-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
At the Morning Jolt (subscription required), Jim Geraghty has some very wise things to say. I hope Jim will like it, rather than resent it, that I quote him at such great length. Well worth reading:I wonder if the process of preferring a candidate inherently blinds one to that candidate’s flaws…
As the Philosopher Ice Cube Said, ‘Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself’
Representative government - and life, in fact - require a certain ability to see hard truths, mistakes, things that don’t turn out the way you wanted. I’m starting to wonder if that quality is much rarer than I thought.
It’s a Republican presidential primary. Of course it’s going to be hard-fought. But this cycle seems to be getting ever-more depressing, as I seem to keep encountering folks who respond to new bits of news unfavorable to their guy by reflexively adjusting all of their other views to preserve their pre-conceived notion that their guy is The Man.
I’m sure that you can think of some folks who you would put in this category. My readers who prefer Newt are probably tossing me in that category, too (read on, frustrated Newt fans, read on).
For example, if you read then-Rep., now-Sen. Tom Coburn’s account of Newt’s time as Speaker, painting him as an egomaniacal leader threatened by dissent and willing to quickly go back on the Contract pledges in pursuit of power, and you conclude this shows that Coburn has really been a northeastern elitist all along… well then, I can’t help you.
If you read the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll, suggesting that Gingrich has big problems with women and independents, and you conclude that the survey must be a pack of lies and that Gingrich probably would do well among those demographics, well… you can find the same phenomenon in the Rasmussen numbers (“Among women, the president leads Romney by 11 and Gingrich by 22.”) or CNN (18 point spread between Obama and Gingrich). If you think all of the polls are fudged because somebody’s out to get your guy… well, you turn into Christine O’Donnell that way. (If you’ll recall, her campaign suggested that Scott Rasmussen was altering the results of his polls to make her appear to be a weaker candidate than she was, to avoid the “long tentacles” of the Republican National Committee.)
If you can’t read any anecdote or account of your preferred guy, and conclude, “yeah, he was in the wrong there,” or “yeah, that’s going to be a challenging weakness to overcome…” well then, when you read or listen to or watch the news, you’re not really trying to learn new information about what’s going on. You’re really just looking for more anecdotes and evidence to reconfirm what you already believe and know. (Confirmation bias, they call it.)
We all probably do this to some extent, but no matter how much you may believe that your guy rocks, the day will come when he doesn’t rock. I thought what separated us from the “O-BA-MA” chanting cult of personality on the other side was that we didn’t need to see our presidential candidates in messianic terms. For all the hoopla and the fancy plane and the band playing “hail to the chief,” presidents are guys (and someday, gals) we hire to do a job under a four-year contract with a possibility of a four-year extension. Hopefully they make enough of the big calls right.
Alas, I think it is much rarer than Jim thought.
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/30/yeah-what-geraghty-said
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
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.12 @ 11:21AM
Right back atcha, Quin.
See, I'm just smarter, older, and more accomplished than you . You should pay close attention when I drop in here.
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:16PM
Jim IS fun to read. The subscription is free.
But, fundamentally: I like Rick best of all, followed by Newt, followed by Mitt, who I would vote for against Obama because he is just a better man. But c'mon, guys, all THREE are better than the ObamANATION on the throne.
I have this tiny idea: why don't the Republican candidates compete by showing us which one would be more savage against Obama by BEING savage against Obama, as opposed to each other. End the negative campaigning against each other and just go full blast on Obama, stating in each ad:
"I would be the best candidate to take on Obama in the fall. Here are my arguments against a second term---"
as it is now, they attack each other and Obama attacks them, and it is just free oppo research for the Dhimmicrats.
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 8:13PM
OT,
I rarely ever disagree. I have to now. Mitt IS Obama. He has taken over the RNC and is actively, through his surrogates, removing the TEA stain from his new Establishment Party Power Play thing.
I vote for Mittens is a vote for more taxes, lots more. (His first cave will be the "Deficit Commision Recommendation, not Paul Ryan's budget.) He will not repeal ObamneyCare. He won't stand up to the increasing power of the Democrats in Congress, and he sure won't stand up to their Propaganda attacks.
Romney's promises are written on rice paper and he has his BIC flicked ready to burn them as soon as it is practical to do so.
My first choice was Perry, that didn't pan out so well, did it? My second choice was Cain; gone in a flurry of filth! My third choice is Santorum, but he's still stuck in his high school locker. So I am left with Newt. My first two choices have already endorsed him, and Cain is campaigning for him.
This is not about Obummer anymore. It's about the survival of the Republican Party as any sort of alternative to the Democrat Party. If Mittens is nominated, and loses, the GOP ends in 2012. If Mittens is nominated and he wins (and it will make the 2000 election look simple and gracious) I give the GOP another two years. Mitt will immediately fail to do anything that he supposedly promised, and the party will fracture on a very poor showing in the 2014 Congressional elections.
I'd rather have Obummer at the wheel, gunning the engine as the hooptie hits the ground. (It went off the cliff in 2006.) A new Federalist Party will have to pick up the pieces and start again.
I will not be played for a fool again. I will not be treated as a helot by self-appointed masters.
Mittens = Obummer
r/TMF
Ed| 1.30.12 @ 11:39AM
What is the columnist talking about? Is he talking about his obsession, Gingrich, or his own flawed viewing of Romney? I'm sure I will vote for Romney if he gets the nod, even knowing he has no conservative accomplishment in his life, just to get rid of the Destroyer. I did enjoy the little dig at the Tea Party, which gave the Republicans the House and the increase in numbers in the Senate. Please continue to insult them.
Clint| 1.30.12 @ 11:46AM
Actually, We're Throwin' Rocks At The RINO-CINO Candidates.
This Is McCain Redux.
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 11:53AM
I see it. And like this is anything different that I haven't seen in politics or business over the past 30 years.
Newt's got an ego. Wow! Who'd have thunk it? Damning, isn't it?
Coburn blew his credibility with me when he dropped in on the Grand Excuse to Raise Lots of Lovely Tax Money Commission... Who said Heroine was the most addictive substance on Earth?
I really don't care to "appeal" to Liberals, since Liberals aren't going to vote for a Republican in the election, they'll just tell us how lovely we are for nominating a cross dressed Liberal Democrat, and then vote for Mr. Mom Jeans himself. The Establishment gets suckered every time.
A word to the wise:
If you give your child the following advice:
"Abstinence is the absolute best protection against bad psychological entanglements, out of wedlock pregnancy, and the threat of STD's; BUT if you do the nasty, use birth control."
You can be absolutely sure of one thing. You have given your child carte blanche to have a real need to visit the "adult" section of the drug store.
Willard Milton Romney is a Liberal Democrat. Why on Earth would I vote for a Liberal Democrat when I have the choice of voting for a real Republican even if he has serious warts?
Gee, we should have just nominated Hillary and REALLY appealed to the so-called-independents and "moderates". And she is actually more conservative than the Mittster on many issues.
Forget that.
If Romney gets the GOP nod... I nod off for November. Not pulling the lever or pushing the button for him. Ever...
I am not a Helot!
r/TMF
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 11:55AM
that's heroin... smack... hard drugs... opiates... not brave women... what a difference an 'e' makes.
:-/
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 2:50PM
I agree with you 100% about Romney. That's why I find it hard to believe you would vote for another, "liberal Democrat." If you vote for Gingrich, you are one of the, "liberal Democrats," you claim to hate. Gingrich was a Rockefeller Republican who only veered farther to the left later.
I won't pull the lever for either man.
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 8:26PM
Gingrich talks a lot. He thinks out loud. He plays with odd out of the ball park ideas. He considers other opinions. He has been out of electoral and political power for 12 years. What he did in those 12 years had no influence or import to anyone other than himself.
Your view of Newt is um (I'll be nice... flawed). Newt Gingrich is absolutely a Conservative. His entire elective office record is as a GOVERNING Conservative.
The most conservative congressional years in the last half Century were 1994-1999, led by none other than Speaker of the House, Newton LeRoy Gingrich.
The budgets of the late '9o's were balanced by CONGRESS. The President has no power to spend money. Welfare reform, House rules reform (and a massive change in the Seniority system that laymen aren't even aware of - part of what got Newt in trouble with the Establishment BTW.)
Newt Gingrich was NOT part of the Establishment. He was a "Young Turk" with Jack Kemp in the '80's. The smears are coming from people who did not like Newt, because well.. Newt stood for something and that something was often controversial and difficult to execute. The Establishment hates controversy. It loves slipping silently past the notice of the crowd, to sup quietly at the table scraps given by the Establishment Democrats.
It is your choice as to whom to vote for or against. I just want to set the record straight.
r/TMF
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 8:32PM
BTW: I live in Virginia, and therefore have no choice in the contest. It's Romney or nobody (Paul isn't a choice, he's a dangerous isolationist lunatic.)
If the ballot had been properly configured, I'd have gone to my polling place and voted for Santorum.
I just figure that Rick Santorum won't get out of his gym locker before the election.
r/TMF
Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 4:02PM
If we claim to be patriots, we must swallow our bile and vote for Anybody But Obama.
teflon93| 1.30.12 @ 12:16PM
If you criticize Gingrich for the same things Mitt Romney has done only Mitt's been worse, you just may be a member of the GOP Establishment.
Now somebody tell Quin Rick Santorum's in the race. He's too busy reading Jennifer Rubin to notice.
Jeff Perren| 1.30.12 @ 2:30PM
Are you serious? Mr. Hillyer has said repeatedly that he prefers neither Romney nor Gingrich, and has almost as often said he prefers Santorum. (He's also written several articles highlighting what he believes are Santorum's virtues.)
Even more important, the idea that Hillyer is unable to think for himself and simply mindlessly gobbles whatever Jennifer Rubin writes is contrary to the most obvious evidence.
I despise Romney in every way - holding, contrary to most, that he's not only a weaker candidate but fundamentally immoral in those ways many think are his virtues. Nevertheless, it seems comments like this tend to prove Geraghty's point.
Why in hell can't Hillyer disagree with people without being charged with positions clearly contrary to the evidence?
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 8:06AM
Go back over Hillyer's posts and articles and count those critical of Romney and praising Santorum. Then count those critical of Gingrich.
Be sure and tell us what you find, because those of us who read this site daily already know.
Hillyer has to be dragged to criticize Romney but no force on Earth can stop him from inveighing against Gingrich.
The effect is no different from that sought by the Establishment hacks.
Jeff Perren| 1.31.12 @ 5:18PM
Like you, I read the site daily.
Your point is well taken; Hillyer is openly disdainful of Gingrich and has stated his reasons - with which I agree but weight very differently than he. I also disagree with him (and most conservatives) about Romney's character, which I judge to be very bad in almost every way.
I think my points still stand. Hillyer isn't following marching orders from Rubin or anyone else. He honestly believes that Gingrich would be a terrible candidate in the general. I agree, but hold he would be better than Romney in many ways, and a much better President in terms of the long-term health of the country.
Sadly, that's saying very little since Gingrich would be merely bad to Romney's truly horrible. (The latter, I believe, would cement all the Progressive gains of the past 25 years.)
Thank you for your reply; I read your comments often on NRO and generally agree with you. This time, I don't.
Respectfully,
Jeff Perren
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 7:44PM
Thanks Jeff and I do see your point.
This has been a longstanding drama with Quin; his Strange New Respect and considerable blindspot when it comes to Establishment apparatchiks like Rubin and the NRO crowd combined with his scorched earth campaign against Gingrich and very sporadic criticism of Romney---who to your point is even less of a conservative than Gingrich---just raises my cynical radar. Quin is a nice fellow and no doubt great to hoist a beer with; I think he's completely oblivious to why conservatives are so angry at the Establishment cramming another RINO down our throat and how much of Gingrich's support stems from this.
I won't vote for either Gingrich or Romney; I'm at a loss to explain why Quin reserves so little energy for recommending Santorum as an alternative to both. I'll address your links below.
While we disagree, you put forth a valid argument and support it with evidence---that is a good deal more persuasive than Quin is when he's in high dudgeon over his bete noire.
Mike| 1.30.12 @ 2:51PM
It's debatable who is worse Romney or Gingrich. They both are terrible.
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 8:07AM
Then where is Hillyer's support for Santorum?
Jeff Perren| 1.31.12 @ 5:21PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....in-hillyer
http://web2.nationalreview.com.....in-hillyer
The result of a five second Google search. I could find several more.
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 7:50PM
The first is from Nov 9th, the second Jan 16th. The latter is about one point in a debate which I trust you'll concede doesn't begin to balance the scales re: Quin's criticism of Gingrich and lack of sustained criticism of Romney.
I didn't recommend counting his posts/articles out of flippancy; I've done it and the dichotomy is striking. When you look at the timeline, you see he's very quiet about Santorum, gets roused about Romney basically after so many point out the one-sided nature of his criticism of Gingrich, and otherwise acts as if this is the Anybody But Gingrich primary.
Meanwhile, conservative pundits act as though Santorum had dropped out of the race last year.
In your opinion, given Romney and Gingrich's records, should we expect conservative opinion writers to compare and contrast them with Santorum?
Should Santorum be the rallying point for conservatives at this stage of the race? If not, why not?
Jeff Perren| 1.31.12 @ 9:34PM
Valid points but we're moving far afield from my original assertion. No matter.
I do agree that most conservative pundits have generally given Romney a pass. Theories about why could be multiplied at length; I couldn't say in Mr. Hillyer's case, whom I know to be a man of honesty and integrity.
In many other cases it's because Romney is, like them, a moderate and a Pragmatist, i.e. a man nearly devoid of any principles who therefore splits the difference on any issue. (Gingrich, sadly, isn't much different in fact, except at least he talks the talk, which could be useful.)
As to whether they should be comparing and/or contrasting Gingrich and Romney with Santorum, I don't have a strong opinion. In my view, like Huckabee, Santorum is the only candidate who could actually make me *for* Barack Obama, a man I regard as evil incarnate, the reincarnation of Mussolini with slightly better manners. (Obama, no Santorum.)
Santorum has every vice imaginable in a U.S. Presidential candidate - a love of government-enforced morality, a poor record on limited government, and a taste for theocracy - with too few of the virtues.
Your milage may vary, reasonably enough given that no one decent - from a moral or practical perspective - is now running.
When Perry faded, I gave up all hope on this race having even a chance of producing any positives. For me, therefore, concentrating on gaining a conservative majority in the Senate is now paramount since it's our last chance to avoid a permanent social democracy (or worse).
Thank you for the respectful reply.
Sincerely,
Jeff
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 10:01PM
Well, surely you'll concede that moderates are by definition not conservatives, right?
You don't sound like a social conservative, which makes dudgeon about Gingrich a bit odd since Romney certainly lives a more palatable life to social conservatives although he governed as a liberal.
Santorum has a lifetime ACU rating of 88, which is a very solid record for a senator, and his deviations have been where he supported the Republican Party Establishment to his own poltical detriment. An error in judgment, I think, but nowhere near as serious as Newt embracing that global warming hoax with Crazy Eyes Pelosi or endorsing Dede Scozzafava and going out of his way to insult conservatives in the process. But that pales in comparison to implementing socialized medicine, gay marriage, and taxpayer-funded abortion, as Romney did. All of which, not incidentally, are examples of "government-enforced morality", no?
Santorum is certainly a lightning rod for social liberals---he is utterly despised by the homosexual activists, for example. His position on gay marriage isn't different from Barack Obama's---but everyone knows Obama is lying and Santorum truly does oppose it.
Obama and Romney have through socialized medicine really done a number on religious freedom---the Catholic Church is rising in response to their intolerance of time-honored conscience clauses which protect the 1/6th of the American hospital system which is run by the Church. This again is the government enforcing morality at the point of a gun---and goes far beyond anything Santorum has sought to do.
Putting social issues aside---and when have conservsative not been willing to abandon those?---the number one issue in most conservative voters' minds is the economy and the government's interference in it. Santorum alone opposed TARP; Santorum alone opposed cap and trade, which is the biggest jobs killer of our time, Santorum alone has consistently opposed socialized medicine in its various forms (the only blot being his backing Bush on the prescription drug program). Even Perry had his problems here with the HPV vaccine kerfuffle---and I would have gladly supported Perry nonetheless.
Why Quin doesn't trumpet these things I don't know---I presume he'd say he favors Santorum in these areas but he doesn't spend much time explaining so.
I didn't support Huckabee last time because I thought---and think---he's a big phony. I supported Thompson but we all saw how that went.
Point remaining, there is precisely one full conservative left. It doesn't make much sense to me to savage Gingrich to Romney's benefit while maintaining an odd silence about that candidate if you're a conservative.
I could never in good conscience vote FOR Obama---I even voted McCain last time around to prevent him getting in but I'm not voting for Romney----far more liberal than McCain---or Gingrich, who simply cannot be trusted---this time around.
The reason is we either get somebody who will turn the country around completely or we're all going to watch America become Lichtenstein regardless of who's in control of the government.
I'd even vote Paul were we not looking down the barrel of a nuclear Iran.
Jeff Perren| 1.31.12 @ 11:32PM
You make several points that carry serious weight; I'll give them some more thought and respond if I have anything worthwhile to say.
Thank you again.
Jeff
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 8:39AM
I'll look forward to it and appreciate your perspective.
And personally I can't stand sweater vests.
Controse| 1.30.12 @ 1:05PM
This is just another version of post-SC primary quote from Ann Coulter [paraphrased] "South Carolina voters are sooooo stupid not to vote for Romney." Mr. Quinn lets play a word association game. Be a sport and answer reflexively and honestly when I say Romney which of these two words to you immediately think of 1) limp 2) erect.
Please respond so we will all know how you did.
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:22PM
Controse: your comments remind me of a concert the Divine Miss M did in Chicago many, many years ago, when I was a teenager. She was talking about why Michael Bilandic was having a rough time running against Jane Byrne. She said it could be found in his name: "Bland Dick."
Mitt is limp. But I don't think he will buck the Republican House and Senate to defend Dhimmicrats.
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 9:19PM
He'll cave in faster than a dry sand hole at the beach...
I'd bet you a Happy Meal on it, but they'll be banned, and Mitt won't lift a finger to change it.
;-)
Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 1:12PM
Okay Quin, how many somersaults have you done in supporting your man Romney?
Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 4:04PM
Quin favors Santorum, as any true conservative should.
Santorum's ratings during his sixteen years in Congress:
American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%
Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 5:09PM
Low in polls and no leadership experience: defeats all the percentages.
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:22PM
I do like Santorum best, though.
Ward Bond| 1.31.12 @ 12:15AM
Occam, I also like Santorum best.I, like you, reside in Mn. and will support him here.I have real doubts about Romney's ability to defeat obama and Newt seems to have everybody and his uncle against him. I think Santorum's character runs deep and never discount that. Ronald Reagan was not only a great president but a good man.He had a faith in God and a sense of decentcy that he could draw on when the chips were down.I want and expect that in our leader.Rick might not be flashy and he might not be perfect but he's solid. We're going to need solid if we're going to keep this thing from going over the cliff. I'd vote for my dog over obama but I like Rick.
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 7:55PM
Quin does say he supports Santorum and I take him at his word.
He doesn't spend very much time talking about Santorum though, especially as compared to slamming Gingrich, which has led many of us to think he's supporting Romney. How hard is it to point out how Santorum is superior to Gingrich while savaging the latter?
When I argue against Romney, I often if not always point out I won't vote for Gingrich and support Santorum. You almost have to given that some MittBot always responds by attacking Gingrich.
I don't think either compares favorably to Santorum on any matter of importance to conservatives---so how hard can it be to point this out?
c. j. acworth| 1.30.12 @ 1:30PM
This is where I have an advantage. I voted for Perry in NH. he's out, so I don't have to make excuses for or turn a blind eye to the flaws of any of the remainders. I know that there will be only two possible outcomes in Nov. Either the Republican wins, and I'm in for four years of dissapointment, or Obama wins and I start stocking up on ammo and canned food.
albert constantine jr| 1.30.12 @ 3:10PM
Its a bit late to start, get on it now, and don't forget the bottled water.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.12 @ 3:28PM
albert,
actually...one does not need bottled water. Water out of a ditch, (or your roof), can be purified with four drops per gallon with ordinary bleach...sit for an hour to kill the various bugs.
One reason you should buy my book:
www.americaalonesaidno.com
Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 4:07PM
Or buy a real conservative's books, without any partisan propaganda.
http://www.smashwords.com/book.....ery=alanye
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.12 @ 5:47PM
Dai,
you have not bought my book yet...have you?
...you cheap bottom feeder...have you?
Thank goodness several dozen thousand folks have.
www.americaalonesaidno.com
Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 7:23PM
Why not both? I hate to see nice guys fight each other.
Margie| 1.30.12 @ 9:34PM
Nice guys?
Ken isn't a nice guy, he's a liar.
An unrepentant lying scumbag.
PCP Smoker| 1.30.12 @ 9:52PM
Why don't you two have your homosexual lover's quarrel somewhere else. What the fuck is this bullshit?
Oldefarte| 1.30.12 @ 10:03PM
Truthfully I haven't decided yet [though I'll support any Republican chosen as the nominee against the DOMESTIC TERRORISTS now in control]. However, it makes obvious sense to me what I'm reading concerning so-called ESTABLISHMENT attacks upon Newt. When you have Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Bill McCollum etc speaking out on his behalf, it's a pretty powerful and convincing message. Rush today indicated the theory that Romney's vicious attacks upon Ginguich would cease and decist against Obama [if Mitt were to be the nominee]. As I have said many times here, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! To me the only desired result is to defeat Obama/Democrats in November; and I purposely want a nominee that will go after them hook, line and sinker [and not pull a McCain or Hillary of political correctness while losing]. Newt to me is the only one capable of doing this, and the rest show no confined rage concerning this Obama/Democrat problem [and I cannot see anyone of them going toe-to-toe viciously in debates or the general campaign against them. Mitt talks about his business experience, Santorum talks about abortion prevention, and Paul talks about the federal reserve [none focus on the goal of defeating Obama/Democrats]. More so each day, I'm coming to the conclusion that it has to be Newt Ginguich only!!!!
John - TMF| 1.30.12 @ 11:42PM
Look I keep after this because it is really critical.
Maybe it's because I don't subscribe to the "brilliant genius" measurement of Obozo. Here is where I am coming from, and this has been my position since the Spring of 2008 when I gave OBoingo a really hard "know your enemy" look. I came to the conclusion that Barry OZero is an empty suit. He is a sock puppet who is a "party" creature, and by that I mean, he's down for the party...
Obummer loves his servants, big jet, his chef made dinners, his Wednesday date night on the tax payer. He's up for a good time a the toniest Country Clubs for more than a few rounds of golf, and great vaca's at the rate of four or five a year.
Barry Oblipper is not what is dangerous. He's a player and a tool, nothing more.
The problem is the unholy alliance between Big Money Wall Street Fed Eastern Establishment and the Unions. Big business LOVES UNIONS! They don't have to work to keep employees happy, they don't have to worry about health or retirement, they don't even need to deal with disciplinary problems... The Union handles it, and all that need be done is pay the union bosses good money and give them access to all of the "Big Business" pirques. The grand opposition is a grand LIE.
The political calculation for the Establishment (both Democrat and Republican) -- they go to the same parties, marry each other, belong to the same country clubs -- is that if Obozo beats Romney then they the Establishment has their sockpuppet in place for four more years of running his mouth while they run things the way that they like them.
If Mittens wins, well, Mittens plays great golf at great clubs, too. Mittens is easily rolled, and will more often than not do exactly what his Goldman Sachs, Citi-Group buddies tell him that they need done. The one thing that he will not be allowed to do is to mess with the status quo.
That means... lots of cheap money from the Fed, lots of "too big to fail" bailouts when they line their pockets too much and take too much risk, and most of all.
Who do you think pushes all of these idiotic EPA rules? Big Businesses with vested interests in the EPA raising the cost of doing business past where their competitors can make a profit.
Either way the Establishment gets what they want. Access to tons of money for them to line their pockets, feather their beds, and fund their lavish lifestyles. Fascism is good for business, and Mitt won't tip over the trough.
Newt probably will, if only by tripping over it.. but the Establishment cannot afford a Newt Presidency.
There will be no difference between Willard and Obummer. Same power structure, same backers, same puppet masters. The only small difference is that when the economy finally goes completely to hell, if Romney is the driver of the hooptie, the Conservatives will get the blame.
Gingrich or Bust.
-- The Mighty Fahvaag
NVA Patriot| 1.31.12 @ 8:32AM
There is only one living Republican leader who has cut the budget and reduced Federal Spending
Newt Gingrich.
We need that sort of leader; as the Patriot said in the movie to his son about that sort of men, "That's exactly the sort of men we need...they've fought this war before."
Margie| 1.31.12 @ 1:14PM
Too bad we couldn't combine Santorum's moral compass with Newt's ability to kill and destroy (so to speak)~ the Left and it's destructive policies.
teflon93| 1.31.12 @ 8:02PM
The support for Gingrich is mainly because he fights and we need somebody who will fight.
Santorum is a three-legged stool conservative whose baggage stems from not fighting his own party establishment on its long march leftward. I hope he learned his lesson from supporting Specter over Toomey and Bush over conservative principles---but I'm not certain he has.
If Gingrich succeeds in killing Romney's nomination, it will be a fine coda to his earlier service to the conservative cause with the Contract with America and with killing Hillarycare.
But if Rick Santorum wants to be president, he needs to stop being deferential to the GOP Establishment and stand with Tea Party conservatives.
He will have to choose between the Ruling Class and the GOP base.