The American Spectator

spike59| 2.16.12 @ 6:29AM

It's difficult to push Newtie out the door; his ego keeps getting stuck in the doorframe
Newt HAS to know, if he's even half as brilliant as he imagines himself, that there's no way on God's green earth that he can beat ObaMao; i suspect that he really doesn't care. he just wants to be 'the man'

drudge ette obama| 2.16.12 @ 6:45AM

I don't mind some ego - it is a requirement. Newt brings much to the debate - he knows how to kill with words and timing.

But his time has passed for presidency goals - he is too much in the apst, like Pelosi and the Clintons - we've had enough. Even elder statesman status is too much for some of them.

Newt has done more to focus much of the debate here and if Romney could just pay some attention to what and why Newt gets a cheer now and then, Romney would be the better for it.

drudge ette obama| 2.16.12 @ 6:51AM

One more thing...Hillary shares a grooming problem that many people with her type of personality share. There is a complete lack of good grooming -dirty hair, bad dressing, lack of complimentary make-up, bad jewelry. I have never been close to her, but she may not smell so hot or wear strong perfume to cover other scents.

When I see her with the cheap pinbacks on the nasty pulled back hair, I don't think of Secretary of State - I think of a mobile home kitchen with some woman still in her floral housecoat.

She's not just old - she's frumped up big.

Fred C. Dobbs| 2.16.12 @ 3:59PM

I think of Rosa Kleb, late of SMERSH.
I like either Bruno or PIAPS as a way of referring to her.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 4:09PM

Did you see the UK Daily Mail article that compared her to Kleb? It was HILARIOUS!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....llain.html

Liberal Soup n Crackers| 2.16.12 @ 4:09PM

Clearly, somebody dragged a $10 bill through a trailer park.

albert constantine jr| 2.16.12 @ 5:47PM

Carville got back change from his $100, eh?

peajayach| 2.16.12 @ 5:15PM

The problem with individuals like you is that when someone doesn’t fit neatly into your own self-centered view, you resort to abusive language, rudeness and uncalled-for personal attacks. You obviously view the world through our own narrow outlook based apparent dysfunctional behavior. Finding meaning in your life starts with the things that are important to you…your comments are meaningless and pointless

drudge ette obama| 2.17.12 @ 2:49PM

Cry me a river - liberals ridiculed Sarah Palin and her family, and all of Bill's lovers - whether consenting or not. Where were you, holier than thou. Truth is that you think she looks like hell, too, but congnitive dissonance keeps you from admitting it.

Teaghan| 2.16.12 @ 5:40PM

Glad I'm not the only one who sees her as a slob. You know she has access to hair, makeup and clothing people to help her look better. Remember how she looked during the primary against obama? She was pretty in pink!
I get it that her job is probably hard and stressful, but she looks absolutely horrible.

peajayach| 2.16.12 @ 5:44PM

Republicans have clearly revealed the insanity that has taken over the GOP. They’re on the path to self-destruction…the sooner the better. The departure of Newt politically would be a major sign of hope for America.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 2:59PM

Get this I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, and I think Obamney = Obama.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 9:19AM

BTW, RET you're looking rather like an old granny yourself these days. Plus the only smart thing you've said in a while is your last paragraph. I wish you would give that advice to your snake candidate Mitt Romney.

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 10:54AM

Romney is the one who should withdraw.
Nobody wants the phoney except for Rove and other GOP elite. And Obama of course.

Fred C. Dobbs| 2.16.12 @ 4:01PM

Not my fave, but of the 2 , my choice.

FreeManWalking| 2.19.12 @ 11:21AM

Well Said Vern.
The whole problem with RET's assessment can be summed up in the last paragraph. Newt is the one that was consistent trying to maintain everyone's focus on 0b0ma's lack of leadership, and no lack of bad ideas for America.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 2:49PM

You know it's funny how the people that did the hatchet job on Gingrich to try to force Mitt Romney on all of us are now trying to get him out of the race.

Really, I think Gingrich can still win it. Furthermore, I think Romney should be disqualified due to the shannigans in Maine.

Jacobite| 2.16.12 @ 3:26PM

Any white person alive in the Detroit area in 1967 knows exactly how the Romneys operate. And want no part of it. Mitt will not repeal O'bamaCare and if he doesn't, there is no reason to vote for him. Just as the GOP Establishment conned voters for years and then left every tiny program of the New Deal to fester and destroy the US economy forever, Mitt will do zero except ratify and consolidate ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, etc. Santorum is an ideologue and Newt is half-crazy, but that means there's a chance that they might put the O'bwana programs to the scortched-earth place they need to be. The Dewey-Nixon-Rove-Jorge Bush wing of the Democrat Party will never do it. If you can't look your enemy in the eye and blow his brains out, that's fine, but don't enlist in the Marines, please. Just get out of the way and let the men take care of it.

CW| 2.16.12 @ 3:49PM

Here, here, Garfield!! Right on!!

tenntom| 2.16.12 @ 4:49PM

Romney is not a Conservative....Newt is the only one who can beat Obama and you are right he will repeal Obamacare

SUBVET| 2.16.12 @ 6:36PM

GEORGE SOROS..........'We think either obama or romney's fine but Gingrich, he would change things".

Woodrow| 2.16.12 @ 5:12PM

Garfield, what shenanigans did Mitt did Mitt pull in Maine....besides winning? And did he do anything that Newt wouldn't have done had he had the money, and people who want to work for him?
What is it that keeps a handful of you holding on to hope for Newt the Lecturer, (not lecher, although that's been one of his specialties).

Linda| 2.16.12 @ 5:44PM

Woodrow.. that is the problem.. people BUY the White House!

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 6:11PM

You left out the fact that some counties got deprived the right to have their vote counted.

Nite| 2.16.12 @ 7:34PM

I agree with you. The so called conservative media did a hatchet job not only on Newt, but on Rick Perry, in order to shove Romney down our throats. They need to rethink Romney. I think Newt should stay in until super Tuesday, then if he doesn't do well, he can get out.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 3:00PM

Newt's probably staying in all the way through June. I think he will probably win Texas.

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 6:42PM

"but let's not pile on."

That's your problem, you are afraid to hurt Newt's wittle feewings-- the poor wittle Newtie Pie.
Attack him in the manner he deserves; say "Newt, your conservative futurism is a crock of hog drippings."

Texan| 2.16.12 @ 10:12PM

Newt is the only one that can argue for American values against these radical thugs.I have heard Romney on the radio being interviewed.His words are not concise, there are a lot of uh's, he does not sound strong enough on key points.We are fighting a war against radicals who want to take our country down.We need someone with some fight in him!Newt is the one.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:45PM

I agree completely. Well said.

Zak Klemmer| 2.16.12 @ 11:14PM

This is one fine mess the Republicans have given us since Ronald Reagan retired in 1989. One disaster upon disaster with phony conservatives leading the path to defeat: Bush41, Dole, Bush43 and McCain. God help us.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.16.12 @ 6:32AM

He's peddling books and he really doesn't give a damn about anyone but Newt and the Tiffany Queen.

Teaghan| 2.16.12 @ 5:42PM

I heard that those in DC who know her, can't stand her.

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 6:44PM

of course, the shrew wants to First Lady.

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 6:46PM

SHE hears 'Hail To The Chief' playing in her ears more than he does!
No one can deny she is ambitious.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:49PM

IMO, it would be shocking to have this helmet-head Bimbo as our First Lady. What are people thinking? She'd better not get sick, with old Newt's history!

Ann Romney is the epitome of grace and inspiration. She will make a great First Lady.

Go Mitt and Ann - 2012

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 9:05PM

Romney, like Ike, is harmless.
But Obama will change things, there's no going back to the status quo, too late now, we have altered things far too much-- ironically it was Reagan who did the most to change things in the postwar period.
Reaganism was the purist form of radical conservatism.
I want the GOP convention ruined this summer; and if the Democratic convention is trashed too, fine. Obama can take it, he knows blacks have nothing to lose by changing things. WE might, but they do not.

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 9:09PM

... the status quo ante is dead and ready for burial. Goodby Pork Pie hat-- we will miss you: but you have to go to the Clothes For The Needy bin like everything else. Wipe the tears away and stumble into the future.

Sail on, oh Ship of State;
sail through turbulent waters.
With propaganda as your creed
to fool your sons and daughters.

Jack in Wi.| 2.16.12 @ 6:35AM

This party is so divided I don't see how it can win. If they put out another war forever, bailouts forever, exrays at airports forever, foreign aid forever.. In other words the same old stuff they have been doing for the last 24 years, count me out. The Republican party is finished. The old guard which includes Gingrich, Santorum, Romney is brain dead and hasn't had a new idea for 3o years. My first vote for a Republican for President was Barry Goldwater. For 12 elections I voted for worse and worse and worse candidates. Reagan in 1980 was an exception. Why would any sane person vote for anyone of those 3 guys?

drudge ette obama| 2.16.12 @ 6:41AM

You have lived a life of despondency and gloom. Either pep up and get your game back, or stand back in the shadows and cry. This is no time for weakness. All of this will be history once the next chapter is opened.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:30AM

Its us evil Jews. We've ruined Jack's life.

Occam's Tool| 2.16.12 @ 1:51PM

Yes, Con. We cut his cheese.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 2:28PM

Hee-hee-hee!

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 6:48PM

"Its us evil Jews. We've ruined Jack's life."

Hey! tell Southerners to tear down those Confederate monuments and THEN we'll talk anti-semitism. A statue of Stonewall Jackson is acceptable in Dixie, but not one of Jodl in Germany?

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 7:31PM

Huh?

Alan Brooks| 2.16.12 @ 10:16PM

you THINK about it.

Confederate statues are not only concerned with Southern sentimentality, but also with oppression; just as a statue of a Nazi general (which are banned) would be not only a relic of German nationalism, but also oppression.
Get it? or should we go around it again, loulou?

RJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:22PM

Take heart. Obama, Reid and Pelosi will unite us once we select a nominee. Many of us have been disappointed by our choices for the last several elections (GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, McCain), but that doesn't mean we leave the field to the thieves who want to control every facet of our lives. "Why would any sane person vote for" Gingrich, Santorum or Romney? The answer is OBAMA.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:31PM

Sorry but I may have to flip a coin as to who to vote for if Romney is the nominee.

As far as I'm concerned it's anyone but Obamney (Obama and Romney are the same person as far as I'm concerned).

Die Fledermaus| 2.16.12 @ 3:49PM

Afraid I have to agree Garfield. Obama will destroy this nation in another four years.

Romney's argument is that he'll do it in eight so vote for him.

Woodrow| 2.16.12 @ 5:32PM

Garfield, you keep repeating that Obama and Romney are the same. You don't have to like Romney, but geez, come on. Obama is a proven anti-capitalist, and Romney is such a pro-capitalist that he gets grief for it. I don't like Romneycare either, which Mitt says he will repeal. Right now we need to get out of this downward spiral, and we need a captialist, not a European-style socialist. If somehow Newt can pull it off, I will gladly hold my nose and vote for him.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 6:15PM

Mitt Romney ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy in an election.

We have the disenfranchisement of voters enmasse in the state of Maine.

We have the Virginia GOP changing the rules in back in November 2011 to make sure Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich would not be able to be on the ballot, etc.

Those are precisely the kind of stunts Chicago politicians are known for.

RJ| 2.16.12 @ 7:03PM

I am not an Romney supporter either, but if the choice comes down to Obama or Romney; Do you think Romney's court nominations would be as bad as Obama's?; Do you think that he would be as likely as Obama to veto Republican sponsored legislation?; Do you think his Department Secretaries will produce as much restrictive regulations on society?; Do you think he will act as lawlessly as Obama while serving as President; Do you think he will put us in as much debt as Obama?; and Do you think he will install Czars and other executives without required Senate confirmation?

Woodrow| 2.16.12 @ 8:18PM

Garfield, the press did no such thing to Perry (or Gingrich). As good a governor as Perry is, he cooked his own goose by showing he was not ready for the national stage. Maybe he'll be ready for 2016 when Obama is winding up his second term. If the Romney-haters on this forum who have said they will not vote if Romney's the candidate, are a valid indicator, then say hello to European socialism in the USA.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 3:01PM

Take a look at that hatchet job done to Gingrich just before the Florida primary, where they lied about what he actually said in a speech.

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 7:32PM

Romney is a "corporate capitalist."

Morpheus| 2.16.12 @ 3:06PM

The party is always divided up until the official nomination is made. After which, for the most part, they unite behind the candidate, I have seen some harsh divisions in the past during the presidential primaries, but most of them in the end turn out to be superficial.

Gingrich has a vast store of technical knowledge, which I do admire. His problem is recognizing which facts belong front and forward at the time being. The space program isn't as strong or as relevant of an issue when you talk about the economy, but Newt would have done better had he carefully scripted what he was going to talk about. It was also disappointing how he addressed his ex-wife Marianne's allegations. Seriously, speak for yourself! Either way, Newt Gingrich is getting sunk by his own issues, and as much as I don't like Romney, I sadly hate to admit this too, but he is the most executive available choice.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 4:54PM

Right now I want to be able to find a job in my field, I don't care about Newt's family issues.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:54PM

Maybe you should care about Newt describing himself as a "Wilsonian Progressive" and saying our Constitution is "obsolete." Funny, but Comrade Obozo has said the same thing. See and hear him in his own words in a one hour video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

Newt Gingrich is the biggest FRAUD in DC!

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 1:53PM

That's funny considering Newt hasn't been in government for over a decade.

Woodrow| 2.16.12 @ 5:24PM

Jack, "Why would any sane person vote for any of those 3 guys? Actually two guys...Romney and Santorum. Your guy will stay in because - well, he's an enigma, he must stay in. Newt will stay in because he is devoted to one cause: himself. Neither Mitt nor Santorum are strong candidates....but they're all we got. So, back to your question: sane people will vote for one of them because to do otherwise is to show tangible support for the re-election of Barack Obama.

kate| 2.16.12 @ 6:25PM

I don't think 99 percent of us will be divided come presidential election day. I would vote for my dog to stop this madness.

Rich Birkett| 2.16.12 @ 8:09PM

Good reasons to vote for Ron Paul.

POST American| 2.16.12 @ 7:12AM

NG ---like the Bushes, Clintons, Gores
and McCains --a prime presideing figure
during the KEY decades of the CFR
RED China handover, sellout,
TREASON and TOTAL EUGENICS OP.

Again, folks ---whenever you're ready
to take on the ultra rich, TAX FREE,
psychopathic, USURY feuled and feuling,
'benny violent', Globalism and EUGENICS
------'chair-'IT'--Abel' foundations------.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 7:38AM

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

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

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

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

glenny| 2.16.12 @ 10:52AM

HAM SANDWICH!!
That's who/what I'll vote for if it means getting Zero out of the WH in January. I'm working to get my favorite candidate to get the Repub nomination, as I would urge each and every one of you. But whoever wins the nomination, GETS MY VOTE. Romney/Santorum/Newt/Paul on a BAD day will be a lot better than Obama on a GOOD day!
Here in Louisiana, quite a few years ago, Edwin Edwards was in a runoff for governor against former KKK dude, David Duke. Edwin's campaign slogan was "Vote for the crook, it's important!" He was right. I actually for the crook b/c it WAS important.
My 2012 slogan is, Vote for the Republican, it's important.
If Zero wins in November, the nation that we know and love will disappear.
Is that okay with you? Not me.
HAM SANDWICH.
glenny

glenny| 2.16.12 @ 10:54AM

I actually VOTED for the crook b/c it WAS important.

Deborah D| 2.16.12 @ 11:10AM

With you, glenny!

Skip| 2.16.12 @ 1:34PM

What's the difference? Obama vs. Romney. They are two sides of the same coin. They represent the left/right, liberal/conservative ruse we are always offered--status quo.

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Obama, all lovers of more expensive government. What's the difference if one drives you over a 100 ft. cliff at 60 mph and the other at 90? The experience at the bottom is all the same.

They are all ham sandwiches. Where's the beef?

glenny| 2.16.12 @ 3:08PM

With respect,
Difference: Obama hates this country and all it represents. Romney/Santorum/Paul/Newt don't.

Obama will NOT work with House/Senate Repubs. R/S/P/N will, I hope.

Obama will continue to fund and feed Acorn/SEIU/etc. R/S/P/N won't, if they're smart.

Obama will NOT be swayed by conservative arguments. R/S/P/N had better be swayed or they'll have 1 term.
glenny

Die Fledermaus| 2.16.12 @ 3:56PM

I disagree. Romney will do nothing different but just water down left wing drivel. He'll align himself with RINO's in the Senate to give us statist-lite.

Acorn will probably get more money under Romney because they'll find a way to label it "for the children" and RINO's drop to the ground and ball up into the fetal position when that argument is made.

Example: My worthless senator Lamar! (aka Charlie Brown) Alexander supported SCHIP. When a Nashville talk show host called him on his support and brought up the fact the bill let "kids" stay on their parents subsidized insurance up to age 26 Lamar said, "well, that is a problem but overall the program helps people".

That is the way Romney would govern.

Questionman| 2.16.12 @ 5:33PM

If Obama is a totalitarian Marxist, you are Hugo Chavez's kid sister and can pick up dog shit with your teeth while your hands are tied behind your back in your apron strings.

It's offical! ANyone whoi calls Obama a liar is a racist! ANd it's true. You racists are always so quick to brand Obama a liar! Thus proving that you think All black men are liars! Because you aholes destroyed a famous saying and made it about Obama!

Its true President Obama wasn’t properly vetted….wait, Yes he was!

But some of the racist right hated what they found, so they resort to create the biggest lies against Obama, which are NOW debunked!

Hard to believe that the possibility is that Anyone who calls Obama a liar is an hypocritical and/or racist who lies about this man’s religion, his birth certificate, his policies, etc. And who died and made them deciders on what’s truthful and what isn’t.

They lied about his religion, his birth certificate, his relationship with normal people, his sexuality, etc.

The list goes on and on, but that’s why websites like Politifact, Factcheck, TruthorFiction, etc. exist…

What is the factual basis for suggesting that President Obama is a Marxist? I know that the conservative talking heads frequently repeat that mantra, but I have yet to hear anyone substantiate that claim with real information.

This Republican congress, along with the far right base, is the most hateful, disrespectful, lying group of men and women in this country’s history.

Obama isn’t out to destroy the country, get your head out of your behind!

They are destroying this country because they hate Obama and are now playing with women’s health. Every woman and man should be deeply disturbed by what this congress has done and are doing.

The Republican Party is not a cancer in the body of America, a party of racists and religious bigots. The President doesn’t hate this country; I believe the extremist republicans hate this country because Obama is running this country. The President doesn’t cater to one race of people; he’s in this for all races of people. See, this is just an extreme far right post, which is designed to bate racism and hatred towards the President.

◦You know he’s not a Socialist. ◦You know he’s not a Nazi. ◦You know he’s not a Muslim. ◦You know he’s a U.S. citizen. ◦You know there are no death panels. ◦You know the economy crashed under W. ◦You know government isn’t any bigger than it was under W. ◦You know there’s no conspiracy to turn the U.S. communist.

But you repeat these ridiculous lies anyway, because you can’t say the real reason you hate Obama: YOU CAN’T STAND A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

WinnieR| 2.16.12 @ 6:10PM

If that's how you feel, you may as well go RP

wodiej| 2.16.12 @ 7:48AM

Good grief, this writer and follow up comments sure didn't use any logic, reason or brain cells on this article. The first clue that your article had little value was when you began calling Gingrich names referring to his looks. How do people think other conservatives who see the tremendous value Gingrich has done in the past will respond in November to such childish and uninformed remarks? Do you think we are all stupid?

You sound more like Alinsky style stooges like Obama uses. If you actually are supporting Romney or Santorum, you are making your candidates look worse by tearing someone else down. If you truly want unity, then you will let things play out and let the voters decide.

Drunken Sailor| 2.16.12 @ 9:03AM

Dead on Wodiej!! If you don't like the man or think he is right for the job, fine, state your case. But to begin your article attacking his appearance and old age (I seem to remember the age comment used against Regan as well) then you just make yourself look petty and childish.

Mr Tryell, this is a really dissapointing side of you. Beside even if Newt drops out do you think his supporters will go to your man, Romney? I highly doubt it. What do you think Super Tuesday will look like if Newt drops out right before then and throws his support to Rick? I think that would be a mortal blow to the establishment GOP's golden child.
With articles and petty bickering like this it will be a miracle if the Republican party can take the presidency. A goal that was at one time a slam dunk. Guess the saying is true. Leave it to the Repbulicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 9:13AM

Maybe it's time for NR and RET to go.

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 10:56AM

They HAVE gone. I let my subscriptions lapse.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 4:52PM

You nailed it Wodiej. Does American Spectator have a new policy of facts, logic and reason from their articles or is it just this apprentice Tyrrell? You can always tell when there is a devious agenda being pursued when reason becomes immaterial.

martin j smith| 2.16.12 @ 7:53AM

Anyone who calls on any one to "quit" should "quit themselves". is what I say. I am tired of these sorts sof calls so I will in my own way combat them.

My Concern: We have a incompetent at best Republican Establishment Leadershit --I DO MEAN SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who are useless boobs at a time when we who love this country are crying out for a leader to inspire. Mitt Romney who represents this crowd is a very poor choice and needs to be exposed. Ron Paul is a terrible alternative and BTW calls for our unilateral disarmament while Iran and their sponsors Chine and Russia do not follow suit. We are going deeper into danger every day and these creeps are of no help at all so far. Obama is Anti-Constitution and Anti_American and we have this crap ? No thank you. As for Newt and Santorum it is now time for them to go full throttle against Obama, go positive about how they plan to save this country and why they would be the better choice. I want hear Romney attack Obama I want to hear Paul attack Obama--enough. If need be lets have a brokered convention but lets find a leader we can "believe in" to get rid of this guy Obama. Those who do not see the dangers we are in and are increasibng daily are part of the problem.

CD File| 2.16.12 @ 8:18AM

"RP calls for our universal disarmament?" Where do you go this stuff? Fox News? You might wanna ease up on your pundit worship. This man was to reopen bases HERE that the establishment has been systematically closing these past 30yrs and stop paying the defense of all the other nations (yet never our own) that don't even like us.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:50AM

Hey, Smith,
Dr. Ron Paul Wants To Stop Using Our American Warriors As Cannon Fodder And Pissing Away American Taxpayers Money Policing The Middle East For Your Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:29AM

I just love how everyone who supports Israel is a "traitor." I guess all those people who vocally supported the IRA back in the day were "traitors" as well. Or the people who cheered the Brits when they took the Falklands back as well.

Now hear this: Supporting our nation's allies at any time, but ESPECIALLY when we share a common enemy, is "treason" in Little Clint's world.

Do we need any more confirmation as to whether or not Clint's one of those Paul supporters who's probably 21 & only educated to a 3rd grade level, like most liberals are?

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 9:45AM

Hey 4-F Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Boy Neo-Chickenhawk Coward , Con Job Frankel,
Tell Us About Israeli Spy Ben ami Kadish, Who Had The Same Israeli Handler Out Of The New York Israeli Consulate As Jonathan Pollard, Then Tell Us About Israeli Company Checkpoint Systems. Which Got The Same TreatmentIn The Sourcefire Deal From C.F.I.U.S. As Dubai Ports,
Then Tell Us About Illegal Israeli Sales Of U.S. Weapons Technology To The Red Chinese, Jeopardizing Our Allies Taiwan And Japan.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:49AM

Robert Hanssen what???

Don't play this traitor card on me, idiot. ALL traitors derserve the needle. I've said it 8 million times.

If we followed YOUR thinking, then all Catholics should be suspect as well, considering Hanssen did more damage than any other spy in US history. But please, continue with your idiotic, bigoted theories.

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 10:58AM

Don't waste you time responding to the little eunuch.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 11:20AM

You're right, of course. It just galls me to let such brazen idiocy & bigotry go unchallenged.

Mac Jehoff| 2.16.12 @ 12:02PM

Monsieur Chef, you have to expect the usual drivel from the Islam firster TPINO Ron Paul sniffing Main Line bum bandit.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 7:55PM

Gender Confused loulou, The Israel Firster Smear Bund He-She Is Scared Of The Tea Party Rebellion And A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:13PM

Don't Feed Us That Israel Firster Apologetics Bullshit Ya Little Sniveling Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Punk Ass, Con Job Frankel.

The Israel Spy Ben Ami Kadish Was Controlled By The Same Israeli Consulate Handler, As Jonathan Pollard.

C.F.I.U.S.Stopped The Israeli Company Checkpoint For The Same Security Risk Reasons, That They Stopped Dubai Ports.

And Israel Illegally Sold U.S. Weapons Technology To The Red Chinese, Jeopardizing Our Allies Taiwan & Japan.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:09PM

Robert Hanssen, Clint the Bacha Bazi Bitchboy.

Occam's Tool| 2.16.12 @ 1:54PM

Tell me about Ron Paul supporting Bradley Manning for his alleged actions, calling those actions "heroic." I don't care for Ben ami Kadish---he deserves jail time. But I have yet to see Clint deride Manning. Why not, you lisping eunuch?

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:21PM

Hey Tool Job, You're The Screwball Israel Firster Smear Bund Neo-Chickenhawk Coward RINO-CINo Who Said You'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

Listen To Your Boy, Mittens Talkin' About Not Goin' After Those Who Report War Crimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtmGted3D0

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Smear Bund Maniac, Tool Job.

Fred Farkel| 2.16.12 @ 5:03PM

It not Frankel, it's Farkel , Islamist Frister TPINO Ron Paul sniffing Main Line bum bandit.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 7:52PM

He was talking to me. Apparently, Clint thinks he's revealing some super secret info I don't want anyone to know by using my last name in his pitiful attempts to post comebacks to me. I ain't that worried, since I'm the one who posted it in the first place. Clint just likes to think he's "special" & is revealing info I wouldn't want revealed.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:24PM

I Think You're A 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Israel Firster Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:10PM

Are you still pretending to be relevant?

Mac Jehoff| 2.17.12 @ 1:55AM

Pretending to be a TEA party member: TPINO.

Adolf H.| 2.16.12 @ 11:16AM

JA WOHL, CLIT!! Coult I perheps interezt you in a "pozition" in mein "adminiztration?"

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:29PM

Hey Israel Firster, Perhaps You'll Tell Us All About Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis

Avraham Stern and his followers announced that

“The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.”

Haddit| 2.16.12 @ 2:58PM

Hey Clint, is Paul a bigot "Bastard" toward Israel too?

Die Fledermaus| 2.16.12 @ 3:59PM

Clint, Jew-hating morons like you and Ron Paul will probably go to Iran and help them launch the nuke.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:32PM

Uh Oh !

The Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Attampts To Play His Dog Eared AntiJew Card On Tea Party Clint.

Wanna Make Somethin' Of It, Israel Firster Coward.?

Hmmmmm, Cupcake ?

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:12PM

You're SO scary from behind your keyboard, Bacha Bazi Bitchboy.

JeffC| 2.16.12 @ 7:59AM

"I suppose I should compliment him for that" ???

really ? I suppose you are also a moron ...

R. ? could you be any more stuck up ... come on, what is your first name ? Didn't your parents tell you what it stood for ?

POST American| 2.16.12 @ 8:10AM

----'Mittens'?

-------NAY

TRY -----------'SUB-Mitt' 'ROME--knee'.

An 'on board' organization man and
Globalist through and through.

DON'T BE DECEIVED

The capstone Globalist power grab,
RED China TREASON and
TOTAL --FINAL-- EUGENICS OP
has NEVER been bigger
---NEVER MORE on the move
-----NEVER more brazen.

-----------------------NEVER!

LOOK at the once proud Spanish
---Greeeks ---Italians ----Brits
reduced to 'EURO ----PEEE-ONs'
by the shabbiest, most criminal
USURY lodge--ICK in history.

Even MORE absurd than their
'CALM--YOU---nist' and 'FASHION-ist'
'brilliance'.

DON'T be taken in.

DON'T balk to your love affair with
programmed FEAR.

These PSYCHOPATHS and their bluff
---MUST BE CALLED.

--------ESP. in the NAFTA franchise slum
that used to be America.

WinnieR| 2.16.12 @ 6:22PM

Wow, you got b@lls!

martin j smith| 2.16.12 @ 8:27AM

Actually BHO and Ron Paul are on the same page on this issue on disarmament and national security or lack of in general are they not--answer from me --they are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:54AM

You're An Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Smith.

Dr. Ron Paul Wants To Stop Using Our American Warriors As Cannon Fodder And Pissing Away American Taxpayers Money Policing The Middle East For Your Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:24AM

So you're saying Ron Paul would also support what Obama's proposing by cutting our nukes by 80% to only 300 warheads? That'd be less than half of what the Russians have.

I don't dig much about Paul's foreign policy, but I'd be mildly shocked if he thought that virtual unilateral nuclear disarmament, as MaoBama is proposing, would be such a hot idea.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 9:49AM

That's A Lie

You're A Serial Liar, Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Boy, Con Job Frankel,

Now,
Tell Us About Israeli Spy Ben ami Kadish, Who Had The Same Israeli Handler Out Of The New York Israeli Consulate As Jonathan Pollard, Then Tell Us About Israeli Company Checkpoint Systems. Which Got The Same TreatmentIn The Sourcefire Deal From C.F.I.U.S. As Dubai Ports,
Then Tell Us About Illegal Israeli Sales Of U.S. Weapons Technology To The Red Chinese, Jeopardizing Our Allies Taiwan And Japan.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:53AM

I was saying I don't think Paul would agree with Obama's proposal. Can you freaking READ, dumbass?

Robert Hanssen, Opus Dei member. Most damaging spy in US history. No calls for purges of Catholics from US government from ME, so what's your excuse, other than blinding bigotry? You can't even read a post that agrees with you without resorting to your Jew hatring bigotry.

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 11:33AM

Con Chef (NB),

Please don't reply to commenters like Clint. It's a waste of your time to try to reason with them and their replies back to you only adds to the comments that we have to ignore.

Adolf H.| 2.16.12 @ 11:18AM

Clit, your perspicaciousness continues to impresz me! About that pozition...

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 4:57PM

Give me a lifetime supply of tinfoil hats and you have a deal.

Haddit| 2.16.12 @ 3:02PM

Tell us how WE sold weapons to the Republican guard or Bin Laden or any others you might want to mention Clint.

Clint| 2.16.12 @ 8:34PM

Tell Us About The U.S.S. Liberty, Israel Firster Coward, Haddit.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 5:00PM

I am afraid that when American Spectator runs a "story" as devoid of substance as this, it invites comments that likewise are worthless.

Chuck in N VA| 2.16.12 @ 8:34AM

Newt's all about Newt. He could save his reputation and ability to have future influence the Republican Party by getting out of the race. Instead, he'll try to take the party down with him and assure Obama's victory. Then, he'll blame others for the Obama win. He's an opportunist who sees only what's good for Newt.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 9:23AM

Good, then we won't have a RINO running the country.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:36PM

Sorry but Romney pretty much guarenteed that Obama wins in November if Romney is the nominee.

Romney did it with his own actions despite the Establishment's attempt to blame Newt Gingrich cause they can't take responsibility for their own actions causing Obama to get re-elected.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:56PM

You have totally captured the essence of Newt Gingrich! He is truly an Opportunist and will do whatever is good for Newt, without concern for our country or anyone else. He is a classic Narcissist.

Peter S.| 2.16.12 @ 8:36AM

The inebriated trolls above rather prove the point.

JoshInHB| 2.16.12 @ 8:43AM

Newt's got one more surge left after people realize that Santorum is a fascist, in every sense of the word. Romney is the person that needs to go. He's unelectable and has done nothing but sling mud and trash conservative positions and people for the last five years.

Ward Bond| 2.16.12 @ 8:57AM

"Santorum is a fascist". Explanation please.

JoshInHB| 2.16.12 @ 9:09AM

He is campaigning on industrial policy to "bring the jobs back", thinks government spending to "strengthen the family" is a great idea, believes in censorship, pushes the "personhood" amendment (which failed a popular vote in Mississipi). It's the same type of cronyism and social co-ordination that Obama is pushing, just with different ends for the co-ordination.

His social idea are a little nutty, and will go no where, but they will offend a majority of people, even republicans. His economic idiocy is every bit as dangerous as Obama's and could be implemented.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 9:24AM

Josh, you have a strange definition of fascism.

JoshInHB| 2.16.12 @ 9:39AM

How so?

Because he doesn't blame America's cultural decline on foreign influence?

But he does believe that America's culture is in decline. He does believe that government can lead a cultural rejuvenation. He has said that individual liberty is dangerous. He does not support free market economics. He has a history of supporting big government initiatives, rewarding crony's through the legislative process, courting unions etc.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 10:19AM

I don't agree with everything Santorum does, but I'm glad he opposes the sort of anarchism espoused by Ron Paul and his Lew Rockwell friends.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:33PM

Yeah I agree that Santorum is better than Paul on some issues.

Right now:

My support is for Newt whom is way better than Santorum whom is slightly better than Ron Paul (due to foreign policy).

I will not support Mitt Romney.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:58PM

Mitt Romney is not going anywhere. He is the only person running who can beat Comrade Obozo. Plus he is the only one who is not a Beltway Bozo or a corrupt Lobbyist.

Go Mitt!

BullPasture| 2.17.12 @ 2:41PM

Mitt will lose to Obama for the same reasons he lost to Kennedy.

http://bullpasturechronicles.b.....-mitt.html

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:34PM

Mitt will probably lose to Obama because a lot of conservatives like myself consider him to be just as bad as Obama and wouldn't support Romney even if George Washington was his running mate.

Otis the Hand| 2.16.12 @ 8:51AM

"He has displayed his judgment repeatedly and it is deficient. "

Oh, ye blind Mitt foister. You who throws stones from your glass house.

How about a column next on the economic benefits of a permanent minimum wage increase indexed to inflation? Just to get the blood flowing.

Mimi| 2.16.12 @ 9:11AM

"but let's not pile on"
Lumpiness...grisly pallor...to his lump...something manic to his presence

IS GOOD LOOKS GOING TO SAVE THIS NATION?
I don't know WHO was diminished more...Newt or the author!!

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 11:11AM

Have you been sleeping under a rock?

Looks have impacted the electorate since 1960.

Willard looks like Don Draper and has the demographic polling to show his affinity to like-visaged people. Rich white guys over 50. BHO identifies with 75% of non-white voters on the approval index. Strange but true.

Newtie just sickens people knowing that Callista clung onto this guy for years before he pitched wife #2 for her. That's a lot of looking up at the ceiling for a Tiffany's account, don't you think?

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 11:37AM

As McCain said in 2008, Romney doesn't look like the guy that hired you, he looks more like the guy that laid you off.

CarolDru| 2.16.12 @ 3:46PM

Hear, hear! Scorn and derision identify those who deliver them.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:15AM

I just want to go on record as saying that, as a Santorum supporter, I think all this talk about who should get out when is idiotic. Santorum didn't get out when all the talking heads said he should because he thought he still had a chance. Newt still thinks he has a chance (although I don't see it, personally). Even Paul thinks he has a chance.

The one thing that I've learned from watching politics is that anyone who runs for President has to have SOME kind of ego streak in them. You can't run for that level of office, especially in the age of the 24/7 news cycle & NOT have it. Some have bigger egos than others. Newt's seems to be quite big. And he's been run through the mud by Mittens. Not on policy, mind you, but petty stuff. To the point that the South Carolina debate reminded me of 2 high school girls bickering.

Newt still feels he can shape the debate, & that's a good thing. Same with Paul. He can help shape the debate. On anything BUT foreign policy. However, for Newt, there is, I think, some sort of vendetta against Mitt for all the crap he pulled. I'm of the opinion that Newt will stay in long enough to keep crapping on Mitt & denting his image, then drop out & the last feasible moment & toss his support to Santorum.

Again, this is just my opinion, but it would make sense. However, I'm also a realist. We're talking about politicians here, so making sense isn't always something we see.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 2:53PM

I actually think Newt is staying in cause he knows Romney is going to do a hatchetjob on Santorum, and he intends to be there to make sure that he picks up the states and not Romney.

Then when Romney goes after Newt again, Santorum picks up the state. Then they keep the tag team going all the way to the convention if need be and then go for a Gingrich/Santorum or Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 3:47PM

Never thought of it like that, but you could very well be right.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 4:57PM

Which is probably why Romney wants Newt out of the race.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 9:15AM

Mr. Tyrell - I appreciate the conservatism of the American Spectator. However your blatant effort to turn the magazine you founded into the American Santorum looks as silly as Ann Coulter arguing that O-Romney care is conservative.

If Newt is as bad as you say - why not let it play out? If St. Rick is as great as you believe - please let him make his case and stand in the spotlight where we can all view the perfection of St. Rick.

Rooster supporters are in for a surprise as Santorum support begins to soften the more we learn of St. Rick. After the pro-life issue, Rick Santorum is as establishment loving as is Mitt Romney. St. Rick was the No. 3 Senate leader who brought all the wonderful conservative change of the companionate Bush years.

Americans have had enough of politicians who are companionate with our money. We are tired of people who after working in Washington, live a lavish life style derived from gaming the system while pretending to be something they are not - like St. Rick.

Let's remember why Santorum was thrown out of office by the largest vote against an incumbent Senator in the modern political era:

1. He’s arrogant
2. He enabled big government
3. He tried to bribe unions with all sorts of lefty votes
4. He disparages libertarians who are far more right on the federal government than they are wrong
5. He was afraid of snarl'n Arl'n - just what we need a President who's afraid of political hacks
6. He lied to PA folks about where he lived keeping his family in NVA; I'm from PA - home life is a big deal in PA and you don't lie about where your family lives to Pennsylvanians

I have asked before and I will ask again - What conservative legislative accomplishments does Rick Santorum have? What is his claim to fame? Why should any conservative trust that Rick Santorum will govern conservative? He did not do it in the Senate. He did do it in Congress when congress was led by Newt.

Every time this question is asked the sound heard is crickets...it seems no one can pin the miracle of a conservative legislative act on Santorum’s lapel.

And regarding pro-life; how many pro-life citizens would support Arlen ABORTION ALWAYS Specter? How many pro-life citizens or leaders would enable pro-choice justices onto the bench as did St. Rick. Candidate Rick decries the very judges HE VOTED TO EMPOWER when St. Rick Governed.

Our pundit class seems to think this is OK – The Tea Party exists at one level because of Bush and Obama. However it is sustained by our growing slow-bake anger at the pundit class who enable faux conservatives to operate outside the spotlight. St. Rick has done as much damage to the Republic as has Obama. When he had a chance to stand and STOP the assault on liberty he enabled it with his voting record on spending and judges. One thing this primary season has done is reveal to many who pay close attention, that our Restoration project is going to take a generation.

Mr. Tyrell’s petty anger at Newt for I don’t know why will be forgotten long after we systematically restore our constitution. 2006 cleared one type of corrupt politician. 2010 cleared a second type. No need to bring type 1 back.

Newt has baggage, like all baby boomers, but Newt has the one thing none of the other candidates have: a proven record of GOVERNING as a conservative and CUTTING the federal government. What’s more to the point, for his trouble he was back-stabbed by establishment Republicans and maligned. I happen to like Newt because of his enemies. Every Newt enemy seems to be living off the government’s prolific spending.

St. Rick is making his case that his brand of social conservatism is a winner. What he doesn’t discuss is his brand of big government support. St. Rick never explains his enabling Judicial votes. Jim DeMint has set the example for conservative Senators. Unfortunately, St. Rick's prolife credentials and votes stop at the water's edge of his political ambition which disqualifies him from Sainthood and my support in the primaries.

JoshInHB| 2.16.12 @ 9:26AM

Almost no one is supporting Santorum. They are voting against Romney. Newt will rise again as soon as people remember how horrible Santorum really is.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:40AM

I'm not trying to be combative, Josh, but I have a bet for you. I'll bet you a bottle of Corky's BBQ sauce from Memphis that Newt won't regain his momentum.

What do you say, Bro?

Drunken Sailor| 2.16.12 @ 10:39AM

Dang Con, I would take that bet (love Corky'e sauce almost as much as the Rendezvous BBQ) but I am afraid your right. Guess I'll just have to drive down south and get my own bottle.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:56AM

You can order it online from a number of different sites. Try the "hot" variety. Its better than the regular. Also order the Germantown Commissary's sauce, both the regular & the hot. Its better than Corky's & makes the Rendezvous taste like KC Materpiece of Crap.

Drunken Sailor| 2.16.12 @ 11:19AM

Love the Germantown Commisary's BBQ nacho's! Dang, now I need a road trip. Then again, it's almost difficult to find bad BBQ in Memphis, just lots of damn good ones.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 11:30AM

I grew up in G'Town, & miss that place terribly. Whenever I go home to see my Mom, my wife & I ALWAYS make it a point to go to the Commissary!

Lemme put it this way. I HATE turkey for holidays. I'm NOT a poultry fan. I prefer a roasted ham, pork loin, veal or beef for such meals. However, the Commissary has in-house smoked turkeys for the holidays. They smoke it for 36 hrs & baste it with butter & sherry. Its DIVINE! Whenever we go down for Thanksgiving, we get it. Its the ONLY turkey on the face of the planet I like & will eat. If I'm stuck up here at my place or at the in-laws for Thanksgiving, its either a ham, prime rib roast or a pancetta wrapped, garlic stuffed pork loin.

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 11:42AM

You guys are making me hungry!

Oh...BTW...the best BBQ is here in Texas!

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 11:55AM

R U from San Antonio by any chance - I've had to travel there a lot - love the food :) ;)

Still can't over the roads down there - I am amazed at the I-state 10 up\down ramp vice the typical N, S, E W ramps :)

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 12:15PM

NVA Patriot, I'm currently living in Frisco, just north of Dallas. I was raised in West Texas and lived near Austin for 15 years. Yes, the food in central Texas is awesome! Here in Dallas, it's mostly franchised, cafeteria-tasting food.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 12:24PM

I don't know about "the best," but the ONLY BBQ that I want to try outside of Memphis is Texas style. I LOVE beef & have never had decent BBQ brisket or tri tip. The wife & I are planning on taking a trip to Texas very soon & that's one of the reasons why.

As for the "best," well, y'all in Texas had to import all your good stuff from TN. Houston, Crockett, BBQ, blues.. Hell, you couldn't even come up with an original color for your largest state school! You just stole Tennessee's & made it dingier!

:-)

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 12:49PM

Con Chef, if I weren't from the great state of Texas, I'd be proud to be from Tennesse. I hope you and your wife have a great trip here. If there's anything I can do for you, please let me know.

Hook'em Horns!

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Thanks, my friend! See my email address further down on the page to Al Adab & feel free to shoot me an email, if you're so inclined.

Go Vols (but only during football season) & Go Memphis Tigers (my alma mater, who's only worth a crap in basketball)!!!

Butch| 2.16.12 @ 2:10PM

Black's in Lockhart is the best I ever encountered in TX, Con. Worth the trip.

Occam's Tool| 2.16.12 @ 1:58PM

No. 'Bama, Tommy, 'Bama.

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 12:22PM

NB:
First of all, is the sauce Kosher? Not that it matters to me obviously.

I'm getting hungry too there Tommy and NVA (still have trouble with Vietnam) drive up to Fredricksburg sometime. The German food is out of this world.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 12:25PM

I'm not sure if its Kosher or not. However, I don't keep Kosher. Life's too short to deny myself cheeseburgers, pork or shellfish.

Occam's Tool| 2.16.12 @ 1:59PM

Con: Yup. Right again. ;)

"Corky's" and "Commissary." Got it. What do you recommend for a sweet BBQ sauce, which is my favorite?

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 2:31PM

Maurice's Gold from Maurice's in Columbia, SC. Its a mustard based sauce that's got just the right amount of sweetness to it. I HATE sweet stuff with any kind of meat, but that stuff's REALLY good.

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 12:43PM

Al Adab, we go to Fredricksburg often. We bought our kitchen table there last year, at the Amish furniture store, during Oktoberfest. The German food there is definitely awesome. If you ever get up my way, check out the Bavarian Grille in Plano. It's one of the top rated German food restaurants in the country.

Mtncougar| 2.16.12 @ 1:30PM

Here's an article for those (like me) who want Newt to continue. It's heartening, believable, and encouraging.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politic...../id/429318

p.s. I didn't see anyone call for Romney to quit after he lost many races. Santorum focused on these three states because Romney and Gingrich didn't - because they knew these states are not going to designate delegates until the summer.

Haddit| 2.16.12 @ 3:10PM

Newt will be back. I guess Mitt will have to spend his money on slamming Santorum. He's a shame is what he is. Newt will eat Obama's FREE lunch .

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 3:48PM

Just so long as that lunch is chicken nuggets & not a turkey & cheese samich...

:-)

SUBVET| 2.16.12 @ 6:52PM

Iam in for 2 bottles...............

W| 2.16.12 @ 10:18AM

Why do you call Santorum "St.Rick?"

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 11:12AM

He's been co-opted like Santeria, and choosing the sun festival to mask the 'son' festival of Christmas. So between voodoo and paganism, he's a saint.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 11:24AM

I have a day job that carries a lot of responsibility and I have deployed networks all over the world. I have been in charge of large organizations doing complex things; none as complex as overthrowing 40 years of progressive control of the House.

Rick Santorum has a record of being quite Sanctimonious + his supporters cite his marriage and family as a qualification for President. They do this to bully people into supporting the Santorum Presidential run and hiliting other's bad situations. If a good family was a requirment for President, Obama would be a Godsend; he's obviously not.

It is very difficult to do big things and maintain a family; simply check the history books to validate that. I have made numerous career decsions often turning down opportunities in favor of my family. I think I am very sensitive to the impacts of public service on families. I help a lot of local candidates. I see the sacrifice. I see good and bad decisions. I see value judgements that place country ahead of family - at least for a time. I am a father of four, as a father I think it is wrong to sacrifice family for career. Careers can come later after family. Good families propagate their values for 3 & 4 generations. In public life simply look at the Kennedy's and the Bushes.

Santorum demands understanding about his family and gives none to others; same for most of his supporters. So I hilite hypocracy by making Rick Santorum the mortal, a Saint.

Rick Santorum and his supporters' lack of sensitivity and Christian compassion regarding broken marriages speaks to a profound misunderstanding of what it takes to win the battle we are engaged in. Sacrifices for country are going to be made.

Newt achieved his success working 20hr days away from his wife and children. He saved the country decades ago from Hillarycare. He lost two families. Only God knows if Newt made the right choices, but Newt did save us from Federalized healthcare once. I believe he will do it again and I will do what I can to help.

I empathize with his sacrifice and I am grateful he has decided to sacrifice again. He doesn't need to do what he's doing. I get he has an ego - all leaders do. I get he's mortal, aren't we all?

When it comes to governing, Newt is simply the most successful candidate in the field, both R & D that has governed well. We need effective, conservative governance now more than ever.

Sorry for the long response but your question was worth a hopefully thoughtful answer.

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 11:47AM

Excellent comments, again, NVA Patriot. Bob Tyrrell could learn a lot from you.

Mimi| 2.16.12 @ 5:57PM

NVA...long appreciated your posts...This was the BEST!

MataHarley| 2.16.12 @ 6:45PM

It's good to see the type of sanity and evaluation that NVA Patriot exhibits, and extremely disappointing to see this article from American Spectator.

Santorum has yet to be tested. He's enjoyed calm waters because the establishment and Romney financial arsenal have all been aimed at Newt. Despite the media and Romney onslaught, Newt remains standing, and still enjoying double digits as voters hop frog around to the latest/greatest.... even when clueless to their new darling's past performance.

I find it even more interesting that Newt, already theoretically "dispatched" to the ol' folks home, is still the target for the media, saving Romney the trouble. The fear of a Newt candidacy only indicates to me that it is in him that they see a veritable shake up to the status quo.

That suits me just fine. As NVA states, Newt has been despised, ostracized, and made the GOP scapegoat on false charges... and all while having a record of moving things to the right, and dealing with an opposition POTUS. Newt and Palin have much in common... hated by not only the opposing party, but by their peers for their ability to get things done - and to the benefit of the conservative agenda.

I don't think Santorum will be able to go toe to toe with Obama. And something that others have not mentioned about Santorum's past is his vote to approve Sotomayor in her appointment to the Circuit Court during Clinton years. He went against the majority GOP party doing that, while they were deliberately trying to stave off her fast track to the SCOTUS. At that time, rumors abounded that Stevens might be stepping down.

This leg up to Sotomayor, when the GOP had the majority and knew what was coming... even if not immediately... bothers me tremendously. If there was a possibility that Clinton would have replaced a newly appointed Sotomayor with Stevens, then obviously Santorum had no problem with her on the High Court. This doesn't imbue me with confidence on any potential Santorum nominees that would come.

Romney is an absolute no go for me. Since the healthcare mandate is one of my largest issues, I am unable to sell out my principles to vote for the unapologetic godfather of the mandate just to change the Oval Office decor. And I most certainly do not want to be saddled with a possible Romney incumbent, waiting eight years for a genuine conservative to emerge. The only difference between Obama and Romney is the rate the blood flows from the nation's wound.

And I would be remiss not to point out that Romney's gubernatorial record is one that even Obama would find admirable. There is little difference in their approach on healthcare or EPA/AGW. Probably the reason that Obama has a former Romney EPA associate in the WH, attempting to kill coal plants, just as Romney did in his leadership.

But there are behind the scenes haps that perhaps many have not thought of. First, Newt and RP's support has remained relatively steady, while Romney and Santorum are trading off voter percentages. This means that Santorum is drawing from Romney's base, not the other two.

Secondly, the young are lining up behind both Ron Paul and Newt. This is an important demographic.

Now, has anyone thought about the power that a combined Newt/RP voting bloc would wield at a convention? And did anyone catch the unusual bonding between Ron Paul and Newt in the Jacksonville, FL debate?

Stuff to think about

Fionnagh| 2.17.12 @ 12:10AM

I very rarely post on this forum, but am a longtime reader. Just wanted to thank you for your excellent comments. I too have chosen the scarred candidate over the sanctimonious one.

Marco2| 2.17.12 @ 8:45AM

Newt is best at governing, you say? The man is completely out-of-control, can't even govern himself. Nonetheless, I hope he stays in to foil St. Rick every step of the way.

NVA Patriot| 2.17.12 @ 10:04AM

M - did you miss 1994? Romney was out denying he was a Reagn Republican at the time...

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:37PM

The only time we have had a balanced budget in our lifetime was when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

We stopped having balanced budgets the first year that Newt was no longer speaker.

So I think we can possibly say we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if the establishment hadn't staged a coup on Newt.

Otis the Hand| 2.16.12 @ 9:18AM

BTW, I seriously doubt Hayek would have approved of Mitt's business practices. One need only to closely examine Bain's typical "investment" strategy to realize that Newt's criticism is exactly right. I find it difficult to characterize the corrupt paper shuffling of Bain Capital as "free market" capitalism. Rather, Bain learned to exploit government imposed market rule. Criticism of certain business practices does not equate to an attack on free market capitalism, this author's bait-and-switch not withstanding.

http://articles.boston.com/201.....igh-levels

Mtncougar| 2.16.12 @ 2:59PM

Nicely put Otis. Thanks for pointing this out.

If you haven't studied up on Bain (Romney's sole claim to being a "job creator") it's time. Here's an easy-to-understand interview with a Reagan conservative venture capitalist about Bain. His conclusion? Bain's business model is a job killer.

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

Otis the Hand| 2.16.12 @ 5:04PM

Thanks for the link, it comports with what I have read on the subject. As I understand it, the Bain model could not exist were it not for government interference in the free market.

benny havens| 2.16.12 @ 9:22AM

During this campaign season, instead of watching the four horsemen of the Republican Party in constructive debate, we have witnessed the four horses asses.

Rick Santorum, the consummate used car salesman. You want a blue suit; he’ll turn on a blue light. And he will explain how he was responsible for creating and lead the fight for legislation to make blue lights the official lighting of the Federal Government.

Then we have the Huckster, as RET described. Instead of him being our “Boy Clinton” he is our “Grandfather Newt”. He has stumbled from the time Romney made it sound as if Gingrich was responsible for the whole housing mess through his consulting. He could have cleared the air and put Romney in his place if he had just explained clearly what he had done for Freddie. He couldn’t. He didn’t.

Let’s look at Romney, the Hollywood Hairdresser from Massachusetts. Not a conservative and never was. All he has done is give us his resume and throw mud at his opponents. No plan, no vision and no solutions. He claims he is a Washington outsider. However if he had beaten Teddy Kennedy 30 years ago he would now be a Washington Insider. He would be reaching across the aisle to compromise with the other progressives. He would be just like the bookends from Maine. And I will ask it again, what has he done in the last four years that makes him a better candidate then he was when he lost to the guy who lost to Obama?

Last but not least we have “live and let live” Paul. Yes, the cold war is over, but the world is not a safe place. You can’t sit at a conference table and have a reasonable discussion with a person who views you as an Infidel and wants to cut your head off. It’s not okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because they will use them.

Will I vote in the general election for whomever the Republicans nominate? You bet I will. All the while, holding my nose.

My question is, is this the best the Republicans can offer?

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 9:38AM

I've thought the same thing. The question then becomes, do you run guys like West, Rubio, Ryan, Pence, Toomey & others, who JUST got elected to the House or Senate NOW? Or do you keep your powder dry & let them get some legislative experience & finish out their first terms & run them later? The reason the latter isn't the best idea, in MY opinion, is that we made that same argument against Obama when he was running (even though no one listened).

I'm not sure of the answer myself. What do you think?

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 10:06AM

You let them bake, harden and test them some more, however, I think it would be v. wise for whoever the nominee is to choose Allen West as the VP - ponder that one :)

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:57AM

I've been a fan of that idea for a LONG time, Bro! I'd love it!

W| 2.16.12 @ 11:17AM

This morning on TV I heard West singing "pretty woman," at his birthday party. Not bad.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 11:35AM

Yeah, I head it too. He's pretty good!

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 11:37AM

"heard" in Engrish.

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 11:36AM

The level of character assasination in the primaries has reached such heights that who, in their right mind, would subject themselves or their family to it? Ask Cain or Palin.; ask West or J C Watts or Rubio or Christie. The talent pool is (rightly I suspect) not inclined to suffer through this primary purgatory.

It is time for our candidates to stop killing each other off, meet in that smike filled room and decide who is able to defeat the incumbant. It may not even be one of them. Put the egos aside for the sake of one last attempt to salvage this nation from the abyss. That would be called Statesmanship would it not?

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 11:38AM

Hell, Adab, I'd call that downright patriotic!

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 12:16PM

NB:
W suggests you are the one to ask about the best restaurants in the country and where to schedule to AmSpec blogger convention. Good food matters, we can bring the Scotch.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 12:29PM

We can do it in Philly, DC, Memphis or Nashville. I'm very familiar with the dining scenes in those cities & know of numerous good chefs with places in each.

Shoot me an email:

DTFrankel79@gmail.com

Occam's Tool| 2.16.12 @ 5:11PM

Where in Nashville? I have family within an easy 2 hour drive.

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 9:44PM

Sorry NB:
Link just took me to a blank page. Anyway, Memphis seems not a bad idea. We could I think build a good list of bloggers to meet. You, W, Tommy Frisco, Ken, Deborah D, Occam. List goes on. Interesting number of Texans isn't it?

Sorry for everyone I admire that I neglected to list

Tommy Frisco: Did my upt in Big Spring speaking of west Texas

W| 2.16.12 @ 5:44PM

Al
You need to add Allen West to the meeting

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 9:30PM

Would be a great honor to have him along. He could be the keynote speaker although it would be better to be more informal and just mingle.

Memphis is beginning to sound doable. What about K-City? Anywhere is a trip for me, but is OK.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 10:21PM

I'd be HONORED to show y'all around my hometown of Memphis. There're TONS of good places to eat there, & I ain't just talking BBQ & Southern home cooking. Plus, there's Beale Street, Sun Studios & Graceland. Graceland is all y'all. I've been too many times to count. Just make sure you go with a group & during daylight. That area rivals some of the worst hoods of Southeast DC, West Baltimore & North Philly.

albert constantine jr| 2.16.12 @ 2:21PM

I prefer the West cover to the Van Halen cover, but no one yet has bested the dulcet tones of the Big O.

On the other hand, I am unaware of any instance where Roy Orbison was able to convince an enemy operative to reveal information in order to protect his troops, no matter how many times I view "The Fastest Guitar Alive".

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 1:42PM

Better forget Rubio. He is not a "natural born" citizen. He is a "native born" American because neither of his parents weret US citizens at the time of his birth. Just giving a heads-up, y'all.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 2:55PM

If you are born in the United States, you are a naturally born citizen of the United States.

benny havens| 2.16.12 @ 2:10PM

What I believe is that we must work very hard at electing conservatives to the Senate. Somehow we need to eliminate the peoples money from getting into the hands of Reid, Derbin, Kerry, Fienstien, Schumer, Boxer, Leven or any other socialist progressive politician presently in office. When Obama comes up with a spending bill for a trillion here and there it needs to be stopped with a 60%+ majority in both the House and Senate. This way the Socialist in Chief will have nothing to do but go on another vacation.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 5:14PM

It is very important to let our legislators get some experience in D.C. to see if they can accomplish something there and above all to see whether they are still conservatives after a few years.

Dave Williams| 2.16.12 @ 11:21AM

Nope. Christie, Jindahl, Rubio, and DeMint are waiting...if we can just hold on long enough...

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 11:57AM

Not Christie - too much Sharia in that politician's blood - he's terrible on O-Romney-care and he's terrible on Judge selection.

Great on confronting Union abuse of the system.

albert constantine jr| 2.16.12 @ 2:11PM

Perhaps a future secretary of labor?

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 12:28PM

Last fall, I was curious as to why there were not any pleas for Jim DeMint to jump into the race. Christie is not much better than Romney and Coulter likes him so he's out for me. Rubio is a great speaker, but he has less experience than Obama had in 2008 and Rubio is weak on immigration (who would have thought). Some people feel that Rubio and Jindal do not meet the NBC clause in the Constitution and made clear in Minor vs Happersett.

Rich Birkett| 2.17.12 @ 11:44AM

Rubio was born in Cuba and therefore INELIGIBLE to be President or VP.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:39PM

Rubio was born in the United States...

Larry| 2.16.12 @ 9:26AM

Emmett, familiar with the concept of projection? Perhaps its your narcissism (sprinkled with a healthy dose of Beltway Envy) which you so loath ... and imagine in others.

The Inside The Beltway Punditry has revealed its stunningly insular world during the last several months in a fashion most revealing ... and self destructive.

You all have succeeded in weaning vast swaths of conservatives from your often petty and wrongheaded gibberish.

What has become more evident than ever before (in recent history) is the simple truth that often the only importance of such punditry is the self importance you all heap upon yourselves.

So, busy yourself at your typewriter dear Emmett ... just remember, outside of your shrinking fraternity ... no one is listening.

Stroker97| 2.16.12 @ 9:34AM

Wrong! The headline should read, "It's Time for the American Spectator to go." And stop hiding behind the conservative flag because we can see right through it. AS is on the Romney payroll just like Drudge, NRO, and other so-called conservative rags. I have never seen such an attack on a presidential candidate in my lifetime. Let's check the donations to this mag. Dear Mr. Editor in Chief, please release your financial records and I'm sure Restore our Future will be the biggest doner.

MarkR| 2.16.12 @ 11:58AM

Well at least they have Mr. Lord and a few others as counterweight. I cant possibly envision a serious conversation between ADHominen Emmit and Jeffrey Lord. That would be worth being a fly on the wall.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.16.12 @ 9:46AM

Newt is the only one who can restore America as she was, and can be again, with the right person in the White House.

He is a historian. He is an experienced , knowledgable, true conservative. His years of participating in government covers a wide range of experience that outweighs that of any of that of the other candidates.

He has dealt with the good, the bad, and the ugly, and fought thru rough times repeatedly, and has steadfastly held ont o his conservative values while others regularly float between the extreems.

Moreover...he loves America ....as she was, as she still is in some respects, and as we all hope and pray, she will be again.

Newt needs to stay in the race until what may be a bitter end if Americans do not wake up to the ruination of this great country by the "posers" currently running as true conservatives.

OLDRAY| 2.16.12 @ 9:47AM

It is sad to see what once was such a fine publication become such a lousy platform for trash such as today's article by Mr Tyrell . He and Mr Hillyer sound more and more like the Ron Paul talkbacks in the AS. . Romney is another sure loser. Santorum is obviously a nice guy but Obama will make hash out of him. Rubio and Sarah Palin would have won in a walk. The Republican Party is in a mess and the country is going to become a larger Greece. So sad.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 10:15AM

No - because at the end of the day there are powers and principlalities at work - unseen that are far more trancendent than the nonsense we're seeing.

There is far more to be optimistic about thtn pessamistic. 3 years ago we could not stop a flawed candidate like McCain - we got crushed. Now, we're able to fight back and change the game; we may even win. We have devastated the farm team of the progressives (2010). Heath Shuler and Ben Nelson quit as public examples. At the local level few candidates of qulity are coming up on the Dem side. Our NVA Tea PArty is buildin 4 and 10 year plans to shift government right and take out progressives despite gerry-mandered districts.

Our Founders spent 20 years building America - surely we can take 20 years to restore America - and we already have most of the answers thanks to them.

Onward and Never, Never, Never give in - despair is the most useful tool of the enemy.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:40PM

McCain had fewer flaws than Romney.

You people that supported Romney in 2008, but think he's a slimeball now. Well I could tell he was a slimeball back then, what took you guys so long to figure it out?

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 4:24PM

lesser of two evils; Romney only calls us 'Severe Conservatives' McCain thinks we're fictional characters - Hobbits - just little people.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 6:18PM

Better to be thought of as a fictional than to be thought of as diseased freaks that need to be avoided at all costs.

bluecollarbytes| 2.16.12 @ 9:49AM

On a practical level, Newt should drop out, soon.

I'm quite tired though of the bile slung at various candidates from folks presumably on the same side.

Santorum ( a real legit conservative in today's world) is going to be the 'next newt'. It's already open seaon on him, from the right-whatever that is these days.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 10:18AM

Can you tell me what conservative governing action Santorum has taken?

Can you expalin why the supposed most pro-life candidate in the universe voted for pro-chooice judges he now compalins about?

Just asking...been on lots of blogs, can't get a Santorum supporter to come up with an answer; not one

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 11:25AM

They are afraid to expose their own hypocrisy on pretty much every topic.
His greatest folly was claiming that he voted against every tax increase as senator, true, but he willingly endorsed not paying for MCptD, two wars and the Junior tax cut.

For he to claim righteous indignation about debt and deficits is not only laughable, it is tragic that he believes 50% +1 of Americans will buy that.

Putting one's hands over one's eyes when a 'friend' is looting the place is not an excuse.

The dems have all the dirt they need to scorch the earth under any GOP candidate. The GOP has shot themselves in the head once again by not producing a clean candidate, and their internacene bloodbaths will have a spillover onto congressional campaigns. McDonell, Haley and Christie have hooked their horses to Willard. If he fails to win, and BHO wins handily, then the blowback on these rising stars will be substantial.

bluecollarbytes| 2.16.12 @ 7:30PM

Puleeze, there isn't one candidate in this race that can't be pricked prodded and poked to 'political death'.

I could say rightly there isn't 1 real conservative in this race. But there are some mighty fine progressive Republicans, one of which we're forced to choose. That's all we got today.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 2:59PM

Sorry but Santorum is falling into the left's traps already, I think he could implode on his own.

How many times has Gingrich been counted out only to come back (each time getting smeared by the establishment)?

Many Newt supporters will not vote for Obamney in the general.

I personally harbor Santorum no-ill will, I just don't think he can beat Obama because he makes too many mistakes that Obama can capitalize on.

bluecollarbytes| 2.16.12 @ 7:35PM

Santorum's personal faith and the strong beliefs he holds could knock him out unless he gets a handle on how he expresses it.

NVA Patriot| 2.17.12 @ 9:51AM

Sorry - it's more than expression - it's the hypocracy - heclaims he's Pro-life yet he advances Sot socialist judge - it's precisely the type of crap the Tea Party is against - Why I support Newt is is new found humility - he can say I was wrong, mean it and correct his behavior - it's the mark of maturity

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 9:53AM

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.,
You say you don't want to pile on, but that's exactly what you are doing. I quit going to NRO months ago due to their slanted, agenda-driven articles. If you continue posting garbage like this article on your site, I will stop coming here, as well.

All these calls for Newt to drop out are nothing but attempts to help Romney. His campaign is failing badly because he can't inspire voters. It's apparent that Romney won't even win in Michigan...his home state and a state he won in 2008. Even Romney doesn't have the money to carpet bomb his opponents, in every state, with attack ads like he did Gingrich in Florida.

This primary should be a two-man race between the two Republican conservatives...Newt and Santorum.

MarkR| 2.16.12 @ 11:54AM

Excellent post. My sentiments exactly. They have thrown everything they can at every conservative in this race to get ol Mitt over the top and he still is far-far away from sealing the deal. And yet guys like Tyrrel cant grasp that maybe? its because ol Mitt is not a conservative and NEVER has been one. Mitt is a Ken Doll who has been wound up for the last 5-6 years to spout conservative platitudes without a conservative record to run on.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 5:25PM

I would like to at least hear some conservative platitudes from Mitt as I don't really hear conservative anything in regard to policies and solutions.

Rich Birkett| 2.17.12 @ 11:48AM

Ron Paul will never drop out as long as there are only big government candidates like Romney, Gingrich and Santorum.

WG| 2.16.12 @ 9:55AM

Sir, your article was long on insults but short of logic and reasoning. If you were seriously trying to get Newt out of the race, insulting him is the least effective way to do that.

I get that both you and Quin Hillyer don't like Newt as well as the NRO folks. However, Newt can choose to get out when he wants just like Santorum, Romney or Paul. I would vote for any of them over B.O. and feel good about it. ABO in 2012.

TURK| 2.16.12 @ 10:07AM

I feel really stupid!!!!! I have purchased Coulter's books; subscribed to Am Spec and NR (canx my own subscription long ago-ditto week stan). What in hell is going on???? Romney-Santorum??

Newt IS a bit off the mark on occasion, but I fear the incomprehensible stuff flying his way right now has to do with a lot of ruling class repubs who got kicked in the gonads by newt back when. The ruling class needs such from time to time, don't they?

On Santorum I have one thing to say---------Specter!!

Otis the Hand| 2.16.12 @ 10:24AM

"has to do with a lot of ruling class repubs who got kicked in the gonads by newt back when."

Bingo.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 5:27PM

Yes, I think Turk and Otis both have it right.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 6:28PM

Don't feel stupid...You're now much smarter and can be 10x more effective - find a way to get voters out to the polls to vote for Newt - it's what we can do. In VA we're voting Ron Paul to deny the mittstablishment the delegates.

Our founders built a nation with fewer resources than we have to fight the tyranny of our day. We'll keep fighting because America is more than a piece of land or a collection of institutions; it's an ideal founded to advance the original purpose of our creation: to love God and express that love in our temporal actions while we live in time and space.

That ideal will not die nor perish so long as **We The People** continually oppose socialist tyranny - Socialism has always failed and it will here.

The question we have to answer is this: Are we going to do enough to protect our children from the bleak future offered by Obama, the Democrats, and the Socialists?

kf451| 2.16.12 @ 10:11AM

Leave Newt alone!

Some of us have no other reason to look forward to the election.

(sigh)

martin j smith| 2.16.12 @ 10:25AM

Clint you compulsively post and they sound cult like in character. You quote Doctor Ron Paul as if he is Chairman Mao or Comrade Stalin or even Dear Leader. I could not careless what you think because you do not think for yourself. You believe in your Doctor Paul as if he is your G-D. Perhaps he is. Unlike you I believe in no one person but I am looking for a leader to get us out of this mess and get rid of Obama. And smears that you write show me that Ron Paul --if he is to be judged by his supporters--you know the apple and tree thing--cannot be trusted and is no better than Obama. So continue to show your ignorance and stupidity but as for me I have more important things to focus on and that is the future of this country and that efforts to silence those who would aspire the Presidency to shut up are dangerous.

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 10:30AM

My goodness Emmett, your juvenile, vicious ad hominem attacks on Newt speak to a larger pathology at work here.
Why don't you come clean with your readers and tell us what the hell this man did to you to deserve such animus?

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 11:52AM

Anthony, it may not what Newt has done TO Emmett as it is what Romney and Bain Capital have done FOR him.

David T| 2.16.12 @ 10:45AM

By their fruits you shall know them. If you look at Newt's actual record in office, it is probably more conservative than that of any of the other candidates.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 5:29PM

Bingo, you nailed it.

nibblesyle| 2.16.12 @ 10:55AM

Sir, please keep writing stuff like this..it only galvanizes the Newt troops and makes us love him more. Indeed, I may just donate more money to Newt.org twice in one week!

loulou| 2.16.12 @ 11:00AM

It's clear that RET is a spent force.
Buh-bye.

Newt Fan| 2.16.12 @ 11:34AM

Mr. Tyrrell, there seems to be more personal venom than considered reason behind your Tyrrades against Mr. Gingrich. What happened between you two?

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.16.12 @ 11:38AM

Emmet,
I'm with Sarah Palin. Compete and let the best man win.
Anybody but Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:10PM

It is funny for a woman and a quitter to say that.

MarkR| 2.16.12 @ 11:45AM

Memo to Tyrrel: Get into the present and leave the past behind. And if you want to go into the past with such ferociousness try a little of Mittens past like his claim to be a progressive in 02 or his claim that he's not a reaganite in 94. This 1960's crap is old and tiresome and unbecoming an editor of a fine publication such as the the Spectator. You love to call names a la Coulter which is fine when there is balance and a true rendering of a pols record. You like her have decided to ad hominen a man into a pulp without the respect to his overall record because youve had a hard-n for Clinton for 20 years. Its a joke Mr. Tyrrel. Being against Newt is fine- destroying him without the total record is fraudulent and has decreased my and others respect for you, Coulter and others a great deal. As for NRO they have become a publication with a total lack of objectivity when it comes to Newt- like I say being against the guy is fine as there are legitimate reasons but these Leftist harangues of an adhominen nature are not conservative and the lack of factoids on Mr. Romney makes it even more ridiculous and suspect. In other words Mr. Tyrrel your not as clever as you think you are.

Nick099| 2.16.12 @ 11:52AM

Tyrell, it is clear there seems to be animosity between you and Newt. Let it go. Your underwear is showing....dirty and stained from sitting at the Establishment table or is really from the George Soros Cocktail Hour?

Like the rest of the chucklebutts, you want this race wrapped up and decided already, well that is not going to happen. Santorum is surging...but he has made some troubling statements and his record has some issue as Erick Erickson is finding out. So do not be so quick to call on Newt to leave when we are learning about Santorum and clearly no one loves Mitt....except your buddies in the New Media.

The elections that have recently passed were for no delegates and single-digit turnout was the only pathetic result....they mean nothing. Right now all polling is based upon smoke and mirrors with no hard substance. Even the delegate count in Florida is not accurate as they will have to be divided between Mitt and Newt. Santorum has won no delegates since then. To call upon any candidate to leave now is irresponsible or stupid. In your case just idiotic and mean.

TURK| 2.16.12 @ 12:02PM

I forgot in my piece above to compare Sarah Palin's history to Newt's. She was attacked attacked attacked, mostly by repubs and it WAS because she kicked a lot of them in the gonads. Ruling class repubs in Alaska, after years of cronyism and outright theft got slaughtered by our Sarah. So too the oil companies!

AND---ala Barry Goldwater, the ruling class repubs did it to her AFTER she was nominated to oppose the current communist in the WH. The rinos would have Jack the Ripper in power rather than a conservative! Sooooo, as I said:what the hell is going on with several 'conservatives???

MarkR| 2.16.12 @ 12:13PM

Its a tradition my man! The RINOS who are conservatives in sheeps clothing arrive every 4 years to backtrack from all their conservative bonafides and attempt to placate the left by finding the ELECTABLE MAN or WOMAN. The same scenario has reigned in the repulican party for decades. Remember 1976 and 1980 when Reagan was an idiot and a decrepite old man who would hit the button for WW3 a la Goldwater - it was no different then as now. Only difference is Reagan had balls of steel and a charisma that disarmed even his enemies. Those who drop his name now were adamently opposed to him on many fronts then and those who werent around then so much would have despised his candidacy. Its funny how time and distance dulls the memory of so many.

LarryK| 2.16.12 @ 12:05PM

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

One note banjo!

Simon Templar| 2.16.12 @ 12:29PM

Tyrell,

It is time for you to go.
This thinly veiled attempt on your part to remove Gingrich is rather ridiculously obvious. I see your not calling for Ron Paul to drop out. You will when he becomes a threat and moves up the polls and the primaries. Very predictable.

I find it incredible that you wrote a book called the "Death of Liberalism." Liberalism is not dying nor dead, you are keeping it alive.

It is quite simple. The majority do not want Mitt Romney, they want a conservative candidate that will actually bring chnage to D.C.

Randy | 2.16.12 @ 12:30PM

Brilliant, as always. Except that Jean-François Kerry appears to have had a facelift, er, I mean hockey puck accident, so he looks slightly smoother, if not younger these days.

William Shipley| 2.16.12 @ 12:32PM

Newt should definitely stay in the race. He is the one proposing the clearest vision and the most specific solutions to the problems we face. He is currently down due to the millions of dollars of trash that Romney has thrown at him. Romney is having a problem attracting more than 30-40% of the Republican electorate, the rest want someone else. At the moment that is Santorum and the trashing of Santorum is beginning. If Newt get's out then the trashing will succeed and Romney will get the votes by default, if he stays in, Santorum bashing will just move the 'not Romney' votes back to Newt. If we want a campaign of ideas, we don't want to set up a two man race so that destroying one of them leads to victory for the other.

David| 2.16.12 @ 12:36PM

I would have taken you serious until you said he should back Santorum OR Romney. BACK ROMNEY THE USED CAR SALESMAN?? That is where you lost all credibility with me!!! Soros backs Romney too!!!!! Sure if Romney is the candidate we HAVE to hold our noses and back the lesser of the evils

Hal Chapman| 2.16.12 @ 12:36PM

You mean we want Romney, the candidate that couldn't even support the Boy Scouts of America,
or the Santorum that voted for all of the bailout programs. Why?

Andrew| 2.16.12 @ 12:39PM

Let me preface by saying that I'm a proud conservative. But let's analyze a truly ludicrous quote from this article:

"We gave Obama his chance to get the economy back on the path to growth, and he blew it."

The American economy has had positive job growth for 23 consecutive months. The American economy has had positive GDP growth for ten consecutive quarters. The auto industry was stabilized. Banks are stabilized. The Dow Jones is up 61% in the approximately three years since Obama took office (a REMARKABLE three-year performance for a large-cap index). The healthcare stock index is up a solid 12.6% since the day Obamacare became law. Most major credit card companies are reporting that the percentage of "late payments" are near historic lows (a sign that Americans have money to pay what they should be paying). The Consumer Confidence Sentiment is higher now than it was when Mr. Obama took office.

And all this is considered "failure"?

Barack Obama's approval rating is now above 50% again, according to a CNN poll released yesterday.

This Republican claim that Obama was a failure on the economic front is not backed up by economic data, and is increasingly not accepted by the American people.

If the GOP wants any chance to win this election, it needs to do something truly scary, and potentially suicidal in a campaign: it needs to talk to Americans like adults.

The only potential high ground that the Republican Party can honestly stake its claim on is a willingness to tackle the entitlement programs what will eventually strangle our country. And maybe, just maybe, the American voters will be mature enough to accept this argument and move in a more fiscally responsible direction. But to claim that Obama has "failed" on the economy is an absurd claim that almost certainly will be rejected by the American voter come November.

Vern Crisler| 2.16.12 @ 2:05PM

Deficits as far as the eye can see. Over 8 percent (official) unemployment for the last three years. Social engineering. Sounds like failure to me.

Tommy Frisco| 2.16.12 @ 2:53PM

Andrew (Emmett?),

Romney is wrong. Obama is not in over his head and he's not a failure. Obama came into office wanting to bring America down to size. He said in on of the 2008 debates that it is not fair for one country to be above another. If we will just give him another four years, 75% of us will be on government assistance, we'll be paying $15 gal. for gasoline, and we will no longer be a nation of laws. We will be a banana republic and driving around in 25 year old cars.

Simon Templar| 2.16.12 @ 3:18PM

A very interesting perspective, very clever. I am not sure you are a conservative at all but you raise a VERY interesting perspective and a useful warning.

You are essentially correct in that the perception of the economy is the most critical factor here.
To say that Obama has not failed in this area is to accept the premise that this economic "growth" and "stabilization" is not a mirage but real.

It is also accepting the falsehood that deficit spending and government spending is a legitimate stimulator and fix for an ailing economy. Moreover, that it does not have any negative consequences but only positive ones.

Your perspective also accepts the economic reports and "statistics" that purport that all these institutions are supposedly stabilized.

The reality is quite different. All of this is a mirage. You are conveniently ignoring the vast uneasiness and fear that has shown up in the buying of gold, the continued housing market implosion and financial consequences, the real unemployment numbers not the fed manipulations, the growth of government jobs not private sector jobs in the last three years, the stock market earnings based soley on hedging and speculation, the devaluation of the dollar, the looming gigantic sunami of inflation on the horizon, the fact that most peoples savings are still in cash and out of investment markets, the overall fear of corporations to spend their cash and invest, the utter despondency in small businesses, the lack of any reasonable return on any investment instrument, the lack of opportunity for college graduates and their unemployment rate, the growing dependence of more Americans on the welfare state, the double digit unemployment of blacks, the cost of energy which is being made worse by insane fed policy, the continued dependency on foreign loans, the pushback of thousands of groups in the heathcare industry, the thousands of waivers granted to get out of Obamcare, and the continued loss of manufacturing.

Yeah, things are just swell. The challenge for the GOP is too communicate the reality and the impending consequences of this insane spending, the economic mirage here, the unbridled corruption, and the insane fiscal policy of this idiot currently residing in the white house.

Up till now, they have failed miserably to communicate this to the general electorate and respond effectively to the Dem's propaganda and manipulations. It is not only the entitlements that are of consequence and importance. It is the government overeach in every corner of this nation that is the biggest threat. It is the continual onslaught of attacks against every liberty we have, attacks on every institution from the family to the church, and the class warfare that is relentless .
Wall street is now shifting money to the GOP. Catholics are up in arms. The banks are finally fighting back. It is not over yet.

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 3:34PM

Is that you General Powell, disguised as Andrew, claiming to be a proud conservative while you kiss Obozo's butt?
U3 unemployment is 9%, U6 unemployment is 19%. 2.1 million Americans dropped out of the work force in January 2012. Gasoline is approaching the $ 5.00 p/g mark, again.
Forclosure rates and households on food stamps are at historic levels.
Sorry General, err Andrew; Obozo is indeed Failure we can believe in!!

Andrew| 2.16.12 @ 3:45PM

Of course I realize the underlying consequences. I've voted Republican/Libertarian in every election in my life.

The headline economic numbers look great for Democrats, and that should be very discouraging to conservatives.

At this point, I would be quite surprised if the GOP took the White House this November.

Voters don't like hearing bad news, and yet the Republicans' best chance of winning is by exposing all the bad news behind the current "recovery".

This will be a very challenging election for the GOP.

Simon Templar| 2.16.12 @ 4:38PM

The trick is to do what Reagan did. Explain it simply, clearly, and personally. Point out the truth and the reality, 'where is the beef approach', then offer a POSITIVE vision and solutions and challenge them that we CAN do better than this!

Build coalitions, even with groups that you ordinarily do not talk with. Damn control your image and stop letting the Liberals define the debates, frame the issues, and brainwash people into believing what they hear about you from the Dems. Maybe have a debate that IS NOT MODERATED BY THEM FOR A CHANGE, Ya think?

sue| 2.16.12 @ 12:42PM

Why would you be so concerned with how Newt looks? Take a look back at the Presidents who had wisdom such as Washington and Lincoln.
I'll take wisdom over looks any day.

Finrod| 2.16.12 @ 12:44PM

This utter piece of crap convinced me to unsubscribe from your mailing list. If you honestly think that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum is a better conservative than Newt Gingrich, then you're a hopeless cause, and I want no part of it.

Windy City Commentary| 2.16.12 @ 12:45PM

Tyrell, I think you've reached retirement age. If you hit 65 and lose your abilities to where all you have left is slander against others it's time for you to go. On the other hand, if you are well into your 80s and still have your abilities, carry on. Do the honorable thing and sell your magazine, retire, and go away.

GrannyRob| 2.16.12 @ 12:49PM

Regardless, Newt is still the right man for the right job at the right time, and if voters don't know that, they make the same grave error they made in the elections of 2006 and 2008 falling for just another con on the way to mediocrity and the plunge to the bottom of nothingness.

terimwal| 2.16.12 @ 12:49PM

This opinion piece is wrong on so many levels that I will not even attempt to debunk it. American Spectator and National Review are in the tank for Romney. They cannot articulate why Romney is conservative - he isn't. So they resort to bashing Newt - the only man running with conservative credentials. I will continue to support Newt with time and money. He is the only one with actual ideas (what a concept!) to get this country back on track.

And by the way, to resort to bashing Newt's looks is very much like the Obama sycophants oohing and ahing over the crease in his trousers. Neither is a qualification for the presidency.

jlt| 2.16.12 @ 12:50PM

When Newt wants to go..not until! He is the only interesting person in the race!

Leonard Gilbert| 2.16.12 @ 12:53PM

Emmett...A little mean spirited I think...particularly the "Bruno" comment. Not a Hillary fan but your comment was rude. Would fit in more at Media Matters or MSNBC.
Another thing...who the hell are you to tell a Presidential candidate that it's time for them to go. It's like you're deciding who I should get to vote for. You worry about you...

MarkR| 2.16.12 @ 2:19PM

Very true- Emmett and the others are employing the tactics of the left- and dont care. So much for my old time heros.

tragic_ent| 2.16.12 @ 1:00PM

I think the articale was fine, but it reflects the bias ron paul name was never mentioned. I see even this so called conservative forum is all for romney and santorum. Wow what a shock just like fox, msnbc, cnn, and the Gop.... oh you guy are sooo different. Why do I waste my time reading this crap.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 1:14PM

Because you're a masochist?

Try Alex Jones, Lew Rockwell or Stormfront. Y'all seem to be more at home there.

jcp370| 2.16.12 @ 1:12PM

I call for an end to pundits calling for an end to this or that candidate's run in this election.

The pundits have really disgraced themselves.

johnaf123| 2.16.12 @ 1:14PM

How can You be so anti capitalist against the very Conservative whom is speaking the truth? And whom has been trash talked by a liberal Romney??? Romney is not Our candidate at all!
He is a FLIP FLOP LIBERAL!!!! Gingrich completely stands up for what myself and millions of Americans believe in.... And thats getting rid of the Establishment BS... Thats why You people insist on keeping Liberals in DC is to continue to destroy this great nation... KICJ THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, AND COMPROMISE WITH DEMOCRATS..... that is absolutely pathetic on Our so called leaders in DC now... Gingrich would shake things up, and people like You do not like that.... WE NEED CHANGE NOW!!!!!!! If You support Romney, than You are part of the problem!!! He will never repeal Obamacare, he will never get rid of the EPA, he will never reduce middle class taxes, he will never support the 2ns amendment.....
GEE, I thinkg that sounds like a liberal, not a conservative!!!!!!
the fact is, ROMNEY CANNOT get above 1/3 support from the conservative base.. Simply because he DOES NOT represent conservatism, even if he says so,. we are not convinced due to his FLIP FLOP IDEOLOGY..... going up against OBama, he would lose..... GINGRICH WOULD DESTROY obama in a debate any day of the year...
and when you talk about how Gingrich has been destructive, you must be turned a blind eye to Romney and the Super Pacs dangerous destructive FALSE ADS against all the candidates whom have competed in this race. Romney attacked Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Gingrich, and now that Santorum is up there, Romney feels threatened and so do the Liberal base.... So I guess its time to see all the FALSE ADS come out against Santorum bought and paid for by Romney and the Super PAc....
Mister: There is one thing the media cannot win, and that is TRUE Conservatives..... we will not be bullyied into these falsehoods from to push the Liberal agenda back into DC.....
WE want a Conservative. and that is GINGRICH.

Alex| 2.16.12 @ 2:34PM

if you want a conservative, your only real option is Ron Paul. Mitt is a moderate, and Newt and Ricky are both big govt guys with the records to prove it. It was Newt who attacked Mitt over, of all things, Romney's income and business background. What conservative does that?

You have lost sight of what conservatism means; it is not ratcheting up spending to create DHS/TSA, mandate curly-Q lightbulbs, fire adult janitors so kids can learn how to work, or dictate who can use birth control. Bush DID the first two, Newt suggests the third, and Ricky from PA likes the fourth. None represents conservatism.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:04PM

Hey Ron Paul supporter, I seriously suggest you drop the bashing of Newt Gingrich.

Newt isn't pulling the shannigans Romney has been pulling, Newt isn't the one that cheated in order to be declared winner of the Maine Caucus.

The Old Coach| 2.16.12 @ 1:15PM

This just motivated me to send another contribution to Newt. Don't love him all that much, but he's not Romney, and he's not Rick "Earmark" Santorum.

Gary Brey| 2.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Santorum won't energize the base. He has to get out of the way. He lost his last race by 18 pts...more than any other Republican in 2006. He votes for big spening. Newt not Santorum balanced the budget and brought the Republicans back to the majority. He can do it.

Brooke Lighton| 2.16.12 @ 1:18PM

Re the last paragraph's mention of President's Obama's "last four budgets..." Have we had an approved budget??

Brooke Lighton| 2.16.12 @ 1:19PM

Re the last paragraph's reference to President Obama's "last four budgets..." Have we had an approved budget? Did I miss something?

GFR| 2.16.12 @ 1:20PM

I can think of few things stupider and more likely to split the party than to tell Newt supporters that he needs to get out of the race.

Newt is head and shoulders above all the other candidates. He is the only one who actually has balanced a budget and he is the one that passed the contract with america.

By contrast we are supposed to fall in line behind Romney who's only reason for running is personal pride. It is clear that nobody wants Romney and only his money is keeping him in the game.

If Romney is our candidate I will vote for obama.

Maybe the "American Spectator" needs to get out of the political blog business because it is obvious that you don't have a clue what the Conservative base is thinking.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:49PM

Right now Romney supporters have made it so that if Romney is the nominee, there is a 50% chance I will vote for Obama if there is not a 3rd party candidate in the race. Depends on the coin toss.

The reason is the behavior of Mitt Romney + the behavior of Mitt supporters.

Now let's see:

Heads: Obama gets my vote
Tails: Romney gets my vote

You better hope Romney gets lucky, cause I'm not bluffing.

If Romney is the nominee I don't care who his VP pick, even if it is Sarah Palin (whom would probably tell Romney to buzz off), or George Washington himself, I will have a coin toss (assuming there is no 3rd party candidate) and whomever wins the coin toss gets my vote.

johnnyangel10| 2.16.12 @ 1:31PM

Mr.Bob Wasn't that you in the 90's who when Clinton and his 'beautiful' wife were trying to change things and Newt stepped up and you applauded him? Wasn't that you? Now,another 'pair of clowns' are in the W.H. and Newt wants to take them out.What is the problem with that?You got to take a look in the mirror too after 15 years!

Angelo| 2.16.12 @ 1:35PM

I find it amazing that anyone actually pays you to write this drivel. Just FYI = Newt is 2nd in hard delegates; Wantorum is njust now beginning to be vetted; Romney has shown himself to be a ruthlessly dishonest liar; and you want the most qualified candidate in the field to drop out. Newt will win b/c Republicans will flock to him again once they see that without Newt, their only choice could be between a self aggrandaizing moralist; and a ruthless wall street insider. Newt is the only person in the field who has shown any vision or any real plan. You ought to put these columns in cracker jack boxes so only little kiddies can read them - they would be the only ones foolish enough to take you seriously.

Mary DeFoe| 2.16.12 @ 1:41PM

Congratulations on joining the Establishment. But then again, I'm mistaken! You've been part of it for a long time now, haven't you?

It's more recent that you've jumped on the bandwagon with the likes of Bob Dole, John McCain, Tom DeLay, and other failed prospects.

How does it feel to be in the tank?

Newt has run circles around every one of you. I really did not expect you to stoop to ugly name-calling and caricatures, though. How sophomoric!

Newt 2012!!!

Rick Toburen| 2.16.12 @ 1:42PM

While I agree with the vast majority of this column...and while I am not a Clinton fan, I find your comments about Mrs Clinton to be class-less. I would encourage you to rise above this kind of barb-throwing. In doing so, it further validates your credibility and influence.

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:19PM

This is the big leagues, and when facts evade a writer, ad hominum becomes the order of the day.

If Willard was so suitable for the job, he should stand on his own merits and be able to exhaust Newtie by actually accumulating delegates.

Al Neuman| 2.16.12 @ 1:52PM

Agree with this piece. However the biggest mistake the GOP could make is to support some right-winger, e.g. Santorum. I'm from PA, and trust me, his social agenda is not going to be appealing to the large number of "middle of the road" American voters to make him electable in November.
What i don't understand is why some Republicans don't understand that job one is to get Obama out--undoubtedtly the worst and most damaging Presidency of modern times. And while the conservatives in the party can rant all they want about "conservative principles" (who decides), every single public opinion poll of Americans shows that the vast majority consider themselves "moderate".
They're not interested in Santorum or anyone else telling them about how to live their personal lives, esp. the young. If the GOP is serious about defeating Obama, they'll nominate someone appealing to the mainstream of voters--the obvious choice here is Romney.
Only in that way would "conservatives" in the party get somewhat closer if not all the way, to their agenda for the country.

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:20PM

That logic escapes most observers here.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:51PM

Job 1 is to replace Obama with someone that actually will work to undo Obama's destructive policies, not get someone to replace Obama whom will probably continue Obama's destructive policies.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 6:03PM

" every single public opinion poll of Americans shows that the vast majority consider themselves "moderate" "
Sorry Al, not quite right. Americans self-identify as follows: 41% conservative, 36% moderate and 21% liberal. This is according to Gallop and has been fairly steady for decades. http://www.therightscoop.com/g.....1-liberal/

Could it be that you have been brainwashed by the liberal establishment media that Republicans can only expand their vote count by moving liberal?

Highsider| 2.16.12 @ 1:57PM

You neglected to mention his penchant for one world govrnment and his unrepentant membership in the Council on Foriegn Relations, one of the largest supporters of same.

Nevadastu| 2.16.12 @ 2:04PM

If Newt drops out, Romney will be the nominee. Why? Because Rick Santorum is not on enough state ballots to secure the delegates to win. I contend that this opinion piece was written by a Mitt Romney supporter, or in other words, an Establishment loving Republican!

crs52| 2.16.12 @ 2:04PM

Why do Republicans persist in trying to sell lthe public on the notion that there is a quick and easy fix to thirty-odd years of going in the wrong direction and eight years of utter mismanagement ? It took eight years for Bush/Cheney to run everything into the ground, entangle us in two unpaid for wars, dismantle the machinery of government, and collapse the markets. It will take at least that long to see any real improvement, and only a flaming idiot thinks otherwise. And everyone one of them seems to forget (or they are counting on the public to forget) that the economy was in freefall a couple years ago and that the debt did NOT go back to zero the day Obama took office. I certainly don't think Obama is above criticism but it should be obvious that we would likely be seeing more progress if it weren't for the determined obstructionism that the GOP has practiced since Day One. And your statement that "we gave him a chance" is completely erroneous. The Republicans NEVER gave him a chance. NEVER. They never intended to.

Butch| 2.16.12 @ 4:19PM

Sure they did. They gave him two full years of complete political dominance which they were helpless to resist. He had an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. He and his Democrats used it to gut Medicare, pass the most freedom-stealing legislation since the Civil War in Obamacare, steal two auto manufacturers and give the companies to his union cronies, and steal nearly a trillion with a no-effect "stimulus."

Butch| 2.16.12 @ 4:20PM

For Openers!

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 6:07PM

Maybe crs52 does not understand what a filibuster is and that it takes at least 41 votes to maintain one, which the GOP did not have. The Dems had freedom to do anything they wanted for quite some time.

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 2:04PM

Gingrich won SC and should not end his campaign.
1. engineered the 1994 GOP revolt
2. balanced the budget 4 straight years
3. reformed the welfare
4. impeached Bill Clinton
5. passed the Crime Bill
Gingrich poll numbers are going south because
1. women voters
2. no money
3. luckester debate performances in FL
4. santorum's popularity in the Rust Belt and in the Mountain West states
My advice to Gingrich: FIRED UP!

Nick| 2.16.12 @ 2:44PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 3:07PM

Nick is a convicted sex offender. Watch out!

Simon Templar| 2.16.12 @ 3:25PM

Bill, these were your words. Own up and apologize or get lost.

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 4:35PM

NO APOLOGY!

Simon Templar| 2.16.12 @ 4:50PM

Then go away racist troll.

thoughtcriminal2| 2.16.12 @ 6:16PM

Bill speaks like a Democrat, the slaveholders, the Citizens Councils members, the KKK members (like Grand Wizard Robert Byrd), and the ones who still run the political plantations in Detroit, Cleveland, D.C. and wherever else there is total social collapse.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 3:57PM

Aah! Bill, the Nathan Bedford Forrest wannabe, re-appearsfrom under his rock to grace us with his shabby self

"Remember Ft. Pillow!"

Henry Reber| 2.16.12 @ 2:10PM

Who cares what he looks like. He will turn this country around. He has guts, others don't. I'm still for Newt.

Abigail Adams| 2.16.12 @ 2:21PM

Mr. Tyrrell, Sadly it is folks such as yourself who are causing the rift and the great divide in the GOP at the worst possible time. What do yo have to gain by attacking and dividing our contenders? One look at Newt's accomplishments during the Clinton Administration is enough. Newt is an American who is pro-America; he will reduce the ridiculous regulations that are strangling our small businesses; repeal Obamacare and other equally damning pieces of legislature. Newt can stand and deliver; he is fearless....plus he knows all the players. Join us rather than dividing us, and let's get a GOP President this year.

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 3:09PM

You make an excellent point Abigail. Emmett, as many in the chattering class and the media are wont to do, has lost the forest through the trees.
Emmett and Co. delight in the daily machinations of this long campaign and dwell on each day's revelations as if they were the last. Hannity is the worst offender of this.
We regular Americans, however, take a different approach. We are not obsessed with the daily events and hence, don't keep score accordingly. We take a much longer approach.
Emmett, besides hiding from us his personal vendetta against Newt, is upset with some things Gingrich said months ago, as were many of us at the time, yet we are content to let this process play itself out. Our instincts, I submit are far more healthy for the process than their's.
Emmett and Co. want closure, they want the process to show results, perhaps to validate that their opinions are swaying people. Nobody likes being ignored, especially those who seek to influence others.
Emmett wants Newt's sclap, for what ever his reasons. Perhaps Emmett has more in common with elites like Clinton and DSK then he dares admits.
A messy process, with the rabble taking the long view, may not be suitable to the elites.

Alex| 2.16.12 @ 2:29PM

the question is not so much whether Newt should drop out, but who in the world calls either him or Ricky from PA conservatives? Please. These two guys are creatures of big govt, from time served to their post-electoral paychecks.

Newt was ideal for his time but that time has past. Ricky wants to fight wars that are either settled or far below the typical American's radar. Mitt's opponents are generated by equal parts antipathy toward Mormons and misinformation re: who he is. The man was governor of the bluest state in the East, and STILL cut taxes and spending while vetoing a lot of things. Hard to blame him for an 80% Dem legislature overriding vetoes. Plus, he's actually been in charge of something - a state, an Olympics, a business. Perfect? Nope. But less statist than the other two.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:08PM

I don't like Romney because of his record, the stunts he's pulled that are on the level of the tactics one would see in a corrupt Chicago-style election, etc.

Romney is just as crooked as Obama.

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:14PM

So what's your point?

Norquist stated clearly all we need is a useful idiot in the WH to get it done.

Willard will do.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:53PM

Romney is more apt to continue Obama's policies, Romney's true nature is to be a far-left progressive.

OLDRAY| 2.16.12 @ 2:43PM

R.E.TYRRELL...You should retire Newt is so far above the other candidates in experience and intelligence that all you can due is dirty smears to attack him. I do not like Hillary and resent most of her positions ,but your vile attack on her is just plain rotten. "HAVE YOU NO SHAME?"

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:16PM

None.
Newtie is an adult, and he gives as good as he gets.

I'm not certain he ever really wanted the nom in the first place.

sirbourbon| 2.16.12 @ 2:52PM

Mr. Tyrell gave no reasons, hardly any, for Newt to go back underneath the rock that he emerges from every decade or so.

O'reilly and Governor Huck- uck -uckabe got the factor correct when comparing notes on the annointed three GOP contenders- Newt, Santorum and Romney. The factorists said that there is no difference between the three, oh "except Ron Paul."

But back to the real reasons Newt Gingrich is not a good choice and there are many as outlined in this documentary:>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02HX5v5Thpk

The NYT Magazine exposed Gingrich's Speakership and described his management style and objectives resembling a "Neo-Maoist" management style.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:09PM

If the star witness for the case you are making is the New York Times, then in all honesty you've already lost the argument.

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:12PM

too funny.

Now we'll start quoting his discarded wives.....oops, too late.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:59PM

Wasn't wife number 2 the same one that wrecked his first marriage?

Tamara| 2.16.12 @ 2:58PM

You and John McCain are pieces of excriment who would love nothing more that to shut down debate, heck you would love to shut down the primary, walk to the mic, declare a winner, and the citizen vote be dammed.

Aggogance like your is what is killing America. Arrogance that think it is ok to change the rules mid streem because you know what is best for all. Go ahead and get into you Obama suit! We do not need people like you!

You either play by the rules or sit down and STFU! You writing indicates there is nothing right about you!

canuckistani| 2.16.12 @ 3:13PM

Who is "You"?

Tyrell or some other person that has emerged from the bubble to see things as they really are?

Denise Smith| 2.16.12 @ 3:02PM

Oh, good, can we now expect someone to suggest perhaps "Mittens" should go? Give it a few weeks and it will be his turn. New mantra? "Not This Time"!

To sirboubon: Really? The NYT Magazine? How quaint.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:12PM

I think there is a good case for Romney to be disqualified due to the shannigans in Maine, Virginia, etc.

I consider rigging elections to violate everything this country stands for. We know for sure that happened in Maine, and if Romney is responsible for it, quite frankly he should be disqualified from running.

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 5:50PM

Retraction please. Romney got more votes in Maine after the recount.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:37PM

One whole county at the very least didn't even get to vote, and were told their vote wouldn't count anyways.

Their caucus got postponed by a Romney supporter whom was the official that post-poned it due to snow. Oh and it happened to be a district with a history of supporting Ron Paul.

So the recount is a farce. I couldn't really care less what the results of the recount was, because a whole county was disenfranchised their right to vote, in order to help Romney win that caucus.

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 3:09PM

That pro-union Santorum is eating up Gingrich's votes, and that's why he is trailing in the ballot.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 4:00PM

You whine like a regressive.

JohnInFlorida| 2.16.12 @ 3:10PM

Mr. Tyrrell,
You are a sad, sad, little man ... quite pitiful, actually. Your article just underscores this fact.

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 3:20PM

You're a moron and a racist, Nick.
GO AWAY!

Nancy| 2.16.12 @ 4:37PM

Don't you know calling someone a racist has no impact anymore?

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 3:20PM

Nick is a convicted sexual predater. Watch out!

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 7:58PM

And you're a CONFIRMED (by your own words) BIGOT. You, Clint & Jackboot should all get together & have a little Klan circle jerk.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:24PM

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are refusing to do the March 1st Debate.

So either it will be a debate between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, or it will end up being canceled.

Look I for one like seeing the candidates give their cases rather than just the campaign ad mudslinging.

Rich Birkett| 2.16.12 @ 6:52PM

Good. I hope Paul and Gingrich both attack Romney and Santorum for the big government types they. One problem: Gingrich would have to defend his own big government policies.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 4:06PM

Paul chickened out too.

Stroker97| 2.16.12 @ 3:41PM

Need more proof that our beloved Mr. R Emmett Tyrell, Jr. is in the Romney bag? A little research brings forth one little connection—thank you Wikipedia:

Robert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (born December 14, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American conservative magazine editor, New York Times bestselling author, and columnist. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. He writes under the byline R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. but is known socially as Bob Tyrrell. Tyrrell is a 1961 graduate of Fenwick High School in Oak Park, Illinois, where he was on the swim team. He then went to Indiana University where he was a manager for the notable coach James "Doc" Counsilman. While at Indiana University, he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, living in a chapter house where Steve Tesich resided.

In 2000, government investigations of The American Spectator caused Tyrrell to sell the magazine to venture capitalist George Gilder. In 2003, Gilder, having a series of financial and legal setbacks, resold the magazine to Tyrrell and the American Alternative Foundation, the organization under which the magazine was originally incorporated, for a dollar.
In the 1960s Gilder served as a speechwriter for several prominent officials and candidates, including Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and Richard Nixon.

It seems Mr. Tyrell has been all over the blogosphere spewing his venomous attacks against Newt for the last year or so. One must wonder if anything that emanates from Mr. Tyrell’s keyboard has anything to do with the truth or journalistic integrity.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 4:00PM

Sadly, I'm not all that surprised.

Anne| 2.16.12 @ 9:03PM

That explains things. Thanks for your effort!

Nancy| 2.16.12 @ 4:31PM

You're nuts! If you think Romney is more conservative than Newt you're certifiable. The more you push, the more we push back. You're starting to sound like the establishment. Why support the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in '08?

Rich Birkett| 2.16.12 @ 6:50PM

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all proponents of big government. Can you guess which of the 4 Republican candidates isn't?

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 5:02PM

Right now Romney supporters have made it so that if Romney is the nominee, there is a 50% chance I will vote for Obama if there is not a 3rd party candidate in the race. Depends on the coin toss.

The reason is the behavior of Mitt Romney + the behavior of Mitt supporters.

Now let's see:

Heads: Obama gets my vote
Tails: Romney gets my vote

You better hope Romney gets lucky, cause I'm not bluffing.

If Romney is the nominee I don't care who his VP pick, even if it is Sarah Palin (whom would probably tell Romney to buzz off), or George Washington himself, I will have a coin toss (assuming there is no 3rd party candidate) and whomever wins the coin toss gets my vote.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 6:32PM

Hey if it's heads - vote for the GREEN party - if we make them a national party, then Dems will have a lefty party that will siphon off votes in close elections - just what we need ;) :)

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:38PM

If there is a 3rd party on the ballot I'm voting third party if Romney is the nominee.

Bill| 2.16.12 @ 5:08PM

What Gingrich must do:
1. Campaign
2. fund raise
3. connect with the women voters
4. no more negative ads, let Romney and Santorum battle, and focus on Obama, most importantly
5. NEVER bow out

Nick| 2.16.12 @ 5:47PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

aldol| 2.16.12 @ 5:46PM

In the past i forced myself to vote for horrible candidates such as Bush 1, dole, Bush 2, McCain, but there is no way i will go to vote if Romney is the GOP candidate. I am so disgusted with the leadership of the GOP that i will change my registration to independent> Romney will lose against Obama, he is a target reach territory: Bain capital, Mormon, 14% tax rate, Swiss and Cayman bank accounts, he can't put two words together, he repeats one liners that someone else prepared for him. GOP leadership wants to lose this election as well just like 2008

janvones| 2.16.12 @ 5:52PM

Sorry, but Newt is the only qualified conservative in the race. He is for things, while Santorum is against. Santorum would make a fine secretary of education, or envoy to the Vatican or UN. It's time for Santorum to go.

johnd2| 2.16.12 @ 6:28PM

All 4 remaining candidates should fight to the bitter end. After the first ballot, the delegates can start over and bring in Palin or Jeb Bush or draft
Christie. Then start over taking on Obama. We Americans have a short attention span, No problem.

NVA Patriot| 2.16.12 @ 6:36PM

Sorry Christie = Sharia
Bush = Compationate conservatism = Massive defeat for the party all the way down the ballot to Dog catcher
Palin = end of the establishment - if they can't handle Newt; Palin will simply make their heads explode

Scott Walker would be a good compromise between conservatives and Mittstablishment people....

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:43PM

I think Sarah is at the top of Newt's VP list, probably cause he wants to see some establishment people to have heart failure.

Rich Birkett| 2.16.12 @ 6:46PM

The only true defender of free markets and FA Hayek is Ron Paul. Gingrich should stay in the race or endorse Ron Paul. Santorum and Romney are unrepentant proponents of big government not the free market. Erick Erickson has done excellent research on Santorum's big government cronyism.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....ooks-like/

Janadele| 2.16.12 @ 7:11PM

How true. Let's hope Mitt is chosen as nominee sooner than later, and the party then unites to defeat Obama.

Sunnyr| 2.16.12 @ 7:43PM

I am going to annoy Sarah Palin and vote for Mitt Romney, the only candidate who has Executive experience and is not a Beltway Bozo. We already have one in the White House and he is a total disaster.

Mitt Romney is a man of character and integrity and he did govern the most Liberal state in the union as conservatively as he could. Anyone who thinks he could have appointed "conservative judges" has rocks in his head. They all have to be approved by the 85% Liberal Congress. Duh!

Go Mitt - Because Character still counts in the USA!

Newt is being a spoiler and needs to just go away. He will never win the nomination OR the White House.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:44PM

I stopped taking your post seriously when you said Mitt Romney had charecter.

Caroline| 2.16.12 @ 7:49PM

Romney is the one who should go. We don't need to replace a marxist Muslim impostor with a socialist.

Mitt Romney
Romneycare
Romney gave cars with AAA memberships to welfare recipients.

http://bostonherald.com/news/u.....op_outrage

Mitt Romney worked with John Holdren who now works for that creature in the White House. He thinks it's ok to put something in the water to sterilize people.

http://www.redstate.com/repair.....-evil-men/

patextra| 2.16.12 @ 9:50PM

Right on Caroline. One who is from the state of Mass. understands wholeheartedly.

Uncle Samuel| 2.16.12 @ 8:29PM

Newt is fine.

Romney must go.

Romney is a liberal who belongs with the Democrats.

Romney is a liar - he lied seven times in the last debate.

Seven lies in last CNN/FL debate:
1. He denied accusing Newt of exaggerating/lying about his part in Reagan's administration only three days before on Monday night in Tampa.
2. He lied about his own 'ghetto language' ad that bore his voice
3. He claimed all his business was run by a blind trust, a tactic that Mitt himself called 'the oldest ruse in the book' in a previous campaign.
4. He said he voted for republicans in the past when there was a republican to vote for, but if you look back at the Gingrich ad exposing his lies, it turns out when George H.w. Bush and Buchanan were running, he voted for a liberal democrat.
5. He denied the cost of Romneycare to taxpayers in Massachusetts. “Half of those people got insurance on their own. Others got help in buying the insurance.”
False. In fact, 98% of the additional people insured after Romneycare was passed have it paid for or subsidized by the federal government or Massachusetts government. Of the 412,000 additional people who had health insurance in 2010 who did not have it in June 2006 (pre-reform), only 7K of the 412K (1.7%) had unsubsidized health insurance. The rest were covered through Medicaid, Commonwealth Care, or a program of subsidized care for the unemployed.
6. He denied the impact of Romney care on citizens of Massachusetts. Romneycare has increased the price of healthcare premiums for every citizen of Massachusetts. Premiums have increased by 55 percent since Mitt Romney became Governor, a rate 13 points higher than the national average and the third highest growth rate among the states.
7. He said he lowered taxes in Massachusetts 19 times. Yet he raised fees and corporate taxes twice. No wonder Massachusetts was rated at the bottom of all the states (47-49th) in job and business growth.

A person can lie so much that they actually believe their own lies. This is pathological and is a symptom of a departure from reality, facts and evidence that is characteristic of liberalism.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:06AM

Do you want a list of Newt lies?

You are factually incorrect in you list and not all of them are even lies.

#2 - Wolf asked Romney about a TV ad and then went on to quote a radio ad. Romney was confused by Wolf's confusion. You have to give a pass on that one.

#4 Romney was not lying at all. In MA primaries you can take a Dem ballot or a GOP ballot. Romney took a dem ballot and there was no GOP candidate on that ballot. What Romney said was he always voter GOP over DEM on the same ballot. The inference is when they were running against each other. BTW - this is exactly Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos in 2008. It is also encourage as sporting mischief by a local conservative radio host.
6. There is no proof that Romneycare increased HC costs. In fact, health care costs increased at a slower rate than the national average since Romneycare was instituted.
7. Romney did lower taxes 19 times. The fees he did raise were not broad based fees like auto registrations. Fee for government service IS a conservative principle. If you had a clue you would understand this and not resort to parroting talking points. Also, unemployment during Romney's tenure hovered around 4% which if you understood economics is full employment.

6. RC was a response to a federal mandate that allowed deadbeats to clog ER for non urgent care. RC worked to clear out the deadbeats. There now is no wait in MA ERs. I am not a fan of RC but I have yet do hear of a better solution to the deadbeat problem. I certainly don't want to pay for deadbeats leeching off the taxpayer, do you?

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 9:41AM

Excuse me, but your responses to Nos. 2 and 4 are not at all persuasive. As to No. 2, you say that Romney did not lie, he was just confused?!? As to No. 4, you say Romney took a Democrat ballot and there were no Republicans on it; that is nonsense intended to avoid the fact he did not take a Republican ballot and vote for either the elder Bush or Buchanan, but instead took the Democrat ballot to vote for liberal Tsongas, just as he had voted before for liberals Carter and Mondale.

As for Nos. 6 and 7, you are just wrong. RomneyCare is a system of socialized medicine at the state level and is the precursor to ObamaCare. As the Wall Street Journal keeps pointing out, RomneyCare has increased costs in a way that requires tax increases; and Romney did significantly increase corporate taxes and increased fees to make up for tax revenue.

Notably, as for Nos. 1, 3 and 5, you have no response.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 10:46AM

The point is Romney wasn't lying on the vote for Tsongas. Because he voted for Tsongas doesn't mean he was voting against the GOP.

Have you heard of operation Chaos promoted by Rush Limbaugh? Creating mischief in the Dem primary is a sport in a state like MA where your vote in the GOP primary doesn't really count for anything because of the state of the polling.

The local conservative radio host plays this primary game all the time and encourages his listeners to do it as well.

You may not like Romney but this is not an issue to ding him on.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 11:11AM

Do you agree that fee for government service IS a conservative principle? If not, please tell me why because every conservative I know disagrees with you. Also, Romney never raised a broad base tax or fee. Did you hyperventilate at all the taxes Reagan raised?

I don't recall #1 occurring in the debate so I won't comment on it. #3 is an analysis not a lie. #5 is not a lie by Romney. MA taxpayers did not have increased costs for Romneycare. Fact. The did get additional block grants in Medicaid payments. Throwing out stats long after Romney left office when the program has changed isn't really fair is it.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:40PM

You're actually not helping your case.

Furthermore, if Romney is scared of Newt Gingrich and afraid to debate him one on one. I seriously don't think he'd have the courage to stand up to Obama.

Rich Birkett| 2.17.12 @ 11:59AM

Romney didn't raise fees and corporate taxes twice. He supported raising fees and taxes 100 times, doubling state revenues. He supported increasing corporate taxes, business property taxes, hotel taxes, gasoline taxes, and he supported new taxes on building construction, the internet, SUVs, used car sales, out-of-state commuters, and private campaign contributions to fund publicly-funded campaigns.

Phil Byler| 2.16.12 @ 8:32PM

With all due respect, Mr. Tyrrell and the editors of the National Review are as wrong as wrong can be. Newt is running because he believes, correctly, that he is the most qualified of the GOP candidates to be President and that he can beat Obama. It is an absurd notion that Newt should leave the GOP race to: (1) a liberal Northeasterner who feigns being a conservative and who as a Governor championed socialized medicine at the state level, (2) a former Senator who lost his last race by 18 percent and has been out of office for 6 years, and (3) an isolationist anathema to national security conservatives.

patextra| 2.16.12 @ 9:47PM

I am in agreement with Phil. I have never really connected with the National Review as a conservative thought. Somehow I feel Emmett T. is too much an elitist and part of the establishment to really connect with the 'common' folk. Newt is not their type!

Phil Byler| 2.16.12 @ 8:37PM

The GOP won't unite behind Romney. His negative attacks violated Reagan's 11th Commandment, and Romney is not a real conservative.

Phil Byler| 2.16.12 @ 8:42PM

Romney, Santorum and Paul are bowing out of debates. They can't do that against
Obama. That Romney, Santorum and Paul are running away from debates indicates that it is they who should get out of the race.

Anne| 2.16.12 @ 8:57PM

I've contributed money to the Spectator and this past Christmas, I gave subscriptions to a number of people. I've believed in the message, content and spirit of it, until now.
Not only does the editor back the wrong candidate, at least in my mind, but now he creates an aura of complete disrespect around the candidate I support. It's one thing to back one candidate over another but it's quite another to write such an article.
I don't contribute all that much money but it's something I'm no longer going to sacrifice from my budget. Newt Gignrich deserves alot more than this. His writings and other efforts have added a great deal to Conservative thought, dare I say more than the editor has?
If he thinks Romney isn't as dirty of a player as the one in the White House right now, he was another thing coming. The editorial he wrote about the narcissism of the boomer generation and what a "straight-shooter" Romney is, just about gagged me. Really? I wonder if he was behind taking down Cain as a candidate...
I guess I expected more from Mr Tyrrell than some snide attack like this one. Mr Gingrich deserves more, even if Mr Tyrrell doesn't agree with him. It's so Main Stream Media to tell the rest of us what to think and to give absurd reasons for it.

sue| 2.16.12 @ 9:23PM

Amen and Amen!

Anne| 2.17.12 @ 3:18PM

The money I would have spent as my monthly contribution to the Spectator foundation was just sent to Newt.org to contribute to his campaign. Keep these "editorials" coming!

patextra| 2.16.12 @ 9:28PM

And another AMEN!

Phil Byler| 2.16.12 @ 9:06PM

Romney's primary executive experience is his four years as Massachusets Governor (like Dukakis). When Romney left office, he had a 35% approval rate/65% disapproval rate. Romney's years at Bain Capital were not ones in which he acted as an executive, but as a manager of private equity funds.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:11AM

Phil with all due respect I don't believe you understand how private equity works. The firm I work for was purchased by a private equity firm and they took an active role in management to help turn the company around. Also, Mr. Romney engaged in venture capital which also takes an active role, typically on the board of directors. I believe Mr. Romney was on the board of directors of Staples for the first 15 years of the companies high growth. The founder of the company said that Mr. Romney made valuable contributions to Staples.

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 5:53PM

I do know how private equity firms work. What private equity firms do varies. Sitting on a Board of Directors and being involved in Board collective decisions is not being an executive in the sense that a President and Chief Operating Officer are.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 8:10PM

Mr. Romney also turned around a failing consulting firm as chief executive. He was also led the turn around of the corrupt and bankrupt Olympics. You may not think his resume is impressive but I disagree.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:45PM

Isn't the Olympics still having financial issues...

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:16AM

Phil, Newt's executive experience was for years as speaker. What was his approval rating when he resigned his speakership?

Also, conservatives who worked with Newt like Dr. Tom Coburn describe his leadership as unsteady and he could never support him for President. Even Santorum described Newt's leadership as chaotic in a debate.

For me, this is the most troubling part of Mr. Gingrich's past. He has vast skills but I am afraid they aren't suited for the Presidency.

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 5:59PM

Newt's years were a big success in terms of accomplishments. Wouldn't you like a balanced budget and entitlement reform now? To achieve (and Newt did achieve), Newt had to buck a seemingly complacent GOP establishment and things like Senatorial courtesy. OK, so Senator Coburn bad mouths Newt. But how many balanced budgets and major entitlement reform packages can Senator Coburn say he has had a part in?

Newt's skills are suited for the Presidency. He is a leader with a vision. You aren't everyone's pal in Washington DC if you are the way Newt is.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 8:17PM

Hey, I like Newt. I like what he did. Newt would be my second choice in the field. I would like him in the Romney administration as an ideas guy in the cabinet.

I also firmly believe Newt would have the most difficult time in the general election. We can agree to disagree on that point, too.

Neither you nor I were there with Dr. Coburn. Dr. Coburn has been a fighter routing waste and bloat out of the budget. He is known to be an honorable man who does appear to play in politics. I choose to believe him. I think Newt's problem is his ego gets in his way sometimes.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:47PM

After the stunts Romney pulled, I don't think Newt would want to have anything to do with a Romney administration, which is pointless to talk about anyways cause there is no way Romney will beat Obama.

I will not support Obamney.

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 5:49PM

Stunts that Romney pulled? Which ones were those?

Let's take Iowa. Newt said I'll stay positive only because he took the summer off to cruise the Adriatic in Greece instead of raising money. He had no choice. The Iowa ad that did him the most damage was the Ron Paul "serial hypocrisy" ad. Why? Because it was based in fact. It simply reminded people of Newt's baggage that he will never be able to hide.

Newt's outrage is simply pious baloney. It is campaign tactic to rally his base. It clearly worked with you but it turned off most voters because they don't like a whiner for President.

Newt did the same thing when Clinton put in on the back of Air Force I. Maybe Clinton was wrong but Newt lost the war. I have to say Newt has not learned from his mistakes.

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 1:56PM

See the smear campaign in Iowa and the hatchet job in Florida.

Worried for the country| 2.20.12 @ 1:34PM

Iowa wasn't a smear campaign. It was simply a campaign that reminded everyone of Newt's extensive baggage. Very little of the damage was untruthful or distortions.
I will agree that the volume of the ads was unseemly and probably unnecessary. Even though it wasn't directly from Romney it probably hurt Romney more than it helped.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:41PM

The ethics violations were proven to be a witchhunt when the IRS cleared Gingrich of any wrongdoing a few years later.

Further, I wonder how much time Romney really spent in the private sector if he can't tell the difference between a consultant and a lobbyist.

patextra| 2.16.12 @ 9:27PM

Lately I've been seeing Newt as the really tough one. Sorry but I hope he does NOT go away.
If he can just continue listing all the things he will do the moment he is sworn in, rather than replying to the negative superPAC ads, the better he is and I, for one, feel he's got the guts to take on all comers. Hope he stays in!!!

POST American| 2.16.12 @ 9:37PM

With the Globalist RED China TREASON OP
now utterly UNDENIABLE
-----Gingrich might join the CFR-Rockefeller
Bushes/ Clintons/ Gores/ Obamas and McCains
before those ever warming RETRO-active
IMPEACHMENT proceedings.

"America better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a minstrel show
---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985

---------THEY WERE THERE!

And NOW IT's HERE----

---------------------So WHY are they STILL HERE?

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

Norma| 2.16.12 @ 9:41PM

Why should Newt quit now? Many of us want Newt to be the next president; don't we have a voice in this election too? We have not had a primary yet and may not, because the latinos say they have a voice too and they won't agree on a date. We may not have a primary in time, but we should have a chance to vote too. Many of us want Gingrich to be the Republican nominee, not Romney yet the Republican elite seem to wamt to do our deciding for us. The whole country should get to decide who gets to be the nominee. So stop railriding our rights. Newt, don't quit. We need you!

Zak Klemmer| 2.16.12 @ 11:18PM

I have already mailed in my ballot for Ron Paul. Stick a fork in Newt- he's done.

Ken| 2.17.12 @ 12:22AM

The only problem with Romney or Santorum, is that they really aren't free market advocates. The marriage of Big Government and Big Business is NOT the free market. It is the opposite. Too many Republicans don't understand that. I include Newt, Romney , and Santorum in that.

-Ken

suzie| 2.17.12 @ 12:23AM

The democrats are hoping Santorum will be the nominee. They are laughing all the way to the Catholic confession. They are pushing issues that has stupid Republicans pushing Santorum. The only one who doesn't have a chance to beat Obama. He should have gotten out a long time ago. Newt is the only one who has a plan of action to turn things around. Santorum 28% tax rate is obscene. He is a RINO.
that will continue to tax and spend, but only on crap no body wants.If gets the Nomination our only hope is a third party candidate. It really is amazing how gullible Republicans can be.

suzie| 2.17.12 @ 12:23AM

The democrats are hoping Santorum will be the nominee. They are laughing all the way to the Catholic confession. They are pushing issues that has stupid Republicans pushing Santorum. The only one who doesn't have a chance to beat Obama. He should have gotten out a long time ago. Newt is the only one who has a plan of action to turn things around. Santorum 28% tax rate is obscene. He is a RINO.
that will continue to tax and spend, but only on crap no body wants.If gets the Nomination our only hope is a third party candidate. It really is amazing how gullible Republicans can be.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:26AM

I'm not a Santorum supporter but what makes his tax plan 'obscene'?

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:25AM

I am very disturbed by some of the comments on this thread.

I remember the leftist outrageous attacks on George W. Bush. The name given was Bush Derangement Syndrome.

What I see here is ad hominem attacks on an honorable man. I understand that you may support a different candidate. I am sure that each candidate has done something they now regret. None of the candidates is perfect.

All of the men in the race are good men who have contributed to the country in the way of public service. They all want to contribute again because they care about the future of the country. They all have a common belief that Obama's policies are taking us over a cliff .

What I see in some of these posts is Romney Derangement Syndrome.

I thought we were better than this.

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 9:28AM

It was Romney who started the negative campaigning. In the early debates, Newt called upon the candidates not to be sucked in by moderator questioning aimed at sowing discord. Romeny turned around before the Iowa caucuses and spent $5 million on unfair negative ads against Newt. Since then, Romney has spent tens of millions of dollars on unfair negative ads against Newt. That violated Reagan's 11th Commandment and was not honorable.

It is not Romney Derangement Syndrome to point out Romney's not-conservative record. While Newt was a captain in the Reagan Revolution, Romney voted for Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Paul Tsongas. Romney, as Massachusetts Governor, was adamantly pro-abortion rights, appointed liberal pro-abortion rights Democrats to the state judiciary and championed RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare. Romney left the one public office he ever held after four years with a 35% approval rate/65% disapproval rate. These are facts that are only fair to point out given Romney's use of unfair negative atatck ads.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 10:53AM

Pointing out Romney's problems are fine. But many of the complaints are either factually inaccurate OR they hold Romney to a different standard than any of the other candidates. The also IGNORE his mostly conservative record of governing the bluest state in the nation.

Most of Romney's transgressions were campaign rhetoric Romney spouted while trying to take down Ted Kennedy in 1994 when Romney was a political neophyte. These same people ignore Newt's multiple flip flops on major issues during the current cycle.

I see this as either ignorance or hypocrisy.

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 5:48PM

How is championing RomneyCare (socialized medicine at the state level), being adamantly pro-abortion rights, appointing liberal pro-abortion rights Democrats to the state judiciary and raising corporate taxes a "mostly conservative record" as Governor?

Newt has been a conservative fighter his whole political life. Newt has been pro-life his whole life, while Romney was pro-abortion rights until 2007 and then flipped. Newt was a Captain in the Reagan Revolution while Romney was voting for the liberal Democrat opposition. Newt, armed with the conservative "Contract With America," led Republicans to a House majority for the first time in decades. As Speaker, Newt forced Clinton to a balance budget and welfare reform. So whatever you have in mind about Newt's supposed flips, they are truly minor compared to Romney's major flips.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 8:06PM

How about throwing Paul Ryan's medicare reform plan under the bus on national TV as "right wing social engineering" DURING the debate in the House.

How about sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi in a George Soros ad promoting cap and trade.

How about being an "historical consultant" for FreddieMAC and collecting $1.6M during the run up to housing crisis. He still hasn't produced the 'work product' for that consulting.

How about supporting the federal mandate IN Obamacare in a speech to his healthcare lobbying group in 2009 DURING the debate on Obacare.

How about collecting $38M from big pharma and other health care companies while promoting the Medicare Part D unfunded liability. The unfunded liability now sits at over $20T.

How about attacking capitalism and suggesting that he knows and somehow the government should arbitrate how much profit is acceptable for a company to earn? [I doubt he believes what he said and he was simply trading in political opportunism that backfired. However, he does believe what he said that is far worse].

He has said many times that FDR was the greatest President of the 20th century because of what he accomplished with government.

I'm getting tired now so I'll stop.

I like Newt but sainting him is pious baloney.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:42PM

If you look at what Newt actually said and what he was actually asked, you'd realize that your statements about him bashing Paul Ryan are completely false.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 12:40AM

Is any Newt supporter an expert on his tax plan? I have a serious question that I haven't found the answer.

I took a look at Newt's plan and I don't understand how it can possibly work. I understand his plan is a optional plan that maintains the current 72,000 page tax code and then adds a 15% optional flat tax. The taxpayer has the choice of picking the plan that benefits them the most. OK. I get it. I'll have to do my taxes twice so I don't really derive any efficiency but that is a minor point.

The top 1% of earners now pay 36.7% of the income taxes. They pay an effective rate of about 30%. Clearly they will choose the lower 15% flat tax and that will chop off about 18% of the revenues. The bottom 47% pay no income tax so they will clearly pay the under the current tax code. I found an analysis that calculated this tax scheme will reduce revenues by $1.3T per year. The first year this will double our deficit, which is also sits at $1.3T . I understand that these lower taxes will increase the growth rate. However, I been unable to find anywhere a dynamic analysis that shows the effect of the growth rate improvement. However, there is a limit to how fast you can grow. I don't see how this can work. It seems like this will only increase our debt at exactly the wrong time. We are now in severe risk of interest rates rising and being swallowed by interest payments on our already huge debt.

This post is not meant as a criticism of Newt. I don't consider this a disqualifier at all. I like the idea of bold plans but I don't see how this can work.

Does any one out there know? Do you have a link to a dynamic analysis and impact on debt?

Thanks in advance.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 3:11PM

Actually Newts tax plan is an either/or.

Either you continue to go through the existing tax code and navigating that.

OR

You can just fill out a small form with your income, number of dependents and pay 15%.

His plan doesn't have people do both, if you had actually read his plan you'd know that.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 5:16PM

If you are on the margin you need to calculate both. Keeping the 72,000 page code is a huge missed opportunity. Some economists have estimated that the compliance costs of the current tax code runs at about $400B/annum.

I found an analysis of Newt's tax plan and it reduces revenue by $1.3T. That will double our current deficit. Newt's plan is irresponsible and will send us over the debt cliff faster than we are going now. Even with dynamic scoring, which I haven't found, there is no way to make up this shortfall because there is an economic limit to economic growth.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:25PM

Actually you can choose to calculate both, he isn't forcing you to do it.

If you think you can pay a lower rate by using the old code and are willing to take the time to mess with it, that's your decision.

In all honesty, just paying the 15% would probably cost you less regardless simply due to the amount of time you save.

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 5:44PM

You never addressed the massive debt and deficit Newt's plan will create. Aren't you worried about that?

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 1:59PM

The calculations are assuming that the economy remains static and unchanging.

Thing is the economy is dynamic and can change, Newt is counting on the fact that it will help the economy improve and with all the other things he intends to do, I think this will be budget neutral at the very least, and may end up resulting in more revenue.

Worried for the country| 2.20.12 @ 1:31PM

I understand the dynamic analysis but no one has done it. Chris Wallace asked this exact point on FNS to Newt and Newt didn't even mention dynamic analysis. He just did some hand waving about oil royalties after new domestic oil exploration.

There are many problems with this analysis. First, there is always a large time lag in revenues from capital projects like oil exploration. The second is there is NO for oil to make up a fraction of the shortfall.

Here is a simple way of thinking about it. In 2008, oil averaged above $100/barrel and gasoline peaked above $4/gallon. In 2008 we imported about half our oil for a total of $800B. To bring the price of gasoline down to $2.50 gallon the price of oil needs to below $50/barrel. Even if you have a 100% royalty there isn't enough money to dent the $2.6T shortfall. Of course if you have a 100% royalty then you are back to $100 oil. So much for big ideas.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:44PM

Dynamic Analysis is where you pull numbers out of thin air...

Newt, is relying on the fact that what he is proposing worked before and thus it stands to reason it would work again.

Allison Hawkins| 2.17.12 @ 1:21AM

Hey, I have a better idea. How bout if YOU go Emmett Tyrrell. Sorry to disappoint you, but Newt's not going anywhere. :)

Tweaver| 2.17.12 @ 3:41AM

Mr. T has hit the proverbial Newt on the head, so-to-speak.
Newt's one liners, after a while, bored me but I could yet put up with them; however, his mean-ness shows through. You might whip up on a media talking head but when you take office - you HAVE TO be above the fray.

Ltw| 2.17.12 @ 3:52AM

What I appreciate about this primary season is it has shown how useless 80% of the supposed conservative punditry is. That includes NRO "The editors: against Gingrich". I suspect many pundits are aware of the actual solutions Newt has...and wait for it...can articulate them. The mud slinging might have worked back in 2011, however, many of us have done our own homework while the pundits have beclowned themselves.

Ltw| 2.17.12 @ 4:07AM

My high school age children have watched speeches Newt has done over the last several years and actually have learned about free markets and free men and how to address the challenges our country faces. I will ask them to read your column as well. I have no doubt they will see it for what it is.

greg| 2.17.12 @ 4:08AM

extraordinary for the lack of intelligent argument
simply dull.

Will| 2.17.12 @ 5:39AM

Newt quit?, and then what just make it easier yet?

Neither Romney or Santorum will be able to withstand the nastiness thats coming. At least I'm confident that Gingrich won't be afraid to respond, even though I'm not sure that will do the job.

Hugh| 2.17.12 @ 7:21AM

UK commentator James Delingpole is rooting for Obama: "Let's get one thing clear: Obama unquestionably ranks among the bottom five presidents in US history. In terms of sublime awfulness he's right up there with our late and extremely unlamented ex-PM Gordon Brown – which is quite some doing, given that Brown singlehandedly wrought more destruction on his country than the Luftwaffe, Dutch Elm Disease, the South Sea Bubble, the Fire of London and the Black Death combined.

Agreed: the damage President Obama has done to the US economy with everything from Ben Bernanke's insane money-printing programme, to his cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, to his ban on deep-water drilling to his crony capitalism hand-outs to disaster zones like Solyndra to his persecution of companies like Gibson is incalculable. And, of course, if he gets a second term the damage he and his rag-bag of Marxist cronies at organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency manage to inflict on the US small businessman trying to make an honest buck will make his first term look like Calvin Coolidge on steroids.

So why do I think this would be preferable to a presidency under Mitt Romney? Simple. Because I've seen what happens, America, when you elect yet another spineless, yet ruthless, principle-free blow-with-the-wind, big government, crony-capitalist RINO squish. His name is Dave Cameron – and trust me, the cure is far worse than the disease.

Of course it may not seem that way at first. You'll be so busy dancing round in circles singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead!" that euphoria and relief will completely overwhelm your intellect and your powers of observation. You'll read endless articles by David L Brooks, the New York Times's pet pretend-conservative, telling you how Romney is just the kind of uniting, post-partisan, pragmatic POTUS America needed. And you'll believe it because you'll want to believe it. This may last for some considerable length of time. In Britain, many Cameroon conservatives of the Nick Boles persuasion continue to perform this auto-lobotomisation even now.

But then, little by little, something rather unpleasant will begin to dawn on you. The label on the can may have changed but the contents taste remarkably similar. Similarly emetic, that is.

Yes, I know from the other side of the pond David Cameron may look just the kind of stand-up conservative you'd like running the US. But that's only because the stories you hear about him are extremely selective. For example, I'm constantly surprised by US talk show hosts telling me how tough on militant Islam Cameron is because of some speech they heard Dave give once about the problems of multiculturalism.

But surely we should judge our political leaders by what they actually achieve rather than (Tony Blair-style) by what they tell us they are achieving.

Here are some of David Cameron's achievements so far:

He has prolonged the economic crisis, impoverished savers, encouraged the profligate and further enriched the rich with the kind of Quantitative Easing programme which would make Paul Krugman positively enormous in his trousers.

He has urged quotas for women in the boardroom, apparently in the belief that the State has either the knowledge or the right to decide how business conducts its affairs.

He has presided over a massive wind-farm building programme which, besides destroying the British countryside and enriching his father-in-law, is causing energy bills to soar to the point where old people are dying of hypothermia.

He has surrendered at almost every turn to the Carthaginian terms offered to Britain by the European Socialist Superstate.

He has proved himself incapable of expelling the Islamist hate-preacher Abu Qatada.

The list is by no means exhaustive. I would go on but, actually, this was never meant to be a "collected examples of the unutterable crapness of David Cameron" blog. Rather, it's supposed to be a more generalised warning about the dangers of short-termist thinking.

Yes, of course, conservative/libertarian America, I fully understand how desperate you are to rid yourself of the POTUS from hell. But what you need to ask yourselves – and I don't believe many of you are: you're a bit like an hysterical woman who's just had a tarantula drop on top of her in the bath, you just want to GET RID OF IT NOW! – is what ultimately you're trying to achieve.

I'm presuming what you really want is stuff like: smaller government; a genuine – as opposed to an illusory, QE-driven – economic recovery; sensible environmentalism (ie conservation but not eco-fascism); liberty; an end of crony capitalism; a diminution of the power of Wall Street; a resurgence of American greatness; a renewed sense of confidence and purpose.

You're not going to get any of that from a Romney administration.

But you will, provided you've got the patience, get it in 2016 from President West or President Rand Paul or President Palin or President Ryan.

Debbie Daniels| 2.17.12 @ 7:44AM

This is one of the most pathetic articles I have ever read. You must be part of the establishment trying to destroy our beautiful America. Gingrich is the only candidate that can beat Obama and you know it. Obama will beat Romney or Santorum with the first question in the first debate? Why do you think Romeny and Santorum wimped out of the debate on the 22nd? If Obama wins again in November you can hold yourself responsible for so much negative coverage of Gingrich. Sure Gingrich has baggage, but he does not have as much as Obama. Gingrich has publicly stated he asked God for forgiveness and it was left up to the people. You may not have cheated on your wife, but you are still a sinner. The only difference in your sins and Gingrich's sins is his sins have been plastered all over our television screens. You should leave Gingrich alone and maybe you need to quit and go home and put your pen down if you can't support Gingrich. You know as well as I do that he is NOT part of the establishment, because the media attacks him just like they did Sarah Palin. When America falls apart we will know that the American Spectator contributed to her fall. Have a good day.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 11:00AM

Why did Newt lose the last two debates badly? The first debate had no audience and he whined about it. The second debate had a crowd and he whined about that too.

Newt is a good debater. I was stunned at his performance in FL. However, Newt shined in the early debates when he was taking on the media and when he praised his opponents.

He certainly won't be praising Obama. The media attack gimmick won't work in the general election either. Also, there will only be 3 presidential debates and they typically don't allow audience participation.

Debates are rarely a big deal in presidential elections. Reagan/Mondale only had two debates. The first debate Reagan was almost comatose and horrible. The second debate Reagan had one line about the age of Mondale and no one remembers anythings else. Reagan went on to win 49 states.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 3:12PM

He lost it because he was suprised that a Republican could be as dishonest as Mitt Romney was.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 5:11PM

Sorry Garfield . Your Newt talking points don't work here. There were no lies.

Newt is like Goldilocks. The crowd is too loud. No, the crowd is too quiet. For Newt, the crowd needs to be just right. Or, he needs to bully the defenseless moderator.

Obama isn't going to work that way. There is no crowd in the general election debates. But it doesn't matter since Newt will be watching those on his TV.

Phil Byler| 2.17.12 @ 6:01PM

Yes, there were misstatements by Romney.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 7:55PM

Misstatements? What does that mean.

There is no evidence that Romney lied in the debate. We went through that and debunked every one.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 1:30PM

Actually you didn't debunk anything. As a matter of fact instead of flipping a coin, I'm now thinking of using a dice.

If I roll a 1, 2, 3, or 4 I will vote for Obama.

If I roll a 5 or a 6, I will vote for Romney.

I think Obamney = Obama, and also starting to believe that an Obamney Presidency could be even more destructive than a 2nd term of Obama, because if we elect Obamney we all lose credibility.

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 5:42PM

You offer no reasons for you vote. You simply state how you will vote. I know garfield the cat has a lot of followers but not many listen to him for voting advice. You aren't persuasive.

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:01PM

I have given reasons, I just don't feel like repeating them over and over.

I can't stand Obama, and I'm surprised that the establishment is trying to force someone on us that is potentially worse than Obama. I didn't even think that was possible a year ago.

Victory| 2.17.12 @ 11:22AM

All we need is someone to defeat Barack Obama, except a pretentious, superficial, edgy, fake, closet liberal. I support either Newt or Santorum for the nomination and accept your thesis that time is running out for Newt to come back. Santorum has the edge and will be way ahead if he comes up tops in MI. I liked Newt better, cause I believe he is a conservative genius and believe it or not, would be a current day Reagan. Socially, fiscally, militarily conservative. Most of Santorum's ideas are social, military or manufacturing driven. We can do with those but we need him to tell us how he plans to get growth kickstarted in America.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:47PM

Newt is only unelectable if we give the Establishment and the left-wing drive by media credibility that they quite frankly don't deserve.

If Newt was really so un-electable, Mitt wouldn't have had to have launched the most dishonest smear campaign in Republican Primary history, the kind you'd expect from a Saul Alinski radical, not from a Republican.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:47PM

Newt is only unelectable if we give the Establishment and the left-wing drive by media credibility that they quite frankly don't deserve.

If Newt was really so un-electable, Mitt wouldn't have had to have launched the most dishonest smear campaign in Republican Primary history, the kind you'd expect from a Saul Alinski radical, not from a Republican.

David| 2.17.12 @ 11:34AM

I apologize for having to copy and paste the entire below article, but I was not able to attach it as a link.

Most of us don't like Joe Scarborough any more, but remember that he was very conservative when in Congress. He relays the story of a meeting and claims there were many witnesses there. I am sure anyone of them could come out and refute what Joe has to say if he did not accurately describe what took place at that meeting, and I am not aware of anyone who has done so.

I think it very much explains just how the Repub lost its way and ended up giving the house and senate back to the dems.

It says a lot about Gingrich and his temperament.
By JOE SCARBOROUGH | 1/27/12 1:05 PM EST
Yeah, yeah. I know. Newt Gingrich had a lousy week and will probably lose the Florida primary on Tuesday. But for those tempted to once again predict the speedy collapse of his campaign, consider yourselves forewarned. I’ve known this guy long enough to realize that the only three species destined to survive a nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich.

I first met Gingrich 17 years ago at a Destin, Fla., fundraiser held in my honor a few weeks after Newt declared that I was too conservative to win the general election. But after I won the primary against the moderate woman he anointed, there he was in Florida looking supremely bored and a little put out that he was having to sit through another politician’s speech.

Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen Latest on POLITICO
GOP candidate wants to kick Rick
LaHood talked to Obama about son
Ignatius: Israel attack timeline stands
Santorum disavows Friess' comment
8 music stars for Republicans
CBO: Tax deal 10-year price tag $89B
In the ensuing years, I found the mercurial maverick to be inspiring and maddening, disciplined and self-indulgent, forward thinking and short-sighted, gifted and dumb — sometimes all within the same hour.

If, as Shakespeare wrote, what’s past is prologue — and it often is — then Gingrich’s political history is particularly relevant now. It’s a history I know well because I was there. And what I saw at the revolution has concerned me since I left Washington.

Many who have heard my harsh assessments of Gingrich over the past year have assumed that I feel a personal animus toward my former colleague. That’s just not true. That fact is that I remain awestruck that Newt envisioned a Republican majority when his closest allies thought he was crazy. Even an eternal optimist like me laughed at the “Think Majority” sign hanging over the NRCC reception area in early 1994.

But Newt was right and we were wrong. The Gingrich Revolution overtook Washington (with a huge assist from Bill Clinton’s overreaching agenda) and good things followed. Within a few years, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation, welfare reform, tax cuts and meaningful congressional changes.

If Newt’s story ended there, I might have a Gingrich 2012 sign in my front yard. But unfortunately, it does not.

Three years into his speakership, the man who helped draft the Contract With America began trying to undo some of that document’s key provisions. The government shutdown had badly damaged the speaker’s brand and he went to work trying to raise his 27 percent approval rating.

In April 1997, Gingrich told The New York Times he was ready to be a kinder and gentler Republican by negotiating away the very tax cuts that he had once called “the crown jewels of the contract.” Soon, conservatives were being pressured to vote for big spending appropriations bills. In his final speech from the floor of Congress, Newt Gingrich lashed out wildly at the same freshmen who had made him speaker — mocking us as cannibals who made up “the perfectionist caucus.”

It was the last time Newt would attack the most conservative members of his caucus from the lofty perch as speaker. In 1997, ten of my fellow classmates had led a coup attempt against Gingrich, shutting down the House over the speaker’s efforts to violate the Contract with America by swelling the number of committee staff members.

Conservative stalwarts like Steve Largent, Tom Coburn and Matt Salmon joined me and seven others to demand a cut in spending and a promise to hold firm on tax cuts.

Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen Newt did not take the rebellion lying down. He immediately summoned the sergeant of arms to drag the 11 rebels down to a Republican caucus meeting in the bowels of the Capitol basement, where Newt lined us up in front of a packed room of seething House members who were now missing the first day of their Easter recess because of our insurgency. Gingrich then began screaming and demanded that the 11 of us account for our behavior.

He then taught me a political lesson I will always remember: Never willingly hand the microphone over to your enemies. Especially when the first rebel to speak was elected to the NFL Hall of Fame and one of People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Men Alive.

As Steve Largent grabbed the microphone, the crowd of GOP members was still shouting insults. But by the time he stood behind the podium, even our most hostile opponents grew quiet.

Steve spoke softly about how he signed a contract with the Seattle Seahawks and remembered shaking the hand of the team’s owner after the deal was done. A few years later, the NFL Players Association went on strike. But Largent told the mob, who were now transfixed, that he crossed those picket lines because he signed a contract and gave his word. Largent told the group that a few years later, the NFL players went on strike a second time and he was once again one of the few NFL players to keep reporting for work. For Steve, it was a matter of principle.

The beautiful NFL Hall of Famer then quietly moved in for the kill.

Turning to the Speaker, who a year earlier had been named Time Magazine’s person of the year, Largent said, “Newt, you were the one who drafted the contract and then told us to sign it. Now, you’re the one pressuring us to break it. But Newt, if I wasn’t intimidated by the thought of 250 pound linebackers who wanted to kill me every time I crossed the field, why would I be intimidated by you?”

And with that, the speakership of Newt Gingrich was over. A year later, he would be driven from power and sent into a political wilderness from which he emerged 14 years later on a Saturday night in South Carolina.

Gingrich’s precipitous fall from power was the result of arrogance, self-satisfaction and a fatal tendency to flit from issue to issue — and even from core conviction to core conviction — in the seeming belief that if he spoke well enough (and used as many adverbs as possible), no one would notice that he was doing something he had equally eloquently (and equally adverbially) opposed before.

Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen Let’s be clear: Gingrich is an important figure. Regardless of what happens in Florida and beyond, he will be remembered as the man who brought the Reagan Revolution to Congress. Yet it will also be recorded that Newt compared the Great Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history.

These unpleasant facts do not stop Newt from trying to embrace the same policies he once denounced (one wonders if he even remembers the contradictions at this point), but that’s what makes my former colleague so fascinating. And so troubling.

A Gingrich campaign is always a high wire act without the net and sometimes, the main actor in this manic routine actually makes it to the other side. But after his listless march through the Sunshine State, even I wonder how many more performances remain.

0112/72084_Page3.html#ixzz1meorDHwi

Stroker97| 2.17.12 @ 10:22PM

Hello again Mr. David Caltron--or whatever your name is. You've been in cahoots with your man Tyrrell. Well at least you have the balls to come on and continue to spew your hatred toward Newt. Your illustrious leader does not, however. Your points have been disputed and your personal bias has been illuminated. So continue as you will, schleping for the Romney machine, but I think from the comments that I've read here, you and your fearless leader have no credibility. If I were you I would ask your exhaulted leader--Mr. Tyrrell, to explain his problems with the Government that led to him selling the magazine to one George Gilder who, coincidently, was a speach writer for one George Romney. Hmm, me thinks someone is in the Romney bag!

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 11:56AM

When Newt gets out it helps Santorum NOT Romney.

Your issue shouldn't be with David but with Scarborough. However, Scarborough seems to have written a fair piece. He was there. He points out Newt's positives and negatives.

The problem with Newt is his ego gets in the way of his executive leadership once he has power.

Garfield| 2.17.12 @ 3:14PM

Seriously, how many times has Newt's campaign been declared dead now only for him to come roaring back in.

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 5:18PM

Drudge has Adelson injecting cash into the Newt superPAC so maybe he does have life.

kestrel27| 2.17.12 @ 5:46PM

The GOP elites are determined to lose this election and in fact by their very actions of pushing Mitt, they are telling America that they don't believe Conservatives can win. They are terrified of the left wing media and the independents who sit on the fence with a wet finger in the air. No the elites have already given up and are hoping to gain in the house and senate. They trashed Sarah Palin, they trashed Herman Cain, they trashed Rick Perry, now they are trashing Newt. How long after Newt is gone before they start trashing Santorum? Then the voters complain about their candidates being picked for them, of course only on the right side of the aisle. I like so many others have given up on the Republican Party because it's being run by a bunch of elitist morons, afraid of their own shadow and only concerned with being at the table of power. America be damned! I won't vote for any Democrat ever and the GOP has left me. Where do I turn to get my country back?

Worried for the country| 2.17.12 @ 7:53PM

Who are the GOP elites?
Mr. Tyrrell?
Why do you say he is propping up Romney? The conventional wisdom is Newt's exit will only help Santorum. Therefore you should have asked why is he propping up Santorum?

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 12:52PM

Newt staying in the race means that when Romney starts smearing Santorum, that there is someone there to make sure Romney doesn't pick up the state or Newt will pick up the next group of states.

I don't think Santorum can beat Obama nor do I think Santorum has the ideas needed to get this country back on its feet.

And Romney has pretty much made it that if Romney is the nominee and there is no third party candidate. I would have to do a coin toss between him and Obama because in my view Obamney = Obama.

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 5:40PM

My point was the polling shows almost all of Newt's support goes to Santorum. However, according to Rasmussen 50% of the Santorum voters split between Romney and Newt.

I disagree with your calculus. Romney is the polar opposite of Obama. Why are you so against Romney? If you don't like Obama it defies logic that you consider Romney the same.
You have to concede Romney is a strong fiscal conservative and Obama clearly isn't.

Bianca| 2.18.12 @ 8:40PM

Romney is no fiscal conservative, never mind "strong" fiscal conservative. Romney is one of the people responsible for taking advantage of financial "system", if one can call it that, in which totally deregulated "credit" was created out of thin air, and hoisted upon anyone that could have been persuaded or forced into taking loans. For a fabulous fee, this breed of unscrupulous Americans have wrecked what generations in this country worked for. They wrecked helpless businesses that these investors targeted like hyenas, so that the life blood and all cash could be drained out of them, leaving them to twist in the wind. With barely enough money to operate, skelleton staffs, no R&D. Or those who peddled mortgages. How were the people that took mortgages in fully legal manner to know the games behind the subprime financial "instruments"? How were they to know that the same "system" was to go into a structured destruction of "liquidity" crisis, sharply curtailing the issuance of new mortgages and business loans? How were these people to even dream that as a result of such irresponsible gamble, they were to lose their jobs, and then being unable to pay their mortgages --- declared "irresponsible"? They were "irresponsible" for wanting "more house then they could afford"? Really? Or are the people who KNEW that the system will convulse, but pushed those mortgages really responsible? And the same people who screwed up, now are the owners of homes of millions of Americans that were legally robbed? And for the so called "sovereign" debt, the situation is even more scandalous. Banks were literally pushing loans on countries, and if they were UNWILLING, they were threatened by IMF. How many times countries that REFUSED to talk to IMF, telling them that they DO NOT NEED LOANS, were told that their fiscal situation is such that they MUST take it? This paper is just continuing with the same propaganda of the same liberal brand of capitalism --- and there is NOTHING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT THAT! You guys have been liberal with other people's money for far too long. And while the Government must go on a diet, BANKS and all financial institutions that are now GORGING on no interest money curtesy of the taxpayer, should go under receivership, and their books reviewed by qualified auditors. Provided that we can even find those that are not currupted by the system in this country!

Worried for the country| 2.18.12 @ 11:46PM

Bianca, if you want people to read your posts you need to use paragraphs.

As best as I can tell nothing in your rambling post has anything to do with Romney.

Karolyn | 2.18.12 @ 12:33AM

It just really angers me no end that you can talk of Romney & Santorum, both big gov't clowns that will do nothing to improve America and Obama would beat both of them but you cannot mention the only true honest conservative by the name of Ron Paul! Ron Paul is the only one that has a plan to restore America and he is, thank God, not a warmonger as all the rest of the Rinos running are. You liberal progressives actually make me ill because you obviously do not care a twit about America or what we need to bring it back to our founders plans for America and to actually believe and follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Garfield| 2.18.12 @ 12:54PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerously naive at best.

That said, if the choice was between Ron Paul and Romney. I would vote Ron Paul.

Bianca| 2.18.12 @ 8:45PM

So, Ron Paul's foreign policy is "dangerously naive"? Define that! Ron Paul is the only SANE politician who understands the relationship between the big money, big military contractors and the big government. Before mouthing off what the "mainstream" media slogans against Ron Paul, how about getting GENUINELY EDUCATED in what he is saying.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 4:51PM

It's dangerously naive to assume that religious fanatics that believe they get to go to paradise and get 70 virgins as their eternal playthings, simply for killing infidels, would have any hesitation of using a Nuclear Weapon if they get their hands on it.

The Soviets actually did have a sense of self-preservation, religious fanatics that do not value life (not even their own lives) can't be reasoned with.

So yeah, I can say Paul's foreign policy is dangerously naive, and I can back up what I'm saying too.

Erik the Red| 2.18.12 @ 1:31PM

I find it fascinating how Ron Paul's name was not mentioned even one time, yet he has been making noise everywhere. This, to me, is a smoke signal that the American Spectator is yet just one more arm of the Establishment media.

Rick Santorum will not win the nomination - with or without Newt's support. This likely means that Romney will get the nod, making him the weakest nominee since Bob Dole. Ron Paul should run as a 3rd Party candidate. Will this mean a split of the GOP vote and the re-election of Obama. Probably. Is that a horrific thought? Definitely. But Romney and/or Gingrich would simply be more of the same, except while wearing a different costume. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would be quite different, having already proven to be anti-Establishment. This is surely the reason why most of the media, liberal and conservative alike, including Mr Tyrrell, have decided to ignore him. However, I have an important news flash: Ron Paul ain't going away any time soon.

Bianca| 2.18.12 @ 8:50PM

Fully agree. Ron Paul needs to run as an independent. HE MAY BEAT OBAMA. In one nationwide poll he trails OBAMA, and is ahead of ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. All establishment media has FLUNK the Ron Paul test. He is ignored, even though he periodically beats Romney, Santorum or Romney. If he is managing to stay in the race where the most extreme of Republicans run the show, he would do spectacularly nationwide. Provided that media will give up ridiculing him, demonising or otherwise marginalizing. And the establishment media is convinced we do not even notice!

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:03PM

Paul's foreign policy is dangerously naive at best. I will agree that Paul is a better choice than Romney though.

If you had been paying attention, Gingrich does agree with Paul on some domestic policy issues, but not the foreign policy issues.

Bianca| 2.18.12 @ 5:22PM

I cannot but enjoy watching you go about the business of media manipulation. Who are the people you claim believe in your ideals of "free markets and limited Government?" None of these have anything to do with American past successes, or getting us out of the mess your kind has relentlessly pursued to get us where we are. Americans, provided they ever get their heads out of TV reality shows, would quickly figure out who has been free to roam the financial universe since Ronald Reagan and then Bill Clinton "deregulated' the speculation, and unleashed on us the calamity. You want more of the same! What you advocate is ANARCHY in the name of free markets and deregulation. In that anarchy, your kind of people are set to get the rest of us enslaved. Newt committed a MORTAL SIN. He, in his blind faith in his own abilities, actually told the rest of us how the system works. In describing Mitt Romney's way of "earning" his wealth, he has revealed the simplicity of your "noble" ideas.

Get real. In Davos, one of the organizers of the conference said that the current system of capitalism no longer fits the world we are living in. People all over the world are in the process of figuring out the nature of the calamity, and who is at fault. Do not complain of Obama too much. He served and is still serving YOUR cause really well. It is the rest of us that are being ripped off.

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:04PM

Actually it was Government regulation that caused this mess.

Government regulation that forced banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them.

MPQ| 2.18.12 @ 5:47PM

Mr. Tyrrell, your cynical comments are unbecoming those emanating from a third tier conservative web page.

Rick| 2.18.12 @ 9:14PM

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

FreeManWalking| 2.19.12 @ 10:49AM

Hey R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

How about doing some research before running off at the pen.

Newt wasn't attacking Paul Ryan when he said “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering, if you weren't so interested in writing a hit piece ” you might be amazed that like many of his ideas, this is another long held idea. In this speech Newt made in 1994 prior to being sworn in as Speaker at the 38 minute mark you will hear him speak to this. http://www.politijim.com/2012/

It was Newt that fended off the Media when they tried to get him in the fray of attacking fellow republicans, being the leader he is, he opted to maintaining unity between the candidates focusing all of the energy against 0b0ma .

Newt was campaigning and WINNING with his ideas and platform to turn America around.

It seems you also forgot that Rinomey brought first blood breaking Reagan's 11th, and Paul in IOWA. Santorum wasn't far behind after getting a bump from the attacks on Newt, although his wasn't as bad it didn't bother him to offer up some lies.

Now they are all afraid to get on the same stage with Newt, because they know they don't have near the plan that Newt has.

Hang in there NEWT!!! ABR, ABO

FreeManWalking| 2.19.12 @ 11:11AM

As a side note (R. E. Tyrrell, Jr.) if you establishment GOPers are successful at pushing the conservatives aside and putting up another RINO, as the candidate then don't be surprised in 2014 when the TEA Party will not be running in the GOP Primary, but against you rinoGOPers on their own TEA Ticket.

NVA Patriot| 2.19.12 @ 2:26PM

Exactly right and the mechanism is to do what the socilists have don to the Dems; join the party and change it inside out.

The most significant thing done in the 2010 cycle was denying the RINO in DE a Senate seat.

Can you imagine how many 'compromise' headlines there would have been? Now the Dems have an avowed Socialist to defend when that seat comes up again...

And watch VA - Bill Bolling Rinomney supporter is going to lose to Ken C. - Inside out - drive the rinios to the dems; promote conservatives. Win elections

Ronald Ackenberry| 2.19.12 @ 5:08PM

Yes, Newt must go. But, so should Romney, Santorum, Paul and the rest of the side show.

That's the problem isn't it?

There is no one claiming to be a Republican candidate, conservative or not, who is fit for the job.

And, those who are campaigning demonstrate the incoherence of the so-called conservative brand of American politics.

I'm sorry Mr. Tyrrell, would you remind me again of which candidate you support with all your heart and soul this cycle?

Yvonne| 2.19.12 @ 8:33PM

Why must Newt go?

Marie| 2.19.12 @ 8:31PM

Another D C elitist rambling...

dd| 2.20.12 @ 12:34AM

Once again I find Tyrell's thoughts astonishingly unprofessional and chauvinistic in focusing on Newt's physical appearance alongside Hillary and Bill's. Is this the caliber of journalism he espouses, to prejudice his readers by noting how poorly some in the public sphere have aged?

Reminds me of sports commentators constantly questioning how the game of football is to be played, and the old adage: those who can, do; those who can't teach-- or, failing that, those who can't teach can write opinion pieces as Editor in Chief of American Spectator.

threeleafclover| 2.20.12 @ 12:43AM

This is turning into a McCain - hold-your-nose- and vote debacle. Altar Boy Santorum sealed his doom today. He took a step too far into America's bedroom. Or into a pregnant woman's OBGYN"s office, when she is faced with the news that her baby will be born profoundly retarded. Not every woman could afford to be absent from that baby, as Mrs. Santorum can.

There are women who would bring to term and devote their lives to a handicapped child. There are women who will abort a perfectly normal baby, again and again - as it suits their whim. They call it the fetus, thus removing the horror of what they are doing. Have you ever heard a woman, joyfully expecting , say "I just felt the fetus move!"? That's the difference. But Rick Santorum cannot win an election by forcing his moral standards on the female population of America.

I read once that a the inventor of the atomic bomb regretted it. I wonder if Dr. Rock regretted inventing the birth control pill - which has destroyed more lives.

Anyhow, since Mitt Romney,who could not beat McCain for the nomination in 2008, who could not beat Ted Kennedy for the Senate and is having trouble staying ahead of his Republican opponents, can't hack it - and if Santorum has shot himself in the foot, what everyone should be doing is participating in an all out effort to win back the Senate in big numbers, win more seats in Congress and make Obama's life a living hell for four years. Because one way or the other, four more years for O is what it looks like.

When a 50% approval rating is touted as if it were 110%. . .When a 1 point drop in unemployment calls for a rousing chorus of Happy Days Are Here Again. . . there is trouble in River City.

The only thing that can turn it around is $5 a gallon gasoline. Our electorate is that shallow.

But think of it! Obama dealing with the Senate and Congress Republican majorities.It would be like having him buried in a Republican House and Senate anthill up to his neck and and maple syrup poured over his head. Of course for that to work, we are going to have to eliminate Executive Orders.

Envision Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz the day after the election. Dems hate being in the minority.

Worried for the country| 2.20.12 @ 1:18PM

clover, you paint a dim picture.

There is some hope. I'll remind you that Reagan lost to Ford who lost to Carter in 1976. Reagan came back and trounced Carter in 1980.

Romney can do the same in 2012. I'll remind you that if FL had gone to Romney in 2008 he would probably be the nominee in 2008.

threeleafclover| 2.20.12 @ 1:05AM

Mr. Tyrrell, you would do well not to get personal about your fellow man. Although you have chiseled features and cut a handsome figure (although a bit well upholstered of late) for a man your age, your speaking voice has always reminded my of my rather nasal Aunt Addie in Beaumont, Texas. Or like you have been whiffing helium.

I have forgiven you in the past. You can' t help your vocal chords.

But your occasional pin stripe suits make you look like a member of The Godfather cast or the owner of a sleazy strip club.

I even forgive you for The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton and all your books which turned out to be wishful thinking. I bought them all and dreamed along with you. . .

threeleafclover| 2.20.12 @ 1:10AM

R.E.T. -

Jimmy Caan is the one you remind me of in those pin stipe suits. There, that's not too bad, is it?

Mabel Rockwell| 2.20.12 @ 11:53AM

Your article on Newt Gingrich really did not sit well with us. Normally you agree with my thoughts, but now we come to a parting of the way. For years we have liked Newt because of the way he has with words . He doesn't put up with a lot of liberal nonsense and says it like it is. Now all of a sudden he is mister Evil? We just don't get it. Every time We see Romney he seems desperate and seems to be hyperventilating . Truly, we never felt he was a conservative, but mainly moderate. With Newt, we always felt that he is what he is, baggage and all. When the debates started, Newt really tried hard to stay on message against Obama, but
Romney would have none of that. He put his minions to work smearing anyone and everyone at the get go, Perry and possible Cain
too. For around 20 years we have subscribed to the American Spectataor, and believe we are coming to the parting of the ways. How sad.

Worried for the country| 2.20.12 @ 1:13PM

Mabel - let me start by saying I believe Romney will be a great President because he is best equipped of all the candidates to shrink government and balance the budget but I like Newt too. I don't believe Newt has a chance against Obama.

I have to take issue with your analysis.

Romney attacked Perry and Cain? I really don't see any evidence of that. Perry imploded because of poor debate performances and Cain had some unfortunate personal problems. I like Cain but I don't think he was a serious candidate.

Romney stayed positive in all the early debates just like Newt did. Romney focused on Obama exclusively in those debates. It was only after attacks FROM Newt did he respond in the debates.

Newt is clearly on a vendetta now. He thinks this is only chance for a comeback. Newt did undergo many attacks in Iowa. However, those attacks only worked because they were TRUE. The most devastating ads in Iowa were run by Ron Paul and they were called 'serial hypocrisy'. Newt did not respond because he had no money. Why? Because he took the summer off with his wife on a cruise in Greece. Newt's outrage about the negative attacks is just pious baloney. I'm sure he is frustrated but he knows the attacks are mostly fair. He is simply using the issue to rally his base.

I don't agree that we should be telling Newt to get out but we should call him out when he is hurting the party with his own distortions and vicious attacks.

We can agree to disagree about Romney's conservatism. However, no one who looks at Romney's record as governor can dispute that he isn't a strong fiscal conservative. His stance on social issues are conservative enough for the likes of Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham because they endorsed Romney in 2008.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 5:04PM

Seriously cut the bull...

Only reason Iowa turned into a toss-up between Santorum and Romney is cause Romney used his smear machine to smear Gingrich.

Romney only won Florida cause he used his smear machine to conduct the most dishonest campaign in Republican Primary history. He was acting like a Saul Alinski radical while at the same time claiming he had no idea what was going on.

Newt Gingrich has more integrity in his pinkie than Mitt Romney has in his entire body.

stephen boone| 2.20.12 @ 1:17PM

Is there anything so pathetically hilarious as these pictures of Newt making heroic poses like "Elmer Fudd, Gladiator"?? They ran a series of them before a recent debate and -- may I die now if I am lying -- I thought they were made by an enemy to ridicule him. Is he completely insane?? Can he not see that he is the butt of some incredible joke of his own creation??

threeleafclover| 2.20.12 @ 1:30PM

Correction: I said, or at least implied, that John Rock, co-inventor of the birth control pill "destroyed lives". He only destroyed the possibility of lives. What he assisted in the destruction of was morality of single women.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 5:24PM

Okay I'm seeing another pre-emptive smear campaign on the part of Townhall to help Mitt Romney.

Their target is Newt Gingrich:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k.....ly_thought

We all know the last hit job on this topic was bogus.

You can tell the establishment is really scared Newt could win this.

Also Rush thinks Newt may make yet another comeback.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da.....rn_of_newt

POST American| 2.20.12 @ 11:17PM

---------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

AGAIN

The CFR-RED China handover, sellout
and TREASON OP (1972-2012)

---McCain ---the Bushes --the Clintons
--Gore --and Gingrich were there!

IT'S HERE!

SO-------WHY ARE --THEY-- STILL HERE?????

------------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG----------------