memorable debates.

john dubose| 2.14.12 @ 11:57PM

If all four stay in and fight it out till the bitter end, the real winner will be .. There will be a brokered
convention and with a little luck

One of the ones who did not care to run this time.

A fresh start to beat Obama with a consensus
second choice person.

There are about 6 to choose from all OK.

Rongordo| 2.15.12 @ 2:28AM

A brokered convention will end with either Romney or someone who the public has absolutely NO say on. Trust that it would be an establishment type chosen by the establishment.

yougonewt| 2.15.12 @ 12:29AM

I agree with the post about Newt & Santorum working together to get delegates. I do not agree with David Catron's suggestion for Newt to drop out of the race.

Worried for the country| 2.15.12 @ 1:27AM

Newt should drop out and endorse Romney.

We need to defeat Obama. We cannot afford the debt and any more leftist SCOTU nominees.

Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 1:41AM

We shouldn't replace one corrupt left-wing radical with another corrupt left-wing radical.

Mtncougar| 2.15.12 @ 3:11AM

You're repeating the propaganda of the establishment that Mitt is the most "electable." Rubbish. The liberal MSM smeared Bachmann, Cain, and did a hatchet job on Newt. Why haven't they laid a glove on Mitt yet?

Bain Capital. They're waiting for him to sew up the nomination and then they'll paint him - successfully - as the protypical wall street corporate country club rich guy.

If you haven't studied Bain, here's a good place to start - with an interview by a Reagan conservative venture capitalist. It'll turn your hair white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel| 2.15.12 @ 1:34AM

So what, if Romney levels some "carpet bombing" ads towards Santorum? There is some political ad recourse for Santorum:

If Mitt Romney has no compassion for his pet dog, how will he ever have compassion for the American people, as president?

So far, Romney hasn't had the media spotlight many of his negatives. I can only assume that as more voters get to know the real Mitt Romney, they will not vote for him, - especially, many animal / pet owners:

I think it is appropriate to question Romney's character as a candidate for US president based upon the sad and pathetic manner in which Romney treated his pet dog. If he treated his dog this way, how would he treat the American people as president? Worse than Obama?

Romney's rude and crude treatment of his pet dog reminds me of the following Biblical Scripture:

"Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." [Proverbs 12:10 - ESV]

"Protest against Mitt Romney held outside Westminster Dog Show:"

http://www.globalpost.com/disp.....ter?page=1

Oh yes, I failed to mention: I think that Santorum would be a better choice primary voters, rather than the animal cruelty Romney candidate.

jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 2:15AM

The title would have been perfect if it read, "Time for Newt and Romney to Do the Honorable Thing". Can we please stop pretending that Romney should be considered a serious pick for the Republican Party? On his record, he fits in with the Democrats, not with us. Get off of our side.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 2.15.12 @ 2:21AM

David Catron is a coward and a repugnant journalist, for even thinking about this disgusting absurd display of political monday morning quarterbacking BS.

Newt has every right to stay in the race, as does Rick Santorum, and neither of them should leave.
This take one for the the other guy crap, is just that, crap. Who the h*ll does he think he is.

Let me educate you on Newt Mr Catron-

By Peter Ferrara- 12.28.2011
"The Case for Newt" by Peter Ferrara
quote-

"How easily his great and solid conservative achievements are forgotten.

He led us to victory before. Spectacular, historic victory. The strategy and content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, which had been held by the Republicans for only two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s failed to achieve that.

Then, for all the caterwauling we have heard about how he handled the budget battles with Clinton, he led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, almost 70 years.

Moreover, once in power, Gingrich delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. He carried out the

Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, most of which did pass (which was not promised). His record was unswervingly pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax. Indeed, he worked closely with the conservative activist groups on every one of these issues.

Same article-
"Gingrich's Balanced Budget: Succeeding Where Bush Failed"

"Contrary to the untouched by reality liberal/left talking points about how the 1993 Clinton tax increases led to balanced budgets, when the Gingrich majority took power in 1995, it was greeted by the 1996 Clinton budget still projecting $200 billion annual budget deficits as far as the eye could see, totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, and that was almost 20 years ago when $1 trillion was still real money.

In the government shutdown budget battles with Clinton, Gingrich won the substance, as Gingrich demonstrated the only way to balance the budget, with Reagan's supply-side economics. That involved both cutting taxes, to get the economy booming, and cutting spending, resulting in the longest period of federal surpluses since the 1920s.

This is what the official government records show. You can dig deep into the records at omb.gov yourself. Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4 percent. By 2000, total federal discretionary spending was still about the same as it was in 1995 in constant dollars. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5 percent in just four years, from 1995 to 1999. Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by an astounding 12.5 percent, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years. This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old AFDC entitlement program.

The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. After 10 years, the taxpayers saved 50 percent on the costs of that program, while the poor formerly on the program gained by going to work, with poverty among them plummeting. That is a model for future entitlement reform. As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a positive turnaround in the budget of $5 trillion. This is exactly what we need today." unquote.

These are the facts and they are indisputable, and this the the kind of conservative leadership we need right now. Either Santorum or Newt would be a million times better than that lying 2-faced sniveling elitist liberal Republican Party RINO Romney.

Mtncougar| 2.15.12 @ 3:03AM

Brilliant, thank you. Keep posting! It's hard to get this kind of information on Newt. I'm very grateful.

Rongordo| 2.15.12 @ 2:22AM

I'm not sure I agree. Obama's team, which fully includes the media, will beat ANYONE like a rug who isn't willing to openly challenge and expose them. So far, Newt has been the ONLY candidate to show the type of fearlessness required. He got standing ovations for it, and so his win in SC was NOT a "surprise."

TKRC| 2.15.12 @ 5:19AM

you can't beat something with nothing.

Obama does stand for something. i happen to detest everything he stands for, but you can't deny he actually has an agenda that he is trying to impose on the population.

Romney doesn't stand for anything. he's has no vision for what his administration would do. in short, he's a "nothing". he has no answer for "why" he should be the next president.

that, in a nutshell, is why i can't support him.

Ron Paul is a nutter on foreign policy. Gingrich is so hated by much of the country, that he's unelectable, and moreover, he seems willing to poison the election chances of any Republican this time around if that Republican is not him. Santorum is the only choice left. even if he's not perfect, he does understand in his gut the conservative argument on every issue. he may not have always voted that way in Congress, but his first instinct is the conservative position much more often than not.

he's got to be the nominee if we plan to save this Republic. 4 more years of Obammey will be the end for our founding fathers' grand experiment and we cannot allow that to happen.

Kelsonus| 2.15.12 @ 6:33AM

I think you need to read your own website:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....rich/print

Stroker97| 2.15.12 @ 11:18AM

David Caltron uses tactics learned from the LSM and the Romney campaign—taking things totally out of context by re-posting all the anti-Newt talking points and outright lying!

Newt never supported TARP or the Wall Street bailouts Mr. Caltron: http://www.politijim.com/2012/.....-tarp.html
However, one must re-look at Santorum’s position on this.

Newt admits he made a mistake on the couch with Piglosi. But you have to admit that a lot of other “smart” people also fell for the falsified IPCC data at the time.

Newt was never for an individual mandate. This is why he was initially against the Ryan plan. He is for having people who can pay for their own insurance do so rather than leaching off society for their health care.

He said he admired TR and FDR because of the WAY THEY GOT THINGS DONE AND NOT THEIR POLICIES!

Again I ask you Mr. Caltron to enlighten us as to who you believe has done more for the conservative movement then Newt Gingrich. Please, do tell…I think you should probably rethink your ability as a political pundit and go back to your career in the insurance industry because you're not making it!

sirbourbon| 2.15.12 @ 3:17PM

When Santorum falters will you say nice things about Ron Paul?

Yes, I agree Newt should leave now but he is not one to leave until forced to leave. Look at how he left congress- in disgrace. The GOP freshmen congressmen and even the veteran members like Illinois' Henry Hyde felt Newt's dictatorial whip on their backs and were glad Newt was gone from Capitol Hill!

The llinois solon regarded his chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee as being "really sub-chariman," said Henry Hyde:

"At times Gingrich ordered committess to rewrite their bills," wrote the January Issue of The New York Magazine in a very insightful article that described the real Newt. Another insightful documentary look at Newt was produced by former CPAC co-sponsors The John Birch Society. Their DVD is appropriately titled: The Real Newt Gingrich. http://search.incredimail.com/.....2105&cid=1

Stroker97| 2.15.12 @ 4:42PM

Now we have to listen to Romney talking points! Newt did not leave congress in disgrace! This is more BS put out by the Repub establishment and the liberal Dems. This attack didn't really work for Romney, so why keep bringing it up?

Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:57PM

Also didn't the ethics charges later get proven to be a political witchhunt when the IRS said there was nothing there to begin with?

Niniane| 2.15.12 @ 4:32PM

Santorum is not my choice, and the attack ads against him are already running. He loved earmarking every bill and is proud of that. He voted against right to work, for the bridges to nowhere, plus many more things which proves he is not a staunch conservative like he claims.

Santorum is nothing but another Washington insider with almost no business experience, or a very organized successful businessman who knows how to read a balance sheet. We don't need charm (we already have a nice guy in the WH and see where that got us.) We need someone who knows how to steer this ship back from the cliff.

Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:59PM

Considering how much insiders in Washington hate Gingrich, I don't think we should call him an insider.

I would say he is an outsider that knows so much of what goes on inside Washington that he scares the Establishment silly.

Stroker97| 2.15.12 @ 6:41PM

Here's a great link to where Newt answers all the smear that has come up from the LSM, Romney, the RINO establishment, and so-called conservative trash talkers that you see on this magazine all too often:
http://newtgingrich360.com/new.....rs-attacks