-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Newt Gingrich told CNN tonight that he wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul even if the Republican Party nominated his former House colleague for president. Gingrich doesn’t see a Paul nomination happening, however.
“I think Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American,” Gingrich said on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”
Gingrich continued: “He’s got to come up with some very straight answers to get somebody to take him seriously. Would I be willing to listen to him? Sure. I think the choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would be a very bad choice for America.”
Gingrich’s poll numbers in Iowa have been driven down, in part by a series of Paul ads attacking the ex-speaker of the House. Gingrich said Paul’s “ads are about as accurate as his newsletter.” Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton shot back:
“Frustration from his floundering campaign has Newt Gingrich showing who he really is: a divisive, big-government liberal,” Paul Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said. “Newt has a long record of standing against conservatives dating back to his support for liberal Nelson Rockefeller over Barry Goldwater, so this sort of childish outburst is nothing new.”
The gloves are coming off in Iowa.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/27/and-the-gloves-come-off
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
Sean| 12.27.11 @ 10:49PM
Newt also refused to rule out a third party run. I got news for Newt. His support for individual mandates, global warming, and Tarp to name a few makes him a liberal that most people I know will not ever vote for. Newt's political career is over.
Diogenes| 12.28.11 @ 1:48AM
You have that backwards. Paul is the one who keeps saying he's 'not planning on' running third party but refuses to say he'll support the eventual nominee. Newt has consistently said he'd support whoever was nominated and that any of the GOP candidates (Dr. Demento is of course neither a genuine Republican or an actual candidate) can beat Obama.
Jack| 12.28.11 @ 7:15AM
Gingrich is about to slither back to the hole he crawled out of. He and his so called wife are about to take another lavish cruise as his campaign sinks slowly into the sunset. If there was ever reason to destroy the Republican party is is people like Romney, the Bush's, Gingrich and the Neocons. They have been wrong for decades and are hated by most of the American population. If Gingrich somehow got the nomination, a third party would get more votes then he would.
It is Ron Paul or ruin. We are going to take back the Republican Party or we will replace it.
Dai Alanye | 12.28.11 @ 12:43PM
The biggest problem with a Paul nomination (not that it's likely) is the damage to Republicans running for Congress.
Jay| 12.27.11 @ 10:52PM
...and yet this guy named Ron Paul; who is “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American,” is still regularly and decisively beating Gingrich in the Polls, is poised to beat him in Iowa, and is tied with him in New Hampshire.
What does that say about how "decent Americans" regard Gingrich?
Diogenes| 12.28.11 @ 1:50AM
The same Iowa that helped elect Mike Huckleberry and Pat Buchanan president? I says pretty much nothing.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 11:24PM
Mr.Neutered, The Chickenhawk Pillsbury DoughBoy Is A RINO-CINO Serial Traitor To Conservatism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Chickenhawk RINO-CINO Serial Traitor To Conservatism, Mr.Neutered Pillsbury DoughBoy.
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 10:39AM
Paul has talked pretty, but done jack in the House. Newt destroyed Hillarycare, balanced the budget, and did Welfare reform.
The difference between a twerp and a man. (By the way, his novels are also great fun.)
Quartermaster| 12.28.11 @ 7:14PM
Newts Coauthor did much of the heavy lifting on those novels.
Jeff Goff| 12.27.11 @ 11:25PM
12 Ron Paul inconsistencies. He is truly not the consistent one. http://bit.ly/tWRSqE
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 12:03AM
Do Your Homework.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."
Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 12:10AM
Do Your Homework.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs.
But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
sickofrinos| 12.28.11 @ 5:26AM
Paul running this country would be like having Tim Conway run Mchales navy. With the paul turds making no sense to true conservatives, keep reloading folks as this crap is about to hit the fan.
West\Scott 2012
sickofrinos| 12.28.11 @ 6:11AM
Paul wants to keep us safe with bongs and zig-zag papers. Try putting up one of your signs on my property. Pretty Please. Maybe you have smoked too much G-13.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 7:30AM
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."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 10:37AM
In 1976. Before he backstabbed Reagan. When the enemy was the commies, not the Islamofascists.
Paul is worthless. Like his son.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 11:40AM
Do Your Homework, Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Tool Job.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs.
But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
martin j smith| 12.28.11 @ 7:40AM
Why is Gingrich not slugging it out with the real person of interest Mitt Romney. This "oversite" makes me wonder about Gingrich.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:14AM
Didn't you notice how BACHMANN went after who?
Not Romney!
But Gingrich!
There's a reason that Romney has always used surrogates to go after his opponents, that allows him to retain this image of this decent, upstanding family man.
All the while, like some little sneak, he launches these attacks against his opponents. It's all very feminine, very passive/aggressive. Romney campaigns like a schoolgirl in high school, by trying to get her friends to destroy the reputation of the person she wants destroyed.
It's not how a man would campaign.
Which is the point that Gingrich was trying to make when he and Romney had that little tet-a-tet about Jerusalem being the home of America's embassy in Israel.
But Bachmann's role, and rest assured that was not uncoordinated with the Romney campaign, has been sinister.
First she went after Pawlenty.
Then Perry.
She held fire on Cain because Cain's presence in the race helped to disperse all the non-Romney vote.
But with Gingrich really surging and time running out in Iowa, Bachmann tore off after Gingrich like some wildeyed pitt bull, falsehoods after falsehoods did she hurl against him at that debate, when it was so important for Gingrich to square off against Romney, NOT Bachmann.
And Bachmann being a woman, it was twice as difficult for a man like Gingrich to respond, for if he did, he would immediately be accused of being condescending and patronizing.
It was all planned out.
And I know by who, I know the locale of that stratagem.
Omni| 12.28.11 @ 10:54AM
Dan, very interesting. I'll have to chew on what you write here. It could be......
Meanwhile, please go over to the article that Robert Stacy McCain wrote and read down into the reader comments. There you will see what (I believe) the Romney team might be attempting to pull off in Virginia for the primary voting date in March.
Right now Virginia GOP voters ONLY have Ron Paul and Mitt Romney's name on the Virginia primary day ballot. Please go over to see my comments.
Thanks.
Virginia Commonwealth citizens are being screwed royally.
And the surrogate fighters for Romney in Virginia are: None other than the state governor and lt. gov. (my hunches) I believe that Mitt has told Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell that McDonnell is his top choice for VP. Lt. Governor Bill Bolling salivates at this because this will elevate him to governor for a year (during which time he'll be able to use the office of the governor to campaign to win his own 4-year governorship)
See how this works?
Romney wins his big, big backers via under the table promises. And then they go do the dirty work on his behalf permitting the facade of Romney's above-the-fray "presidentialism."
Would you agree, Dan?
We bemoan the alleged Obama lackeys and their "Chicago-style politics." Oh? Seems like these are also done in the Grand Old Party. The Potemkin campaign of 2011-12 for the White House with all the long knives out -- all the time.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 11:12AM
The real movement in favour of Romney, by the establishment, was their effort to keep other Governors from jumping in the race, by telling them that all the money was already sewn up, and was behind Romney.
Now Perry, in Texas, was impervious to that type of threat, because in Texas, he had enough finances to back him. And that independent financing is a good chunk of the animosity that the Bush clan have for Perry. Perry didn't need to go courting the Bush family, and the Bush connections for financing.
But yea, the effort in VA is huge, and all done to disadvantage Gingrich, though it also disadvantages anybody who hadn't run four years ago.
As for the "presidentialism" that Romney affects, that's key to his style, which has such an impact on some like Jen Rubin for instance.
But it's all coordinated, he acts unruffled and above it all, while others get real dirty on his behalf.
There's a reason that all of the other contenders four years ago were united in their detestation of Romney. And it wasn't unexpected that Giuliani would come out effectively in favour of Gingrich and against Romney.
Nobody who really knows how Romney maneuvers like a little sneak would be out there extolling his wonderful "family values."
He's a trip............
Omni| 12.28.11 @ 11:36AM
Dan, you seem a keen observer of all these things. Good for you! I am so tired of people who don't enjoy thinking about thinking.
This world and our lives (so much of them) are maniuplated. It is daft to think otherwise.
To underscore this -- as I am learning in Virginia -- Write-In names for a primary vote date are NOT permitted. Under no circumstances. If a name does not appear on the (now mostly electronic) ballot, no other name(s) can be chosen.
Quin Hillyer was posting several stories about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal possibly reconsiderting (or his supporters wishing he would) Well, swell. I'm not for or against Bobby Jindal. But the SYSTEM is. If Bobby Jindal were to do breaking news and announce today, well, nifty keen. But it wouldn't matter. He wouldn't be able to be on ballots in states like Virginia so the REAL PEOPLE can decide for themselves.
Ditto if Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, or Jim DeMint were to say, "That's it, I too am totally frustrated with a loser field; I'm in!"
Wouldn't matter although we are still over 10 months from the real decider day November 7, 2012.
And this is 'government of the people, by the people for the people?'
Ha! We're a ______ banana republic just slightly north of most of them in Latin America. We're no better at all than those flop houses masquerading as societies and nations.
Yes, this Virginia primary day fiasco has be t-ed off completely. Do you sense this? Good! It should make every Declaration of Independence and Constitution loving American livid. (please read the Red State web site link I have posted over in the reader comments under today's Robert Stacy McCain article. The Red State writer shares VERY, VERY arcane Virginia signature list to get on ballot rules)
And American Spectator staff writers stay eerily silent on this Virginia primary day buffoonery although easily a dozen of them are Virginia residents. What gives?
MikeG| 12.28.11 @ 4:19PM
Dan
Who is the brains or leader behind this conspiracy to nominate Romney?
Imissbuckley| 12.28.11 @ 4:34PM
"I believe that Mitt has told Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell that McDonnell is his top choice for VP."
If that's the case then I will bust out laughing when he screws him over and picks Rubio instead.
Dai Alanye | 12.28.11 @ 12:47PM
Bachmann has gone after everyone (including Romney) except Herman, and he isn't a suitable target any more. Her latest shots have been at Santorum, since he now threatens her in Iowa. She must be quite a nagger at home.
David W| 12.28.11 @ 8:37AM
"Ron Paul has my full support as presidential candidate. I will do all I can to ensure he is the Republican nominee."
This is what every person (including the MSM) who supports Barack Obama is saying. If Paul is the nominee Obama is guaranteed to win. Period. There isn't enough "anyone but Obama" sentiment to get over wackadoodle's background and position statements (sure, some of what he says is okay, but taken together no way). And I doubt that the Tea Party supports Paul that much.
Yes, I am disappointed that Mittens and Newt as well as Paul are so high in the "polls". It's a shame that Bachmann and Perry can't team up. I think they are true conservatives (without the Ron Paul wackiness), at least compared to Mitt/Newt.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 1:47PM
" Poll: Ron Paul pommels Romney, Gingrich in Iowa
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, pommeled former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a Public Policy Polling poll of likely Iowa GOP caucusgoers released Tuesday. Mr. Paul won the Iowa PPP poll with 24 percent of the votes. Mr. Romney pulled in 20 percent of the votes and Mr. Gingrich garnered 13 percent of the votes."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:06AM
The gloves that need to come off are not just those on Gingrich.
The gloves that need to come off are those on the rank and the file.
And they need to come off against this despicable establishment that seeks to strangle the very life out of us and our country.
We need a showdown with that establishment, and we need it right now.
That establishment is setting America on a course of social unrest and violent agitation, spilling out onto the streets.
They are setting this nation on a course of civil war!
"A house divided" my friends................. Such a house could not stand before, such a house will not stand now.
The visions that some hold for this country can no longer be reconciled with what America IS, with what America has always been, with what America was always meant and designed to be.
We are on a course for a showdown.
And that showdown cannot be confined to primary battle boxes, for the system is such that it RESISTS attempts by the American people to restore power where power always was meant to be.
We've seen an usurpation, particularly by our judicial overlords. It's not a coincident that Gingrich singled them out for his attentions.
And it's not any coincidence that this nauseating establishment is trying to do to Gingrich was Julius Caesar's opponents did to him, stick cold steel through him.
This is an ominous development.
And people wonder why Sarah Palin didn't jump into the race!
Take a good look at what that establishment is doing to Gingrich, and just ask yourself what that establishment would do to Sarah Palin!
How much longer can we as Americans tolerate and allow this type of "discourse" to endure?
Omni| 12.28.11 @ 11:46AM
Dan, overall I am one who despises lawyers. Frankly, I think every sane person should think likewise. So it is no surprise to me that ALL OUT WAR has been declared on Newt Gingrich for what he stated in those last two debates about placing mechanisms in place to help the citizenry remove odious judges.
The American Bar Association and lawyers in general determine most of what occurs to us in our country. Even when we are talking more bureaucratice overreach into our lives in the many areas of health care, lawywers are at the center of what is drafted, chosen to become law, and then the never-ending regulations writing (that we have no oversight on).
I am not per se a New Gingritch supporter. No. But I know for a fact that he now faces the most hostile, well-heeled, and capable foe possible: American lawyers.
It won't take Romney or anyone else to ruin Gingrich. Bar Assocation mandarins have gone into overdrive. Their lucrative lifetime fiefdoms of pay, lives of ease, rule-writing, law interpretation, choosing winners and losers, and lives of privilege have just been challenged.
That won't do.
This: This is the state of our national demise.
If a reader here likes lawyers, it is only because you might know them on a very acquaintance like social basis. Like a guy who you pass for 10 seconds every fortnight on your weekend morning jog. If you've ever been in a courtroom in America trying to stand up for your simple rights under our Bill of Rights, you know to despise them.
So ole Newt rose in my estimation quite a bit when he decided to take on this new, thorny issue. Bully for him on this.
Tom| 12.28.11 @ 6:19PM
The Paultards are in a tizzy over Newt's comments. But I support Newt 200% in this. Under NO circumstances will I EVER support Herr Doktor Nutjob to be President of the United States.
But the Paultards are totally hypocritical for protesting against the refusal of any Republican to vote for Der Kult Master if by some disaster he end up as the Republican nominee. Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in 2008. Not only that, but he did endorse FOUR other people; Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin; Libertine Party candidate Bob Barr; plus two left-wing ding-a-lings in Ralph Nader and crazy Cynthia McKinney. If he wants to endorse leftists like Nader and McKinney, then let them vote for him. TRUE patriotic American conservatives will not.
But Herr Doktor Nutjob has accomplished one astonishing miracle; he is the one name in this race who if here were to appear on the ballot, would actually compel me to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, who would be the more conservative of the candidates.
Quartermaster| 12.28.11 @ 7:20PM
Newt's comments about Paul are ridiculous and the sign of a desperate man. While I think Paul's chances are non-zero, they are pretty close to zero. Newt's chances are falling, and given how he conducted himself as Speaker I wish he would crawl back under his rock and leave us alone.
Tom| 12.29.11 @ 5:56AM
No, they are not. Newt is to be commended for his comments, because the Republican Party doesn't owe Ron Paul and his minions the time of day. They are nothing but the idiot fringe of the Party