-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here’s the thing about this absurd idea that Newt Gingrich is some kind of skilled debater or unflappable tough guy: Gingrich himself knows it’s a fraud. Here, from the review of a book about Gingrich’s reign as speaker:
Amazon.com Review
A blow-by-blow account of the “Republican Revolution” in Congress, which collapsed after little more than a year, this feast for political insiders includes moments both absurd (Newt Gingrich confessing to White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta that “I melt when I am around” President Clinton) and critical. (Gingrich’s realization, at the start of 1996, that “He had grievously miscalculated his opposition and strategically botched the most important political battle of his speakership.”) As an insider’s analysis of what went wrong with the largest rightward tilt in the U.S. Congress in this century, Maraniss and Weisskopf’s book is indispensable.
He admitted the same to his wife (from the book by the execrable Sidney Blumenthal):
Gingrich regularly traveled up Pennsylvania Avenue filled with bravado and returned confusedly explaining Clinton’s logic to his cohorts. “I melt when I’m around him,” he admitted to his wife. Soon the Jacobins no longer trusted their Robespierre. They insisted that he never meet with Clinton alone. Dick Armey went with Gingrich on every trip to the White House to ensure that he did not lose his will.
In this great article in Esquire, his ex-wife explains:
But there was something strange and needy about him. “He was impressed easily by position, status, money,” she says. “He grew up poor and always wanted to be somebody, to make a difference, to prove himself, you know. He has to be historic to justify his life.”
As for his hypocrisy, she says this:
He thinks of himself as president, you tell her. He wants to run for president. She gives a jaundiced look. “There’s no way,” she says. She thinks he made a choice long ago between doing the right thing and getting rich, and when you make those choices, you foreclose other ones. “He could have been president. But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don’t like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new … you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way.” She stops, ashes her cigarette, exhales, searching for the right way to express what she’s about to say. “He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” she says. “If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president.”
Former American Conservative Union Chairman Mickey Edwards was even blunter:
“I’ve known Newt now for thirty years almost,” says former congressman Mickey Edwards. “But I wouldn’t be able to describe what his real principles are. I never felt that he had any sort of a real compass about what he believed except for the pursuit of power.”
There’s also all sorts of information about Gingrich’s erraticism, his emotional instability, and other unseemly characteristics. Wow. Tough stuff.
The research continues…..
View all comments (77) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/05/waiting-for-the-gingrich-melt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jane| 12.5.11 @ 2:43PM
I'm waiting for Huntsman to surge and win the WH. He's my man. Love, Jane.
Jack in Wi| 12.6.11 @ 1:08AM
Huntsman is just another rich Mormon liberal like Romney. Who else but a liberal would sign up to work for Obama? Ron Paul is the only electable Republican who represents the conservative and libertarian values that at are the heart of the movement.
I am willing to concede that there is a possiblity that Romney could beat Obama. That would be a hollow victory because Romney is a hollow man, with no core values. At least if he had some Mormon values it would not be so bad. The Mormons are generally prolife in their values and often have large families. They generally are against homosexuality and fought like hell to ban gay marriage in California. Romney has shown himself to be a terrible whimp on both issues.
Gingrich is totally unelectable and unacceptable. He is hated by most independents, all democrats, and about at least 60% of Republicans. His hubris will soon destroy him. Mr. Fannie Mae, Mr. bag lady for the insurance lobby and the Israeli Lobby has been exposed as a grafter and a grifter of huge proportions. His day is over just as the dawn was breaking.
Now to the only guy who should win and is the most electable against Obama Ron Paul. Ron is backed by the most active service people with their financial contirbutions. He gets more money from them then all the rest, including Obama combined. The people with their lives on the line know he will never send them to a no win war for no reason. They know he will defend this country and not get us involved in some pickle to bail out some specail intrest.
He also has been right on the economy for 30 years and is the only guy running, who has an actual plan to get us out of this mess. He and Romney poll the best against Obama. They represent the major groups of the party. Romney the Eastern elite and countryclub which has led us over the cliff for th last 25 years. Ron Paul represents Main street and the the surging young libertarians who are the only new people the party has atttracted for quite a while. If they are not reconciled by vigorous and civil debate, Obama will be re-elected. Neuter Gingrich should get the hell out of the way.
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 12:39PM
It would almost be worth electing Ron Paul simply to hear the excuses made by his worshipers when he proved himself completely unable to govern.
Oldefarte| 12.6.11 @ 2:29PM
Concern yourself with this: ".... Gov. Walker: Recall Proponents 'Cross the Line'
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 04:31 AM
By: Hiram Reisner
Embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says some who are backing his recall “cross the line” by harassing his family and neighbors and targeting his children’s friends on Facebook for rebuke. The chief executive of the Badger State also told Fox News’ Greta Can Susteren Monday much of the vehement opposition to a budget-trimming law he signed earlier this year, which restricts public unions, comes from outside Wisconsin.
“That’s what happens when you see so much influence coming in from outside of Wisconsin — that’s not the way we do it in Wisconsin — we don’t attack people because it’s a difference of opinion,” Walker said. “People came out to my home and attacked — not attacked but harassed not only my family, but my neighbors. They have been [singling out] folks on my kids’ Facebook site and they have said outrageous things about my family again today.
“Again, it’s one thing to form a debate, or another to distract or distort it,” he said. “And nobody — whether they are for or against me, including those who oppose our recall — nobody should be doing things that cross the line like that.”
The recall drive was motivated by anger over Walker's proposal effectively ending collective bargaining rights for most public workers. The law passed in March despite massive protests and the fleeing of all 14 Democratic state senators to Illinois for three weeks.
Recall backers need 540,208 signatures by Jan. 17 to force a recall election sometime in 2012. As of late last month, a group supporting the effort said over half the number needed had been collected in just 12 days.
Van Susteren noted Walker ran for governor on a budget-cutting platform and wondered why there was such fervent opposition to actions he promised on the campaign trail. Walker said the curbing of public unions’ collective-bargaining rights was indeed part of his pre-election initiative.
“In fact many of the groups part of the recall movement . . . actually ran flyers that said: ‘Don’t vote for this guy because he will make changes to collective bargaining’ — they were warning that,” Walker said. “The first recall Scott Walker website was put up November, 2010. This has been plotted out all along the way and they have used the hype and attention to move forward on it.
“This is about having a new election — in our state you don’t need a reason,” he said. “In our case we will be given an opportunity to reaffirm that positive message to the voters yet again in this next election.”.....'
Bob Grant| 12.5.11 @ 3:01PM
The high standards republicans must meet to earn any semblance of mainstream media respect in order to sway the remaining 6% of votes in play makes it almost impossible to field a candidate.
Decent and sane people wouldn't dare put themselves and their families through this so we're left with career politicians, some of whom are delusional into thinking they can win, some are borderline sociopaths with heavy duty baggage, and some are weird narcissist-types who's only qualified to go into politics (please see Al Gore).
Maybe we should seriously consider Rick Santorum, the only decent one left in my book.
Meanwhile, Hussein Obama is off on a 17 day vacay laughing his a** off at the predicament the republicans are in...yet again.
Bob Grant| 12.5.11 @ 3:08PM
...and then there's Ron Paul...
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 3:44PM
Ah yes, Ron Paul. I was over on the dailypaul yesterday and saw an item about the most important article to make sure every Republican sees. Basically it says that if the GOP wants to win they'd better nominate Ron Paul, because if they don't he'll run on a third party ticket and Obama will win.
I'd give Ron Paul an 80% chance of going third party. Obviously there's a reason he's refused to give a simple "no" answer when asked if he would consider it. All he'll say is that it's not his current intention, a classic politician weaselly evasion.
I maintain, however, that so many of his positions overlap with the far, far left -- on Israel, on military bases overseas, on legalizing drugs and other libertarian ideas -- that he could easily take more votes from Obama than he does from the GOP nominee. Starting with the OWS crowd.
On the other hand, Ron Paul is so out of step with social conservatives that if he got the nomination he would almost certainly have a pro-Israel social conservative third-party challenge. Not that he has a real shot at getting the nomination.
9thID| 12.5.11 @ 4:42PM
My sentiments exactly. Capt. Ron is a Liberal-tarian and will pull a "1988" again next year. Instead of blaming Reagan, he will probably blame Bush...
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 5:34PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Quartermaster| 12.5.11 @ 7:47PM
I have serious doubts Paul will go 3rd party. Even he has stated, in so many words, that he has no plans for it. Too many of you are as deranged by Ron Paul as the loon ball left was over W. Supposedly Conservatives think, but I haven't seen much evidence of it when it comes to Ron Paul.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 3:54PM
Gingrich Is a TARPSTER.
We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Israel Firster Flunkie Stooges.
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.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 4:00PM
So was Bush, so was his whole administration.
Other than Bachmann, I can't think offhand of any Republican of any stature who was opposed to the stampede for a bailout.
So why tarnish him in isolation.
Has Gingrich altered positions on those considered "green?" Sure. But with new information about how the entire thing has been contrived and ginned up, it was entirely appropriate for him to have altered his positions.
But what of Romney, who dare not alter his positions on the "green" issues because of his craven insecurity of being accused of having "flipped" one more time.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 4:01PM
"... and then there's Ron Paul ..." {sic} ------------ or rather, and then there's Ron Paul, whacko at large.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:32PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Milton Friedman,
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
9thID| 12.5.11 @ 4:45PM
You always forget to mention that Reagan said this about Capt'n Ron back in the 70s long before Paul stabbed him in the back and fled to the Liber-tarian Party where he belongs...
Hobbes| 12.5.11 @ 5:29PM
After Gingrich implodes, Ron Paul will ascend to his rightful place atop the GOP! All Hail Ron Paul!
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 6:49PM
If that happens, Hobbes, and he becomes the nominee, we all may as well vote for Obama.
After all, what's the diff.?
Anti-war.
Anti-American terrorist sympathizers.
Anti-Israel.
And in the case of Ron Paul~ legalized Dope!
Did Obama want to legalize Dope?
No, I will stay home for the first time in my life if Ru Paul becomes the nominee.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 5:35PM
Asked And Answered.
" Joe M| 9.9.11 @ 12:03PM
As Ron Paul has officially stated, he supported Reagan before he became president. However, the results of his election were less than impressive. Paul has consistently supported the same principles, the same small government principles that Reagan espoused in 1976 and 1980, .....
The Paul quote you have actually is addressing that the Reagan Revolution did not live up to its promise of smaller government. The budget, the deficit, and the debt all increased hugely during Reagan's two terms, although those increases seem miniscule compared to the mess we're in now."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 3:34PM
Six percent in play? Huh? It's more like 60% in play for the Republican nomination. There are 20% or so diehard elites who want Romney so bad they can taste it, and Ron Paul has maybe 5% of the vote (many of whom are independents and Democrats though), and then there are small percentages who can't let go of Cain or Bachmann or Perry or Santorum. Otherwise it's wide open and the polls swing by way more than 6% from one day to the next.
Santorum? Only if you want to throw in the towel now and lose with someone ideologically pure.
The one thing you got right is that Team Obama is laughing it up. I think the only one they're scared of is Romney ... and that's the only one they're spending ad money to attack, obviously. Gingrich is a time bomb they hope will blow up AFTER he gets the nomination. Perry and Bachmann proved they aren't ready for prime time. The rest haven't even managed to break out of the single digits.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 3:56PM
They KNOW for a fact that Romney hasn't any intention of actually doing something about the inroads and the growth of homoism in the country, or the movement towards the legal codification of homo courtship rituals.
And they've been in those cozy, little cocktail parties where one and all have oozed disdain towards those who actually believe abortion something shameful, wrong, unhealthy and unwise for the country.
This is all about certain lifestyle choices, certain lifestyle peculiarities, certain lifestyle locales, such as the upper east and west sides, and in those areas they know Romney is just saying whatever needs to be said to get the yokels to buy into him.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 3:57PM
" The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.
name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman
A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 4:05PM
Are you actually for Romney?
Because if you're not, then I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of this factoid about Gingrich "missing" the Vietnam war?
Are you suggesting that only those who positively volunteered for combat during 'Nam are worth the while considering for high office?
What of the former Republican standard bearer? G. W. Bush?
What of him?
And why zero in on Republicans in this fashion, holding them to a litmus test that none across the wider electorate would impose on a Democrat or on any candidate for that matter.
This is dated news, this is an issue that troubles none, save those with residual PTSD issues.
Let it rest, for it is of the things of yesteryear.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:36PM
Neutered Gingrich & Mittens Romney Are Serial Traitors To Conservatism & Chickenhawks.
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 5:38PM
Perhaps you'll share with us Ron Paul's service record. Was he daily going up into "Mig Alley?"
Or did he fly over a hundred strike missions into North Vietnam?
What did he do, specifically, for you to extol his Air Force record.
Seems to me his service record was much of a piece with the service record of former Congressman Patrick Murphy, and that's not saying much.
So stop pretending Ron Paul was some later incarnation of Commando Kelly.
'Cause he wasn't.
Quartermaster| 12.5.11 @ 7:56PM
Paul was a flight surgeon and served where he was sent. Flight Surgeons don't have a lot of say where they are stationed, and they do not fly very often.
The canard about W having skipped Vietnam is just a canard. While in the ANG he flew an aircraft that didn't have the greatest of safety records and he put in to go to Vietnam but was turned down. In actuality, he would have been safer in Vietnam than flying what he did in the Guard.
The bit about "Commando Kelly" is your imagination run riot. Clint said nothing so ridiculous as you have. he is quoting someone else saying something good about the guy he supports. I doubt there is all that much that can be said about the guy you support. Other than Paul, there is no one talking about what needs to be done with FedGov. Frankly, it is difficult to take anyone seriously who says they will stay home, or vote for Obama if Paul were the GOP nominee. We could do far worse with almost anyone else running, and we will since one of those will be sworn in a year from January.
The reality, there isn't enough of a difference between Gingrich, Romney or Obama to matter. And the next POTUS (or VOTUS if it's Obama) will, most likely, be one of those three. And the country is doomed because of it.
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 9:27PM
The reality, there isn't enough of a difference between Gingrich, Romney or Obama to matter.
With all due respect, you overestimate them and you underestimate America.
Oldefarte| 12.6.11 @ 11:33AM
With all due respect, America extremely UNDERESTIMATED itself on 11/4/08 when it '''''''STUPIDLY'''''' elected the current president [or more appropriately termed OFFICE HOLDER]!!!!!!!
axbucxdu| 12.5.11 @ 10:21PM
Bob Grant| 12.5.11 @ 3:01PM: "Meanwhile, Hussein Obama is off on a 17 day vacay laughing his a** off at the predicament the republicans are in...yet again."
And who's to blame for that? They are, of course.
Gerg| 1.25.12 @ 12:30PM
Ah yes, "they". The age-old enemy of the Republican Party.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 3:04PM
" With the intense search for a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney producing popularity “bubbles” for Rick Perry and Herman Cain, “Who’s next?” has been the recurring question. In an ironic twist, the consensus answer seems to be: Newt Gingrich.
I say “ironic” because the opposition to Romney has been led by conservative grassroots writers and activists, as well as groups like FreedomWorks. Gingrich isn’t much more popular among that contingent than Romney. In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:
Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…
Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.5.11 @ 3:18PM
If Ron Paul gets elected, we will have plenty of shovel ready jobs to do....digging fall-out shelters in our back yards and machine-gun nests on our beaches.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:03PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 4:26PM
As long as we're digging up ancient quotes, Ron Paul had some things to say about Reagan, too:
Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.
Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.
Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the
President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.
Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my
membership card.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:46PM
Asked And Answered.
" Joe M| 9.9.11 @ 12:03PM
As Ron Paul has officially stated, he supported Reagan before he became president. However, the results of his election were less than impressive. Paul has consistently supported the same principles, the same small government principles that Reagan espoused in 1976 and 1980, .....
The Paul quote you have actually is addressing that the Reagan Revolution did not live up to its promise of smaller government. The budget, the deficit, and the debt all increased hugely during Reagan's two terms, although those increases seem miniscule compared to the mess we're in now."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 5:53PM
Yeah, exactly. Ron Paul said that Reagan failed to live up to small government principles, among other things. He comes up with a long list of things he considers to be Reagan's failures.
What gets me is that the Paulbots can say something like this ... that Ron Paul thinks Reagan was a failure, and so much of a failure that Paul had to resign from the Republican party ... and not realize why so many conservatives say that they won't vote or Ron Paul under any circumstances.
Personally, I'm not a social conservative and the things I like about Paul are pretty much exactly the things that aggravate so many social conservatives. I'd like to see Paul get more respect. Therefore, I'd like to see Clint lending his special brand of "support" to someone other than Ron Paul.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 6:15PM
You're A RINO-CINO Narf, Braggin' On Sellin' Out Social Conservatives.
Dr.Ron Paul Is A Real Conservative,Who Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right.
George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
SpiralArchitect| 12.5.11 @ 6:35PM
Can you two kids go outside and play for awhile. The adults would appreciate a reprieve.
-thx
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 12:49PM
I've said it before but it's worth repeating. Among the best reasons to vote against Ron Paul are the types he attracts as supporters.
9thID| 12.5.11 @ 4:52PM
Ron Paul and his neo-Chamberlainian isolationism will bring about a new holocaust on a worldwide scale...
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 5:41PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration Of War against Iran, if necessary,"
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former cIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Iran, The President Should,
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
SpiralArchitect| 12.5.11 @ 6:39PM
Zero for a second term ( likely to become an Authortorian regime indefinately) or just communism
or
Paul where we all become Muslims via the ostrich defensive strategy.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 9:49PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration Of War against Iran, if necessary,"
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Iran, The President Should,
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 3:49PM
"Waiting" for Gingrich to "melt," eh?
Well, the rest of us Republicans are waiting for somebody, ANYBODY to advance any real reason to support Romney, which doesn't consist of running down everybody and anybody who might actually displace him as the supposed "frontrunner."
Simon Templar| 12.5.11 @ 4:22PM
Dan,
He has attacked every single conservative candidate since this race began. Quin is a John Beonher establishment Republican and wants to go back there to DC. He will not. He has already 'melted down' himself.
The objective has been, since the very start, to destroy all the candidates that MIGHT even come close to bringing actual change or even some limited change and possiblity of smaller government. The establishment progressive Republicans are waging the typical war on conservativism that they do EVERY four years. This should no longer be a surprise and we should be honest enough to admit it. As George Bush was said when asked about the conservative movement, "What movement, there is no movement?"
One thing is for sure here. It critical that the Tea party play a role in taking back the GOP. Quin would laugh at that comment. I do believe, however, that this is actually possible despite the money, the power, and the talking heads the establishment Republicans have in maintaining their grip. The will only needs to be there. It was done to a great extent in 2010 which showed the definitive possibility that the establishment GOP can be circumvented and defeated.
Quin| 12.5.11 @ 6:31PM
Not true. I have not attacked Santorum. I have not attacked Bachmann. I have criticized Perry only twice, both for debating problems. I have written far more nice things about Cain than things against him. As for Romney, who isn't a conservative, I have blasted him repeatedly for five years. And I DO support the Tea Party. Get your facts right, dude.
SpiralArchitect| 12.5.11 @ 6:42PM
TAS used to be something I was (far more) willing to recomend to friends and associates as a respectable read not much more than a year ago.
Keep the flames lit...
Simon Templar| 12.6.11 @ 2:56AM
Remember that elephants have good memories.
You supported Boehner, the DC gang, and wrote that we were all nuts to think that they were not acting in our interest and selling us out during the budget deficit crisis that loomed as a possible shutdown. You backed their supposed solution and thought it was a great achievement.
You attacked both Perry and Cain with the same lame garbage the Left drudged up and threw them overboard with no defense or counterattack. That is the point. I do not have any problem with people making sincere, non agenda oriented criticisms or concerns about our candidates if they truly are original in thinking and not the mere echoing of our oppositions smears, their discourse, and their views.
The reality is that you and many of your fellow talking heads do a hell of a lot of defense and apologizing for the establishment and the rest of the time tearing to shreds those seeking to bring real change with the lamest of criticism and often just repetitions of what I can read at the Huffington Post. We know essentially nothing of any of these candidates strengths, accomplishments, or political past histories. You do not bother with that but rather whether a guy is guilty of not painting over a rock in a prescribed timeline. You have not had to say anything about Santorum because he has been irrevelant and largely ignored by the MSM. Bachmann was destroyed on geography and history flubs blown out of proportion by the MSM before you had to get up off the couch. I did not see you writing any articles in her defense or pointing out that our current president has made about 20 idiotic mistakes in this area both before and during his presidency. Now you are onto Gingrich as I predicted and it is much of the same.
So, that is why we think you most likely want Romney and most likely have bought into the myth like so many other so-called conservatives that he is the only electable candidate as a conservative can not win. You may want your conservative with your heart but the brainwashed mind tells you to go with the RINO.
You know all that is forgivable. What really pisses me off is your ilks stubborness and refusal to see that you are not vetting anyone nor are you helping us win or promote conservativism. Many of you seem easily played by your liberal counterparts in the media. You do not get the concept of the narrative nor have any idea how to respond to the Left's consistent control of those narratives.
teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 9:11AM
Hear, hear!
Quin claims to "have blasted [Romney] repeatedly for five years" yet where are the articles NOW? I don't care if he "blasted" Romney between election cycles---now is when conservatives need to throw off the Rockefeller Republican yoke and take our party back.
This is what supporting the Tea Party means, not the occasional verbal wave in their direction while trashing conservatives and defending the blue-blood country-clubbers.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 11:32AM
Simon Templar brought an indictment against Hillyer!
Dan| 12.5.11 @ 3:52PM
IF Romney were all that, if his candidacy was supposedly so self-evident, if he had all that to offer the country and the party, ------------------------------------------------ then why can't he get beyond the exact same percentage of the vote that he enjoyed four years ago.
The guy has been running for the Republican nomination not for six months, not even for sixteen months, but for SIX YEARS.
Six long years of Romney and his family pushing his candidacy.
And there isn't any reason to support him now than there was then.
All we see is the endless running down of anybody who might, just might dislodge him.
God Hillyer, and I actually thought better of you than that.............
SpiralArchitect| 12.5.11 @ 6:52PM
Live & learn, Dan.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:01PM
The RINO-CINO Gingrich Endorsed Dede Scoozafava.
Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage. It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.
Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls — and Democratic voting rolls — at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ free choice. And for that matter, at the expense of Republican electoral prospects. Card check is the key to a Democratic majority in perpetuity. Big Labor bosses have said as much.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Narf!| 12.5.11 @ 4:20PM
Gingrich endorsed the Republican in the race. Should he have endorsed a third-party candiate instead?
Interesting that you like the idea of third-party challengers so much, when you support a candidate who refuses to give a simple "no" answer when asked if he might run on a third-party ticket.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 4:50PM
You Attempt To Pass Serial Traitor RINO-CINO's For Real Conservatives, Sport.
But, That's Your Agenda.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Hobbes| 12.5.11 @ 5:31PM
And supporting Ron Paul!
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 5:48PM
Dr.Ron Paul Is A Real Conservative,Who Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right.
George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
Sparky| 12.5.11 @ 4:27PM
Are Hillyer and Jen Rubin and Mark Steyn submitting their articles to the Times and WaPo for their consideration? This circular firing squad is petty, mean and strangely offputting, as if Romney has promised them some plumb job in his administration. Rubin or Hillyer for press secretary?
Quin| 12.5.11 @ 6:32PM
Where does this idea come from that I am for Romney? I blast him at every turn.
teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 11:56AM
What turns? Where are the full-throated, long condemnations of Mitt Romney, Quin?
Here's the last batch of posts/articles you've authored here:
*Waiting for the Gingrich Melt December 5, 2011
Marche By a Landslide (Bad Media Poll) December 3, 2011
The Ever-Worse Establishment Media December 1, 2011
*The Gingrich Hits (His Misses, Actually) Keep on Coming November 30, 2011
Washington Examiner vs. Gingrich November 30, 2011
*Re: Newt and Individual Mandate November 29, 2011
Santorum Praised by Kathryn Lopez November 28, 2011
*My Radio Assessment of Gingrich's Chances Against Obama November 22, 2011
Clapton and Marsalis Make 'Blues' a Joy November 18, 2011
R. Emmett Tyrrell on "Hillyer Time" Tonight, 9 EASTERN time November 17, 2011
*Gingrich Under Increasing Fire November 17, 2011
*Gingrich, Re-Agonized November 15, 2011
Condi Rice, on Target in Mobile November 14, 2011
Lessons From 1815 November 11, 2011
Mona Charen Gets it Right on Cain and Conservative Wagon-Circling November 11, 2011
*Newt and Fannie November 10, 2011
A Poignant Campaign Message November 8, 2011
Smokin' Joe, RIP November 7, 2011
Wanting to Believe Cain November 7, 2011
Cain Under More Fire November 4, 2011
Obamites: Gov't Can Lie. But Pro-Lifers Can't Even Opine. November 3, 2011
How to Fix the Federal Budget Without Major Pain November 3, 2011
Ditto What Joe Said About Barnes' Article November 3, 2011
- More on Romney's Shape-Shifting November 3, 2011
Newtonian Physics November 3, 2011
Cain in Trouble? November 2, 2011
Kirsanow Eviscerates Obama October 31, 2011
Smoke This, Mr. Brokaw October 31, 2011
Reason to Take Cain Allegations Seriously October 31, 2011
Photo ID for Voters Garners New Support October 28, 2011
Welcome Back, Scooter October 28, 2011
Maybe Perry Should Just Do a Pawlenty October 25, 2011
Pence, Jindal, Ryan.... Kristol is Right: The Field is Still Open October 25, 2011
Could Jindal Run for President? October 25, 2011
Golf's Hidden Drama October 24, 2011
Shameful Lassitude re Malkin's Cousin, Marizela October 24, 2011
Just Try Stopping Me From Criticizing Islamists, etc. October 22, 2011
Watch Jindal Today October 22, 2011
On Gadhafi October 21, 2011
Follow-up on San Fran GOPer, Georgetown Hoya Supreme, Don Casper October 21, 2011
9-0-9 Plan Isn't New October 21, 2011
Alinsky to Obama to Occupiers October 21, 2011
On Alabama's Controversial Immigration Law October 20, 2011
Batchelder, Story, and Brutus October 20, 2011
Newt Takes "Rocky" Road October 17, 2011
Santorum Takes On Holder October 14, 2011
Without Visuals, a Different Impression October 14, 2011
Scoring 9-9-9, and Other Thoughts October 13, 2011
Holder Should Not Hold On October 13, 2011
That's 7 anti-Gingrich posts/articles for every Romney post/article over the past six weeks.
Here's the one Romney post in full:
"Juliet Eilperin of the Wash Post, a superb gumshoe reporter (although she seems to lean left), does a number on Mitt Romney today, reminding people just how radically he has shifted on social issues in order to pander to whomever could give him needed votes. Great reading."
Wow, Quin---you really "blasted" him. How did we miss that?
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 12:57PM
So the problem with Quin is he doesn't attack Romney enough?
Strange logic. His dislike of Gingrich might be exaggerated but it's ridiculous to conclude on that basis that he supports Romney. It should be obvious to anyone who has read most of Hillyer's columns that he prefers Santorum, a solid and sensible conservative.
teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 1:03PM
If you're going to blast Gingrich for misdemeanors while Romney's committed felonies in the same policy errors, you're in the tank for Romney. Period.
Quin's claim to "blast him at every turn" is akin to the old USAF Academy saying, "There's a woman behind every tree---there just aren't any trees."
Kyle Smith| 12.5.11 @ 5:30PM
"Former American Conservative Union Chairman Mickey Edwards was even blunter"
Yes, the same American Conservative Union (ACU), that rate Newt near a 100% conservative rating. Sure. ACU ratings are fraudulent and only serve the unreliable Republicans like John McCain and John Boehner. When people can't explain how these Republicans are conservative, they lazily point at the cooked up ACU rating.
teflon93| 12.5.11 @ 5:34PM
When will you be endorsing Little Lord MittleRoy, Quin?
I can't wait to hear you whine about being misunderstood once you get that blowback from conservatives.
somnolence| 12.5.11 @ 6:05PM
Paul, Bush, Quayle, Gore all served honorably in the Armed Forces. It is a matter of fact that Clinton, Gingrich, Romney, Cheney skipped out. All who raised their hand, completed basic, and completed their term of service deserve recognition. No more, no less. I don't support Paul, but he is not as much of a "chickenhawk" as Gingrich or Romney(who I'm leaning to), and I guarantee you he is as well read on military history as Gingrich, and on constitutional history is also just as sharp, if not sharper. But how can I support anyone that just received Farrakhan's support? That is about like an endorsement from David Duke.
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 1:01PM
Gore's service was hardly honorable. You can look it up.
As for Paul, is it on the record he volunteered as a combat medic? You'd think so from all the references to his record. Did he, in fact, volunteer or was he conscripted? I'd like to know before I belittle him any further.
somnolence| 12.5.11 @ 6:07PM
Yes, the National Guard is a branch of the Armed Forces with a glorious history. Screw anyone who says otherwise.
SpiralArchitect| 12.5.11 @ 6:57PM
With RP as POTUS the Guard would be the mainstay of the US military - home defense only.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 9:52PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration Of War against Iran, if necessary,"
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former cIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Iran, The President Should,
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 1:03PM
---Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration Of War against Iran, if necessary,"---
IF NECESSARY. Weasel words at best.
Mimi| 12.5.11 @ 7:10PM
When are you all going to stop discussing WARTS in the Conservatives....O.K. we have an array of colors...NONE perfect.
We have before us an Enemy to defeat like none ever in our HISTORY...with a party devoid of knowledge of their American Heritage and downright supporting destruction of the country.
Newt shows us one important thing...Strength in his ability to stand the beating he's gonna take being in a fight with Obama and the evil minions.
He's been there, done that...grown and mature enough to not take personally the crap.
His plan and ability to get the very best people to help save the nation.
Quin give it up..it's time to start being positive.
Newt didn't see the " PICTURE" during N.Y. 23...But he's a quick learner and knows the Conservative way is here to stay...He's NOW on board...Get's IT....rehashing old DIRT is fruitless... Lets be Positive...I too love Santorum...He would make a good V .P. pick... !
somnolence| 12.5.11 @ 7:37PM
All I see in Gingrich is the very reflection of John McCain from four years ago. The same statist goals with a different approach. The same big government, lobbyist tendencies.
Brendan| 12.5.11 @ 10:36PM
I'm betting Quin voted for Perot.
For those who don't remember - that's what happens when we don't have a perfect presidetial candidate.
I've said it before - work from the ground up. The libs didn't destroy us in a day, and we won't turn around in a day eiter...
T H Huxley| 12.5.11 @ 10:41PM
Gingrich only qualified 27 of 40 delegates in New Hampshire, and he missed the deadline for qualifying for the Missouri primary, yet he has the time for a book signing in New York and time to pal around with P T Barnum. I'm not sure you've got a serious candidate here.
somnolence| 12.5.11 @ 11:24PM
ANYONE who straps themselves in the cockpit of fighter planes as both George Bushes did qualifies as having a spine of steel. There can be no doubt that doing that and piloting one off the ground takes nerve, resolve, and courage. That much is settled.
Oldefarte| 12.6.11 @ 12:05PM
It's mind boggling concerning some of the above pontificating ''''''STUPIDLY'''''' disguises itself as sanity. IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!! No one is perfect, not even you tea party foolish political wantabees. None of you morons semi-illerates have ever held political office or even come close to same, and yet you somehow have the carte blanche abilities to indiscriminately critisize those who have [and who have editorially reported same historically]. Who in the hades are you but DA with a computerized keyboard? What lifetime accompolishments do you possess in order to so slander those who have imperfectly been involved inside the political arena winning some while losing a few? You worthless, jockey shorted pontificators within your double-wides need to step into the sunlight and decare your professional bonafides [other than being perhaps some hillbilly attendee at some tea party caucus/event only] before you go clandestinely smearing others who have been in ghe political wars for years trying their damnest to accompolish an overall good for society at large. Unless you have done better and can prove same, THEN BECOME MORE HUMBLE AND KEEP YOUR DAMNED IGNORANT MOUTHS ZIPPED [unless you have the mental capacity to offer constructive critisism of course]. No current or former Republican candidate/office holder is obviously perfect, but they all are and will be a extremely superior political choice to lead this country than the destructively socialist Robin Hood types aka DEMOCRATS that the idiot voters of this country have been allowing to control and destoy us for decades. Get your collective heads out of your youknowwhats, please.....since IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!