In an intense primary battle, a lot of silly things are said. (Many of them, it turns out, are said by Sarah Palin, who seems intent on confirming every negative thing her critics have said about her.) Among them is the charge, repeated like rounds fired from a machine gun, that opposition to Newt Gingrich is based on those in the “establishment” who fear the scale of change he would bring to Washington. If you’re for Gingrich, so goes this story line, you’re for “genuine” and “fundamental” change. If you oppose Gingrich, on the other hand, you’re for “managing the decay” of America.
Except for this. The single most important idea, when it comes to fundamentally changing Washington, is the budget plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan last April. When most massive-scale-of-change conservatives were defending Ryan’s plan against scorching criticisms from the left, Gingrich described the plan as an example of “right-wing social engineering.” It was Gingrich, not the rest of us, who was counseling caution, timidity, and an unwillingness to shape (rather than follow) public opinion. (The Medicare reform plan Gingrich eventually put out wasn’t nearly as bold and far-reaching as the one put out by Governor Romney.)
So much for Mr. Fundamental Change.
The reality is that conservative/”establishment” opposition to Gingrich generally falls into three categories. One is that if he won the nomination, he would not only lose to Barack Obama, but he would sink the rest of the GOP fleet in the process. A second area of concern is that Gingrich is temperamentally unfit to be president –he’s too erratic, undisciplined, and rhetorically self-destructive. A third area of concern is the suspicion that the former House speaker is not, in fact, a terribly reliable conservative, that he is not philosophically well-grounded (see his attachment to Alvin Toffler for more).
Some of these criticisms may be appropriate and some of them may be overstated or miss the mark. But to pretend the criticisms of Gingrich — expressed in varying degrees by commentators like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Murray, Michael Gerson, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bob Tyrrell, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, Mark Steyn, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Karl Rove, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, Elliott Abrams, John Podhoretz, John Hinderaker, Jennifer Rubin, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Yuval Levin, and the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner, to say nothing of a slew of conservative members/former members of Congress who worked with Gingrich in the 1990s –are rooted in their fear of “genuine change” is simply not credible.
I understand campaigns need to create narratives that reflect well on their candidate. But the job of the rest of us is to point out, when necessary, just how ludicrous some of those narratives can be.
The assertions here may be incontestable but they fail utterly to make the case for Mitt Romney. nGovernor Romney has attacked Speaker Gingrich unfairly (as noted by Mr. Tobin, among others in an earlier post), when there have been so many opportunities to confront the Speaker with a coherent , incisive a forceful critique from the right. In the process of gaining his advantage the Governor has managed to alienate both the most enthusiastic and principled conservatives and a large number of independents making himself virtually unelectable. n nContrary to Mr. Wehner's complacent confidence (documented on this blog at great length for over 2 and 1/2 years) President Obama will be very very difficult to defeat in the fall. All the polls attest that he is getting some credit for the fact of the economic recovery rather than blame for its historic weakness and inadequacy, weakness and inadequacy directly attributable to appallingly rigid, incompetent and irresponsible nature of his policies. n nTo prevail in the fall Republicans will need a candidate in full command of the facts, skilled in rhetoric and, crucially, bold and certain in his (or her) conservative convictions. In this last, in particular, Governor Romney has shown himself grossly inadequate in the last weeks and it is this, and the imperative of finding a way to improve the Governor's performance of finding an adequate replacement that conservatives should concern themselves rather than with the many foibles of Speaker Gingrich.
In full command of the facts? That is by far the most laughable thing I've ever read. n nHow is it that a man with JD/MBA from Harvard who has saved countless companies from bankruptcy, reversed a $3B deficit in Massachusetts, saved the SLC Olympics, and earned $200M in his career…not in full command of the facts. n nRomney is brilliant…far moreso than Ronald Reagan. Romney won the last two debates hands down. You MUST be living in an alternate universe or you hate Romney for some other reason. There's a good chance that you are a democrat TROLL (usually union) roaming the conservative blogs to attack Romney. n nIf Romney is such a pitiful candidate, why did the AFL/CIO purchase$1M in ads in Florida against Romney…why is Obama and the DNC spending millions in Florida against Romney. I know why…Romney is a threat to the socialist/labor unions and their government lackeys who just need a few more years to destroy the United States.
About that "earned" $200M–judging from his cool $25 mil a year from a blind trust he claims he has nothing to do with, a good deal of that money earned itself. No doubt Romney has a well-oiled stategy to hit on a few key themes, maximizing his core competencies, and using surrogates to beat his opponents like a big bass drum (for you Floridians that would be a goggle-eyed Pinata). Let's say he wins. imo there's no certainty whether Union trolls or stalwart Tea Party conservatives would be more satisfied with his governance.
right on. good gosh, how about this guy pointing out all the liberal crap romney supports. i want somebody that will dismantle the lawless regime that is in place.
What economic recovery? What planet you on? Just because Otraitor cooks the books by not counting the unemployed that stopped getting benefits or just gave up to lower the rate does not mean these people are still not out of work. But if you are right and the country is stupid enough to reelect a man who spit in their faces for 3 years and takes endless vacations on our dime we deserve to be relegated to third world status.
"In the process of gaining his advantage the Governor has managed to alienate both the most enthusiastic and principled conservatives and a large number of independents making himself virtually unelectable." n nPoint on. n nIt's sad that the so-called "establishment" has been so disrespectful to the Conservative base in this country the past few weeks. n nThey think we gave power to THEM in 2010… n nNO, we were simply voting ANTI-OBAMA! n nNow I hear these establishment types like Coulter on the radio completely bashing not only Newt, but his SUPPORTERS. I'm thinking to myself, WTF?!?! I love my country more than anything, I'm very well informed, so stop insulting me like I'm some sort of enemy! Romney and his buddies, in my opinion have started a dirty precedent in the Republican party. n nIf Romney wins and loses the race for the WH, a new party will emerge. n nAnd if Romney wins the WH, I hope he ALWAYS knows we voted ANTI-OBAMA, not Romney.
if Romney wins the WH, I hope he's not worried about why you voted for him. I hope he's too busy repealing Obamacare, approving Keystone, restoring money to the Pentagon, firing EVERYONE at Justice, getting serious about the debt, and treating Israel, Great Britain, Hondurus, and Czechoslovakia as allies again and Iran and Syria as the enemies they are. n nall of which is why I don't care WHY you vote for him…just VOTE for him. Romney's not my dreamboat either, but he's better than the alternative, as you say.
I *hope* he repeals Obamacare as well, but I'm not so sure he will repeal it entirely. nIf it's one thing we should take from the 2008 election, it's that we should study the candidate's record. Romney started this ugly "mandate" precedent, which now all of the Romneybots are trumpeting as "states' rights". They defend it, not repudiate it. n nForcing a private citizen to enter a contract with another private entity as a condition of breathing is clearly not constitutional. Not only is it not constitutional, but it sets a dangerous standard if the SOTUS upholds its validity. They will then be able to legally argue you *SHOULD* do anything they believe necessary.
Romney supporters are acting like Obama supporters did during the 08 election. I can't believe it when they stand in front of the cameras claiming that Romney will pull the party together for the general election after the why Newt supporters are being treated. After being verbally abused for months, now I'm supposed to forget it and vote him. Well, that would be cause for divorce. I'll stay bitter if I want too, just like Newt's ex-wife, only maybe not 15 years.
I don't disagree with any of your premises but one. " finding an adequate replacement that conservatives should concern themselves rather than with the many foibles of Speaker Gingrich." nThat conservative is there under everyone's nose. Look at Santorum. Is he perfect? Uh, no. Is he steadier than Gingrich? There literally has been no one steadier and solid throughout the campaign. nSure, Romney has the money. And currently he has the lead in Florida and perhaps even across the country but no one can accuse him of being singleminded in his conservativeness. Both he and Gingrich have been all over the map. Frankly, both Romney and Gingrich have been the opposites of the same spinning coin. nThough he may not persevere, Santorum has my respect and if he makes it as far as the general election, my vote. And yes, he is very capable of standing up to rhetorical attacks that Obama will throw his way. Romney's debating positions are problematic. Certainly Gingrich could wipe the floor with Obama. But I don't trust him. And by God, this election is going to be about trust.
I think that is because Mitt is as bad if not worse a choice than Barack or Newt!!! Man I am so glad I found Ron Paul a decade ago! I knew the first moment that I'd heard him during Special Order Speeches that he was the only one in Congress, if not Washington who knows what is really wrong with our system, and had a clue as to how to fix it. When I here Mitt, Rick, Newt, and even Barack speak, I don't hear solutions, I hear reminders of the problems, new problems we hadn't been made aware of, but no plan, or vision clearly defined to solve them (unless of course they are repeating something Ron Paul had said)! Enjoy the glass of water, I'll drink straight from the tap thank you! n n-Oz
Well, since that tap will be free of pesky job killing Federal regulations, you night consider boiling that tap water before you drink it. Just sayin.
Why would I do that? If I tried it in Alabama :Louisiana,or some parts of Texas I might blow the house up due to the natural gas flowing out of the faucet! The EPA has been asleep at the wheel since Clinton left office. I think the states would have a much easier time establishing and enforcing their own regs versus relying on a body that never leaves home (DC) unless something has gone so terribly wrong that no amount of white-out or redaction could hide it! n nDon't get me wrong, every time I hear a pundit, or politician talk about "deregulation" I ask, "which regulations are you talking about"? Are you talking about the ones that make the work-place safer? Keep the soil, air and water clean(er)? The ones that make employers treat me like a human being? But I am willing to trust that the state's can find the level of regulation that works for it's constituents rather than leaving it to be micro-managed from a loftily-detached federal bureaucracy! n n-Oz
I have been visiting left-wing blogs and FB pages. These activists are thrilled at the possibility of Newt Gingrich running against Barack Obama. The president will not so subtly run as the pro-family candidate. Gingrich will lose by perhaps as much as ten percentage points.
Yer wrong. With $5 gas , we are not electing a priest, but a movement.
A paper cup will beat Obama in the fall. So long as his record appears on the paper cup. n nVote Newt.
I tend to agree that no matter who runs will win because of the general disdain toward BHO. It seems the bigger question may be what becomes of the republican party once the common foe is dethroned. Conservatives in the country are really getting tired of being thrown under the bus by the establishment republicans, who by the way appear to be remarkably complicit in the deconstruction of our strengths and freedoms. For example, will someone please show John Boehner the door out? Worthless.
I think you are being charitable there. Between Ron Paul supporters who will not support anyone else in this race, and Gingrich's "conservative, family-values" facade falling apart within 15 minutes of the beginning of the debate, Newt will hand the presidency to Barack (unless us RP write-ins beat them both) and kill any GOP members chances of being elected or re-elected! n n-Oz
Well are American voters conservative? Some are far left, others far right but probably most of them are close to the center. For that reason a highly conservative candidate would be a bad risk. Americans know that they have to balance their budget and pay off their debts. That means slashing spending to a minimum for at least one presidential term. They also know that defense expenditure needs to be increased and foreign policies more credible. All of this means sacrifices but there are limits to the pain that they will endure. For that reason Romney is probably the safest bet although he is far from ideal.
Poll after poll has shown the overall American population to be somewhat right-of-center. We get a distorted view because the media only really reports on the liberal "elite" in the big cities. n nBecause it does not fit their agenda, nor that of their masters, any news about conservatives tends to be condescending and patronizing in an ongoing effort to hide the true nature of the American people.
This is just silly. There are almost no conservatives in America. Neocons are not “conservatives.” r nr nHoward Taft was a conservative. Even Reagan, who ballooned the budget with his deficit spending, was not really a conservative.r nr nWe have forgotten what these terms mean. That is not accidental. As Orwell said, when words lose their meanings, the people lose their freedom. The words “conservative” and “liberal” long ago lost any real meaning in meaningless, vacuous American politics.
No neoconservatives are neoconservaties, hence the "neo" bit. Great, if paleo-Buchanan- Paulian conservatives think going back to Howard Taft and a tariff funded government is the bees knees they might not be traditional Burkean conservatives either. But if there are no conservatives in America than the only way to impose "conservatism" on America would be through enslavement, no?
"Defense spending needs to be increased"? The Empire is not killing enough people for you? Drones not killing enough children in Pakistan? Not enough troops in Australia? Need to invade N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba? Read Roman history as a start to see the Empire is in danger of collapse from being policeman of the world.
Australia? We are warmongering Down Under? The Empire? Tell that to the Chinese Kingdom. They will laugh laugh laugh. They know from Empire. Ask Tibet.
Then why didn't we all vote for John McCain?
Try again. Ron Paul is the only one who would do something to end the deficit-growing national defense policy (ie American Imperialism), and return our military's role to providing a strong NATIONAL DEFENSE!!! n n-Oz
Sure, a strong national defense funded with tariffs. Sounds promising. Since he thinks Lincoln was a tyrant for compelling a united Federal republic in the first place that "national" comes highly qualified. But sure, no more American imperialism. But we'll miss English. That Chinese is one hard language to master. Kiss fun with phonetics good bye.
Actually if your reference to tariffs was from one of my other posts, that's mine, not Ron Paul's. I believe other countries should be made to pay taxes to participate in our market-place. Seeing as we take in 20% of the world's consumer goods, I'd say that high a concentration of demand is too big for any other country to make up for the loss of. In light of what countries like China do to cut costs enough to out-bid US manufactures, I think making them less attractive as places to farm out labor to is the kind of thing we need to do to get jobs back here. Seeing as $200 a barrel oil would inflate the price of imported goods enough to achieve the same goal, I think my idea is ahead of the curve enough to avert a cataclysmic supply shortage here, and get us over the hump of tooling, training, etc necessary to shift manufacturing back here. The Chinese are not playing fair with us, I see no reason to play fair with them. n nAs far as a "strong national defense" goes, we have the most sophisticated, most skilled, most experienced, and best trained military fighting force ON PLANET EARTH! WTF are you so afraid of? Shifting our labor from China would also eliminate the biggest chink in our armor….US companies would quit farming out the labor for ultra-secret defense contracts to countries (like China) who are world-renown for copying the technologies they have been trusted to manufacture! (look up China, Ratheon, Lockheed-Martin, and GE just to name a few!) n n-Oz
Pete writes: "(The Medicare reform plan Gingrich eventually put out wasnt nearly as bold and far-reaching as the one put out by Governor Romney.)" n nWhat plan is he referring to?
Note well that these are not the arguments nor tone of comments that we've mostly seen being thrown at Gingrich by Romney & the career Republicans.
Please note that when you refer to career Republicans, Newt is one of them. He has spent his life as a politician or selling to the politicians. He is establishment Republican no matter how hard he tries to run from the label.
Mr Wehner – n nThe Republican establishment has done what the Democrats had little hope of doing. The establishment has elected Barak Obama for another four years! n nIf he becomes the Republican standard bearer in 2012, Mitt Romney won't have enough support of his own to defeat Barak Obama. That's undeniable. But if Romney could forge and lead a coalition of his supporters, as well as Cain, Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin's supporters, Obama wouldn't have a chance. n nBut it's too late now. Like so many establishment apologists, you, Mr Tobin, and Ms Goodman trashed Herman Cain, just as Jennifer Rubin trashed Sarah Palin a couple of years ago. You dismissed Perry, Bachman, and Santorum as inconsequential, and,until today, you've never even acknowledged Sarah Palin and the millions of people she influences. n nWhether Obama wins or loses will be of no consequence to you. For you, life will go on as usual. But millions of Americans like me will pay the butcher's bill.
Funny for a guy who won't beat Obama Mitt currently leads him 49 to 48 in the latest USAToday poll.
Mr Graves…____Disagree with you regarding the "undeniability" of those too conservative to get excited about Romney simply staying home, or worse, voting for Obama. ____It's fair to say that the base IS mobilized, but neither Romney nor Gingrich can claim credit. __The person that can… goes to work every day in the Oval office. ______
I agree. Romney will lose to Obama. 1. Half of the base (tea party) will not be enthusiastic – he desperately needs that support but won't get it. 2. He cannot win National elections. Tried in 1994 for Senate, polls indicated he was even or winning and still lost to the Democrat attack machine. 3. He is not significantly different than a plain old Dem. He talks now like a conservative, but is in fact as liberal as they come. Why vote for a Republican Liberal when one can vote for a Democrat Liberal?
You had me until Buchanan.
Newt Gingrich is a self centered, bombastic individual tempermentally unsuited to be president. I oppose him because he would not only lose to Obama but bring down many others with him. He is not even that conservative; he just talks a good game. He is big government all the way. I don't see many people who worked closely with him when he was in Congress endorsing him. n nAs for saying that anyone who opposes Newt is "establishment," what does that make middle class me and millions like me. We know he is a loser. n nHe plans to stay in this until the end, flaying Romney and spewing vitriol. n nWe would be better off saving our fire for Obama. n nThe future of the country is at stake.
Like Jonathan Tobin, Bush Republican Peter Wehner misapprehends Sarah Palin's argument and her clear words. "Rage against the machine" is the key phrase, not vote Newt. There are few, except a Bush Republican who would consider Big Government, the two faced, opportunistic Newt Gingrich to be a conservative. n nThe point was that the Republican Snobs, so much smarter and better educated than Sarah Palin, pushed another Liberal Republican onto the Republican electorate and some Republicans, foolishly, thought that they and not some Insiders should have a vote. So stupid not to defer to the superior experts. n nIt appears that Peter Wehner's partisan bias has warped what appears to be an otherwise fine mind. Partianship does that.
Then why did she say on TV if she lived in SC she would vote Newt? You really believe that's not an endorsement? She tore down Romney and praised The former Speaker as a Washington outsider. Who other than her disciples buy that? I'm sorry but the former Speaker is a ventricle in the heart of the machine.
Sarah Palin made it abundantly CLEAR, to anyone who was LISTENING (read the complete transcript), that she was interested in prolonging the Republican campaign – not endorsing a candidate.
Does there have to be a "them" for us to be a "we"? That gets old.
I'm opposed to Gingrich because we'll find out that he's bipolar or has some manic/depressive malady. I think the office of the President is not the place for him.
Well stated.
Gosh, we're back to Goldwater & people calling candidates crazy. The establishment & its complacent followers before our eyes is seeking to send the conservative revolution into the dustbin of history. As they preen about their 'sanity' & the state swells to greater tyranny.
Since Wehner's judgement has been so poor in the past — as when he saw the "Arab Spring" as a vindication of the Bush "freedom doctrine" and called for the overthrow of Mubarak, whom he referred to as "Pharoah" — I don't put a lot of stock in his opinion. n nThat said, he only compounds my skepticism by reiterating his faith in commentators, editorial writers and congress critters — over and above the will of the people. We'll see who gets the votes, which is really all that matters.
Mr. Wehner also claims that global warming is taking place. Yet more and more it appears that in the past 15 years the earth has actually cooled. Ach, the life of a pundit.
Amen Mr. Podhoretz!
So, what? Vote for Romney as he is the lesser of two evils? Well the lesser of two evils is still evil.r nr nr nI am so hoping for a brokered convention. The Democrats are stuck with their boat anchor there is no reason why the Republicans should be so encumbered.
In 2008 I tuned out the MSM, especially ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN and the NY Times. Their agenda is obvious. In 2012, I am tuning out the conservative pundits, especially Lowry, Rubin, Will (who voted for Obama), Brooks (who still has a man-crush on Obama – really, who takes this guy seriously?), Medved, Rove (Bush's main guy – the president who gave us Medicare part D, No Child Left Behind, TSA and $9 trillion debt), and others. Their agenda is also obvious. The attacks against Gingrich have been well coordinated, too much so (and I don't especially like Newt, but the "Vote for Romney if you don't want the world to end!" pundits are sickening). n. nI'll probably stay home next November and wait for the formation of a conservative third party.
But wouldn't staying home in the short run be voting for Obama?
Very good point BDZ, I agree !!!!
Bottom line, Newt is a beltway boy running as a outsider. He can't win independents and women n nand he has a history of being on wrong side of the facts. Rick S. is conservative and Newt is n na progressive big government politician who lobbied for 11 trillion unfunded medicare n npart D. How is that conservative?
Well, when your old and dependent on medications to stay healthy it might make more sense. There are probably some real fundamental dilemmas here–hard choices between competitive budgetary choices because the road gets steeper the longer you stay on it and eventually a person can't make it up the hill or cross the stream to save their lives.. Or you could just let us old folks die quietly or ekk out our days on cat food. But hey, who needs us?
The writer's assertions are laughable. Flip Flopper Romney is more conservative? Give me a break. nA Romney loss to Obama will be the end of the GOP. I now realize why I've always been an independent conservative.
In that list of commentators who despise Gingrich, you didn't mention Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. I think those two guys are more influential than anyone you mentioned above, except for maybe Ann Coulter.
I agree with this article. The Newt is unqualified to be President. End of story. But the problem is, there is almost no doubt that Romney will lose to Obama in the general election. No matter what he says he simply is not a conservative based on his record. Too many conservatives distrust him and David Axelrod and the gang will destroy him if he is the nominee.r nr nBTW, Jennifer Rubin, Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not really conservatives. They are moderate liberals who work for the WaPo and NYT/PBS and fit liberals fantasies of what a conservative “should” think.
I stopped reading this article after the second sentence. n nWhy does every journalist, pundit and blogger have to take a shot at Sarah Palin, as if it's some sort of resume enhancement amongst their equally-stupid colleagues? So tired. n nAll this tells me is that Sarah Palin is right over the target. She lives rent-free in what passes for the minds of the media. n nDon't get your panties in a wad, Peter. Incidentally, isn't "Peter Wehner" redundant? Why don't you make it easy on yourself, and just adopt the moniker "putz".
Be nice.
I'm curious why I should give a rats-ass what Coulter has to say when she has been endorsing known establishment types in the form of Romney and Christie. Add Rich Lowery to that list. n nAlso – why would I care what Krauthammer has to say when he came up with the stupidest idea ever – raise gas taxes when gas was already 4-5 dollars. n nWill should stick to his baseball card collection and shut the hell up. And Buchanan is the party's open bigot. n nQuite the collection of irrelevants you collected there.
I was listening to the "best of" Sean Hannity this weekend and I heard him bemoan the current state of debate within the Republican party. Why o' why, he wondered has the party grown to a place where opposition isn't just normal part of a broad party, but why is it that a person with whom you disagree must so quickly be painted as "evil." n nThat's seems like a pretty easy question to answer, that has been the MO for the conservative media for that last 4 years. If you don't like a policy, the person proposing it must be "evil" and "hate America." n nReap what you sow now, conservatives. It's going to be a long nasty fight to the convention.
two words, Rick Santorum.
Nancy Pelosi said that Gingrich would never be president and threatened to reveal unknown information to torpedo his run for the GOP nomination. n nNancy Pelosi told Politico that she would be thrilled to have Obama run against Romney a few days earlier. n nIf you can't connect the dots and see who the Democrats are afraid of running against, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Great article. Newt is the new Arianna.
In my never-to-be-humble opinion, the only thing that the OWS crowd has captured is the disdain of every civilized American on BOTH sides. n nThey are a bunch of noisy, smelly, anti-social self-centered misfits, nothing more. As such they will soon be forgotten.
There's only one candidate in this race that has a real plan for balancing the budget in his first term, and that's Ron Paul. The establishment can complain about him all they want, but thems the facts as they say.
I don't know much; but I know one thing for sure: NONE of these arguments, or any OTHER, for that matter, will dissuade Gingrich supporters from their goal of nominating Gingrich, and therefore committing political suicide by handing Obama another 4 years. n nI initially supported the tea party; but I had no idea the majority are evidently none too bright.
I like Newt. Newt scares the s#!t out of me. I like that he's pushing Mitt to the right a bit. I don't want Newt to be the nominee. Clear enough?
News Flash People – Being against a pseudo-conservative like the Newt-wit does not automatically mean that you are pro-Romney. Unfortunately, of the two remaining "viable" candidates left (philosophically as well as physically) in the Republican field, Romney is the lesser of two evils.
Very good take on Conservative reservations ref: Gengrich. Other objections might include that the Geeenge is an amoral, narcissistic bombasticator of the sort that woudl go unnoticed in the Democrat party but would not be well respected among non-partisans or conservatives with any real values
Huh?
Palin is right. She believes the vetting process must go on. We all lose if we join a bandwagon for a flawed candidate and commit ourselves too soon. So Gingrich isn't your choice. So be it. But, the process is not pro-Newt or anti-Newt. Voters have a right to pass judgment on the merit of the candidates. Frankly, I find the tactics of Romney to be despicable and offensive. He is mostly engaged in personal attacks–the very politics of personal destruction that the Democrats consistently engage. His supporters are largely doing the same thing, misrepresenting Gingrich's statement, lying about history, etc. I don't care whether the bomb thrower is conservative or liberal, it is absolutely discrediting.
Mr Wehner, I agree with commenters who view the Conservative Establishment as the group that gave the TEA Party the finger and have tried to treat us as the crazy uncle nobody takes seriously. This will be the end of the Republican party. It's not Gingrich so much as it's Romney being shoved down our throat like McCain and Dole. No sale. Never again. Goodbye.
Pete – The only real conservative you listed was Michellle Malkin. The rest are RINO wine sippers from the Washington Post, NY Times, and ABC .
The fourth category of establishment thinking: Newt is not really a conservative, therefore Romney is.
Only one problem with your thesis, Peter. Rep. Paul Ryan has since changed his position on his own budget plan. So, by that measure, was Newt Gingrich prescient? r nr nGov. Palin sides with another person you chose not to attack who I have tremendous faith in: Mark Levin. But you obviously fixated on Sarah Palin because you and your crowd view her as a polarizing figure. r nr nGov. Palin became governor by taking out an intransigent, highly respected in the beltway establishment person in Frank Murkowski. She had to clean up the mess he and his “good ole boys” left behind in Alaska. I think she knows an establishment hit job when she sees one.
Started reading. Got to the Palin part of the first sentence. Realized it was another establishment hit piece. Stopped reading. Commented. Left page.
The GOP leadership has sat by and watched this "despicable" characher assassination on almost every candidate and let it happen. Newt and Mitt are carrying it to a new and more dangerous level of mud slinging – it has now reached a point of "self destruction". Somehow, the GOP always manages to "shoot its self in the foot"! I can't vote for Newt after the evil trash he is spewing, (and his characterless lifestyle) and Mitt isn't far behind (he started the name calling in Iowa). Where is our Conservative leadership, where is the RNCC? Who moderates these "food fights" No one is in charge and the whole party is beginning to look like the "Occupy people" – leaving trash in their wake. Time for a new party!
How many Neocon-boys sent their sons to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, their sons are in Hollywood, making millions off of making trash. n nWehner, masturbating Neocon-boy.
Come on, have some guts. Say Jewboys. And yeah, that's all the Jews do. Make movies, send goys to die for Israel, and count our gold. We are not responsible for your failures in life or your alcoholism.
It is time for the GOP to admit they blew it and start working on 2016. We need to lose this one if we ever hope to win again. The narrative that President Obama will destroy the country if re elected is not going to change the fact that we have no conservative voice in the wings to actually turn this ship around. A RINO who pretends to be a conservative or a RINO who doesn’t even pretend is still a RINO. Let’s let Mitt(Cain) have this one, lose it and start grooming a real conservative. That is the only way the establishment will be defeated. Either that or embrace Ron Paul!
I am afraid Governor Palin is correct and Peter is wrong. It's funny that Peter would pick on Sarah Palin versus, say, Mark Levin. Maybe because Mark worked in the Reagan administration, Peter? n nAnyone who didn't see a concerted effort by establishment republicans immediately after Newt Gingrich's stunning SC victory is delusional. n nAs for Governor Palin, she certainly knows what an establishment republican hit job looks like. After all, she had first hand experience in beating a crony republican governor adored by the beltway types. She had to clean up the mess from Frank Murchowski and his administration, some who were convicted and sent to prison for illegal deal-making. n nThe recent primaries have resurfaced Mitt Romney and nominated John McCain. Neither of these men are conservatives and are far adrift from rank-and-file grassroot republicans. The only recourse for the Tea Party may be to split off from the establishment.
Paul Wehner is spot on in his description of Gingrich. Sarah Palin spends too much time tweeting, facebooking and self promoting, rather than reading the distinguished conservatives listed in Whener's column. The surest way to get Obama reelected is to nominate Gingrich who has made his living off of Washington his entire life. The guy who Palin claims is an outsider, lives 5 miles from Washington, because that's where Gingrich does his lobbying. Paul Ryan is the brightest young Conservative in Washington, does Palin consider his plan to be right wing social engineering, as Newt described it, or is it more likely that she is totals clueless as to its contents, but blindly trusts Newt's hare brain liberal democrat assessment. Palin's 15 minutes of fame were up a long time ago. She should concentrate on perfecting her moose recipes and family, rather than pretend to instinctively know what Gingrich is all about, whilst she fails to educate herself on the issues.
The Occupy Wall Street zeitgeist seems to have captured even the GOP." n nPlease explain.
Simple: Newt used an Occupy Wall Street attack on Romney in South Carolina, and seems to have benefited. Rick Perry adopted some of the OWS rhetoric. Some of the OWS bullshit has seeped into the GOP electorate. It is that simple.
Romney will “play” the conservative! r nBut when all is said and done,he will lead America to the left! (At a SLOWER pace “only”!) To obsorb what Obama has already put into motion!
you lost me at Ann Coulter
Sarah Palin, the spokesperson for the "conservative" Tea Party Movement, lost all credibility when she endorsed John McCain for Senator of Arizona – one of the biggest RINOs in government. Now the people of Arizona and the country have to put up with him for another 6-year term. This move shows she is just like all the rest – when it is politically expedient or a pay-back is needed, she will act just like any other politician. So her "endorsement" of Newt says a lot considering her endorsement of McCain.
You forgot the fourth area of concern–the guy is a Pant-load.
you noticed. he lives large.
I cannot vote for Gingrich and Romney just doesnt do it for me. If Gingrich is the nominee Ill be forced to vote for him as a vote against Obama — which is what I basically did last election. Gingrich will not get my vote in the primary.
YEAH…. except for one thing YOU Romney supporters… such as this author FAIL to reveal. (These are the HALF-TRUTHS the Romney team and anti-Gingrich folks continually do)r nr nHE DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU INFER THAT HE SAID.r nr nIn Context… ALL he said is what EVERY true Conservative Constitutionalist SHOULD agree with…r nr nIn response to a SPECIFIC question about the claim of the OBAMA Administration FORCING policy and ramming it down the throats of Americans…r nr nNEWT ACTUALLY SAID that not policy shold be FORCED on us AGAINST the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.r nr nHe said that is ALL cases “Right-Wing social engenierring is no better than Left-Wing social engineering.”r nr nHe WAS NOT calling Ryans plan social engineering.r nr nTo say he was is misguided at best… and TOTAL DECEPTION at worst. r nr nThe ROMNEY SMEAR MERCHANTS are at it again.
Was Newt Gingrich prescient? Representative Paul Ryan has since modified his Budget Plan, Pete
i sure would not want to be the President for the next 4 years. Barry has so much as destroyed what we call the U.S.A. Hate me know, but the the real bad stuff is just around the corner this year. The market is going to crash again badly, the housing problem will see another downturn, jobs will be real scarce and food stamps are going to rise to all time new high levels. Wee will see 20 trillion in debt and no return. I say let Obummer stay so the Libtards actually see how STUPID they are!
How about the fact that Newt is a lying scumbag? What was the lie today? Oh, Romney hates jews because the Mass legislature cut Medicaid funding for Kosher meals. And last week the lie was Romney was foreclosing on Florida homes. Yes he actually said that. Gingrich is scum.
All of that may be true about Newt Gingrich. But the fact is Romney is even MORE liberal than Newt, so criticism of the Speaker on that point is pretty much null and void as far as I’m concerned. The only thing Romney has to hang his hat on is that he is purportedly more “electable” in November and less prone to self-destruct. Both of those contentions are arguable and I would like to see Mitt prove to me that he fits those criteria for me to consider voting for him over Newt. His lack of defense over Bain, his apologies for making his money and only paying 15% tax on it does not bode well for his supposed “electability” factor.
>"the fact is Romney is even MORE liberal than Newt, so criticism of the Speaker on that point is pretty much null and void as far as I'm concerned." n nBut that "fact" is false. Romney has never called for the federal government to tax all Americans so as to enact a national health-care system. Gingrich has. Romney has gotten rich in the private sector, Gingrich has gotten rich off his insider government connections. Romney has been married to the same woman all his life, Gingrich is currently on his third wife. And so on and on. Gingrich is much more liberal than Romney.
The real reason conservatives oppose Gingrich? n nHe's nearly as big a RINO as Romney…
McCain on obama quote " he's a good man" nRomney on obama quote " he's in over his head" nthese were the moderate rino first place and first loser's of 2008 n nI voted for Gingrich
McCain on obama quote " he's a good man"
I am a Reagan Republican, and I think the main problem with Newt for many people is none of the above. The problem is that the man is a serial adulterer and committed atrocious acts against at least one wife. I believe people can and do reform, but it is hard to see real repentance and change in a man who goes back to the same vomit again and again.
But to pretend the criticisms of Gingrich expressed in varying degrees by commentators like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Murray, Michael Gerson, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bob Tyrrell, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, Mark Steyn, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Karl Rove, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, Elliott Abrams, John Podhoretz, John Hinderaker, Jennifer Rubin, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Yuval Levin, n nYou mean all the long term establishment guys? n n n n n n
McCain on obama quote " he's a good man" nromney on obama quote " he's in over his head" n nmoderate rino first place and first loser in 2008 n ni voted Gingrich
Newt will expose Obama for what he is. Newt isn't scared to call Obama socialist to his face. n nThe people who were listed above decrying Newt are the ones that think we need to pussy-foot into office and start small. I couldn't disagree more. We need to kick @ss and take names. n nI don't see Romney doing that. That is why Newts numbers are up. Because he is getting the "pissed" vote. Many of us are PISSED. n nThat doesn't mean we don't understand the nuances, the games, the back-and-forths of politics. It just means we are tired of nuances, the games and the back-and-forths. We are angry about our country being ruined by leftists who don't have the God Given sense to look at the trail of leftist failure all over the world. n nNO… an American brand of "left" isn't going to work either. We are tired of it. We are pissed. nVote Newt.
yeah he can look Obama in the face. just like he looked his wife in the face and told her he loved her, while he carried on a six year affair, while he stood up and led the charge against Clinton for being a cheat. Does it not bother you top have his mistress, now wife, represent our country to the rest of the world as the First "Lady" ?
The next election is shaping up to be as big of a sham as the last. Do you know why Sarah Palin's bus tour was really canceled? Do you know why she stayed 30 miles away from the second debate and chose the death of Steve Jobs to announce that she's not running? Know what leaked out? Sarah Palin and Cain aren't in the race for the same reason, the truth leaked out.
He forgot the fourth area of concern–Newt is a Pant-load.
That's his campaign staff.
Thanks to GOP Establishment hypocrisy, we're going to get another 4 years of Obama. nIt amazes me that the "we're more patriotic than thou" party has two DRAFT DODGERS as the front runners…which WILL be brought out and used against whoever wins the nomination. nSeriously, if these guys are the best that the GOP Establishment can field, the GOP DESERVES to lose in 2012. The GOP has as much of a credibility problem as the Democrats do….
I agree with Mr Wehner's assessement. nThere is one point he left out and is key to my opposition of Gingrich. nI am as conserative and as they come, but I don't see how a true conservative can justify taking over a million dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. nMr Gingrich wanted us to believe that this was for being a historian. If so he must have been the highest paid historian in history. That was OUR MONEY he took from those jerks who played a key role in the housing crises. nWhen I first heard that I knew Newt was toast.
Freddie and Fannie are publically traded companies and were not funded by taxpayers until the government bailed them out, which Newt publically spoke out and told them not to do.
Is this a "vote for Romney because he sucks less" article?
I think that's true of all these politicians. I'm not a fan of the GOP candidates, but they definitely suck less than Obama.
Sarah Palin, a spokesperson for the "conservative" Tea Party movement, lost all credibility when she endorsed one of government's biggest RINOs John McCain for Senator of Arizona. The people of Arizona now have to put up with another 6-year term from one of the most liberal Republicans ever. She is just like every other politician, endorse or say whatever is politically expedient to further her cause. The fact she endorsed the RINO McCain says a lot about her "endorsement" of Newt.
I would recommend you all read Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter.
In terms of the three issues: n- Electability. Independents and moderates of all types – which are now the largest swing voting block in the country- will at least consider voting for Mitt Romney. The same can not be said of Newt, who repels independents and also women not named Palin. Romney/Obama is neck and neck, Newt loses by 10+%. n- Temperament. We need someone who can bring a nation in crisis together and turn the ship around. Mitt is better prepared for this moment – by far – by turning around companies, the Olympics and the state of MA, which comes from having a level-headed temperament, suitable for crisis. n- Conversative. Newt is left of Mitt on immigration. Newt is left of Mitt on free enterprise. Newt is left of Mitt on family values. Newt is left of Mitt on entitlement reform (see the above article.) Newt is also left of Mitt on government spending, as evidenced by all of the large government spending programs he keeps promising to every state. Newt = big government. n n I'm 100% confident that Mitt is the best qualified to not only win in November, but to succeed in the White House.
Man, this hit a nerve! Believe me, I wish it weren't so. Bret Stephens is as smart as they come. But you'e got to be practical. Romney and Newt are going to lose to Obama. We should try to focus on congress, where things are much better.
Better yet, vote for the guy who can beat Obama and get us straightened out! If you don't think Ron Paul can win, you havn't decided to vote for your better interests yet! Oh and btw, Congress just passed HR 3166 (look it up if you don't know what it is on open congress .org, and try to think whether or not Newt or Mitt would repeal it, or implement it!!!) with bi-partisan support so I have no idea why you think things are so rosey over there! n n-Oz
Currently Ron isn't contesting states where people vote, preferring caucuses. That first Tuesday in November ain't a caucus.
They are working on pinning the OWS crowd on the GOP and the TP, when it all blows up, Obama will come to the rescue and stop the election, when some of our major cities are on fire. Martial Law here we come and it will all be blamed on the radicalized right.
A lot of us lived through the 60's when cities actually were on fire and the National Guard deployed in the streets. You'll know that mess of bad news when it happens. But, for gosh sakes, blows up? The OWS crowd of hippie hobos couldn't blow up a balloon with a spare tank of helium. (They could however do a killer imitation of Donald Duck….)
Sure newt is liberal and Mitt is even more liberal, but mainstream Republicans love to vote for liberals who PRETEND to be “conservative”. It happened with Bush and it happened again with McCain. They NEVER learn. With Mitt or Newt, Obama WINS BIG because REAL CONSERVATIVES like myself will either STAY HOME or vote THIRD PARTY, even if that meas 4 more terrible years of Obama.
That's the most ridiculous stance ever. Stomp your feet and pout because you didn't get your way. Once the Republican candidate is picked it will take real adults who live in the real world to support whoever the nominee is. Your America is at stake. Sitting on the sideline because you didn't get your way and letting Obama get reelected so he can continue his assault on American freedom is childish at best.
I was an avid listener to Hewitt's show until he developed a man crush on Mitt. I read Ms. Rubin every day while she was at Commentary, but find her insufferable at the WaPo with her shrill Mitt advocacy. n nI feel as distant from the conservative elite nowadays as I do the MSM. They may well convince me Newt is not a good candidate, but the will never convince me Mitt is a conservative. I did my duty and voted for Bush 41, Dole and McCain, but I draw the line at Mitt, and refuse to be browbeaten by my betters of beltway conservatism to do otherwise. I suspect there are many more like me out here in the rest of America. I
Limbaugh has it right. Mittens is a safe loser, who won't have any coattails in the Congressional races one way or the other. Gingrich is an all or nothing candidate. He will have maximal coattails. If he wins, the party wins big. If he loses, all the House seats, Senate seats, Statehouses, and Governorships go Democrat as well. n nAnd since Bernanke is Obama's best friend, the GOP nominee is expected to lose.
Limbaugh is lost on this one. There is only one candidate that has the experience we need as a country to get us out of the financial mess we are in – Romney. There is also only one candidate that can get votes from Republicans, Democrats, Independents and take votes away from Obama – Romney. If Newt gets the nomination he goes down in flames – BIG… and so does America.
But so many GOPers seem to hate him. That can't help.
The vast majority of commentators named as opposing Gingrich do so mainly because they think he cannot win in November. But I am not convinced. Newt may not be as personally likable as some candidates but he knows how to win campaigns. His Contract with America shocked the nation. His win over Romney in South Carolina shocked many Republicans. I think he may get a comeback win in Florida tomorrow. From a distance, people may not like him but with enough exposure he connects with people. I think he can win. But I don't think he needs to beat Obama because I don't think Obama will be on the ballot. Georgia will remove Obama from the primary ballot and he will have a difficult time getting back on in November. Now that the Birthers have shown they have a winning strategy in Georgia, you can expect them to replicate it in other states. My question is who are the Democrats going to run? Whoever it is, I think Newt can beat her.
I'm not a Gingrich fan, but I will concede the point that The Contract With America was H-U-G-E. A brilliant move when Republicans were in trouble. I remember how shocked everyone was, except Newt, to be honest. It was a work of genius.
I’m confused… n nFirst the RINOs told us we needed to nominate a moderate candidate because we had to win over independent voters, who don’t like conservatives, in the general election. n nThen they came out with a bunch of “evidence” showing us that Newt opposed Reagan and held a lot of moderate positions over the years. n nDoes that mean the RINOs are endorsing Newt?
It means that RINOs are, at the core, just like liberals – they will compromise and discard principles depending on the situation and on future gains. Real conservatives won't. That's the reason Mitt Romney rubs true conservatives the wrong way; as far as he's concerned, it's just a matter of time before he compromises and retreats from a principle for expediency. People look at guys like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and they get the sense that their answers to questions and their actions based on those answers will be the same as if was in the past, the present, and the future. People KNOW that, with Mitt Romney in the White House, conservatives will be asking two questions with regularity; "Why did you do that?", and "What are you going to do next?" n nFor Newt, Rick, and other true conservatives, the questions become "What will you do next?" and "What are your plans for the future?" n nVoters would MUCH rather elect people who have answers to the latter questions, than the former.
Gingrich lost my confidence when he trashed Rep. Ryan's plan. Then talked about hauling judges before committees if he didn't like their decisions (that would cut Newt's way now, maybe. But what about in 10 years? Conservative justices being treated the same way?) and finally when he attacked Governor Romney for being a successful capitalist. I thought Newt was supposed to be all about market freedom and capitalism. Yes, Romney is flawed, but he's not erratic like the former Speaker. What's the key? Defeating President Obama. Newt is volatile and could do something stupid that costs him the race anytime, anywhere. n nI respect different opinions and some good ones have been made here. But for Gingrich to claim he's not "establishment" is simply ridiculous. He WAS the establishment when he screwed up the 1998 midterm elections for his own party. No more Gingrich. We can't trust his volatility.
BUT YOUR VOTE FOR ROMNEY?
That Palin librarian story was a load of hogwash. Your comments makes me sad for the country. Gossip from disgruntled female (the librarian, an ex-wife, etc.) = epic take-down? Really?
Gingrich's "right wing social engineering" remark was clearly not aimed at Rep. Ryan's plan, but rather passing it or any large changes into law without the consent of the people. These attacks are unfathomable.
Human nature has its own temptations and challenges for us to meet in our own lives. In some ways Palin has taken the path of least resistance–big money becomes available to celebrities awfully quickly–Palin is doing her best to keep her head straight and manage her new found wealth and her influence–but she isn't as disciplined and, well, risk-taking as she could be.
Sign me up for reasons 1,2, and 3. n n#4 is the FACT that his "personal" life has been public, ugly and sorted. nThen add in he can't seem to manage what campaign funds he has raised. Private aircraft to the tune of upwards of $500,000.00 IN A FEW MONTHS? And Newty wants to manage a BUDGET? n nWe already have a reckless overgrown TEENAGER in the White House. We need an adult.
How can you tell when Ron Paul is awake? He drools out of the other side of his mouth. The jooz did 9-11 under a "false flag" attack. absolutely–unfortunately only the savants who march under the sippy cup flag of Nation Idiot get it but soon, there will be more. A veritable army of morons. But hey, you're right–the Zionist conspiracy explains why your wife ran away with your proctologist. You couldn't possibly be involved in your own life–it's all out of your hands until that one big beautiful thing that will expose the terrible They who stand athwart the lifeblood of Anglo Saxon America. n nWake up.
I realize Commentary is pretty much a Romney cheerleader, but it's surprising to see any of its writers repeat the distortion that Newt bashed the Ryan plan. If you simply go back and look at the clip, Newt was NOT bashing the Ryan plan. Indeed, Newt had already endorsed the Ryan budget. Rather, Newt was responding to a hypothetical question that asked about a scenario where congressional Republicans would ram through the Ryan plan the same way Democrats rammed through Obamacare. THAT was what Romney called "right-wing social engineering." n nThis is clear enough from the interview itself, and Newt drove the point home soon thereafter in an interview on Fox News. n nIt's amazing to see a Jewish magazine bashing one of the most strongly pro-Israeli politicians in the history of the republic. Nobody tops Newt in supporting Israel. When Newt spoke the truth about the Palestinian "nationality," there was Romney "attacking from the left" and whining that the comment was "too controversial," "intemperate," etc. n nOf course, one would expect such demagoguery from Mitt "I'm A Moderate with Progressive Views" Romney. n n
I believe the Speaker has explained, to my satisfaction at least, his response to the Ryan proposal – and he has also apologized to Congressman Ryan as well. What else does he have to do? It's as if people in the GOP ascribe God-like powers to Newt; he makes mistakes and makes wrong decisions just like the rest of us. What is important to me is HOW HE RESPONDED when that happened. Now, if he had refused to reconsider on the Ryan plan, or didn't bother to contact the Congressman to discuss the issue … or if he, as another example, been less that forthright about his marital past, then I could understand a column like this. And, as another commentator has said, none of what Mr. Wehner said contrasts favorably to Governor Romney; what the voters need right now is a convincing reason to support and vote for Mitt Romney to go against President Obama. Nowhere in all of the writings, posts, and commentaries I have read over the past several months supplies this reason. nTo me, Mitt Romney is as problematic as a candidate as we have in the GOP today; we know much more about Newt Gingrich's thinking, positions, and reasonings on the issues than we do any other candidate with the possible exception of Rick Santorum. nMitt Romney remains a cipher to voters in many ways, and that is what concerns them.
>”I hear these establishment types like Coulter on the radio completely bashing not only Newt, but his SUPPORTERS.”r n r nr nWait just a second …. Ann Coulter is “establishment”, and Newt Gingrich is not? Some of you people are living in an alternative reality where water flows uphill, the sky is green, and Newt Gingrich is a valiant rebel taking on the Ann Coulterish establishment.
>"It's amazing to see a Jewish magazine bashing one of the most strongly pro-Israeli politicians in the history of the republic. Nobody tops Newt in supporting Israel." n nIt's amazing to see you argue that Americans Jews have an obligation to put Israel before all else.
>"Gingrich's "right wing social engineering" remark was clearly not aimed at Rep. Ryan's plan, but rather passing it or any large changes into law without the consent of the people." n n nWas Gingrich under the impression that the Ryan plan would become law without being voted on by the peoples elected representatives? How did he think it was going to become law?
Mitt is the safest bet! Plain and simple! Dont let it be too complicated. Newt has too much baggage and he will be the subject of this election and not Obama's record. If Mitt is the nominee, we will be focusing on the economy and the record of Obama. Also, Newt is very erratic, unreliable conservative whose grandiose ideas are nonsensical most of the time. I will give him credit for the 1994 revolution but he has also no one to blame but himself for his downfall.
Do you think it is a good idea to base who you vote for on the opinions of Rush Limbaugh? He is a clown. Romney has potential to be far greater than Reagan. Consider buying his book "No Apology – Believe in America." You will see that everything he has done is conservative. n nThis election really is about capitalism vs socialism. The democrat strategy to divide and conquer the republican party is working. Some day you may look back and appreciate Mr. Capitalism (aka Mitt Romney) but it will be too late.
Bottom line: three wives is a lead weight when swimming in the deep waters of presidential politics. n nWe said "character counts" when Clinton was suborning perjury, lyng under oath and explaining what the meaning of "is" is. I'd like to think WE believe we deserve better leaders. If the press had done their job, and if Democrats had any standards at all, we wouldn't have the current economic leadership vacuum. n nQueasy about Romney's pedigree? nHe is 1) an honorable man with 2) enough private-sector savvy to find solutions to our economic problems. Would this not be a huge improvement? n n n
Newt got a high-tech lynching from liberals and the media and was thrown under the bus by conservatives because they were too scared to stand up to their actual enemies. They played the Neville Chamberlain role. The problem was Newt was ahead of his time. Shutting down the government wasn't so popular then but now we all realize we'd be better off if the dang thing was shut down and was stopped from indebting us to the Chinese any longer.
Here is my problem with Romney (and Newt). He is as inflexible on his core beliefs as a wet noodle, and will say/do ANYTHING to be elected! Don't believe me? Review his pre-election promises to his constituents, what he has actually done, and what he is saying he will do now! You will find without fail that you have AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT STORIES! Then look up the words "conservative", and "liberal" and ask yourself which one fits Mitt and Newt better! n nPersonally I am going with the only candidate who has shown consistency between what he says, what he does, and what he truly believes in! n nRON PAUL 2012!!! n n-Oz
Sure everyone is very conservative with government assistance to other people. Sure, this old pooch is fine with shutting down the EPA but you know I could really use that Social Security, Medicare etc.–and without government sponsored COBRA and HIPPA I would be a pauper. Or, without government spending on DARPA to lay the infrastructure for microcomputers and yes, the Internet, before it was commercialized Steve Jobs wealth may never had crystallized, or Bill Gates or Zuckerman etc. Unearned dependency may be like the proverbial mote in the eye of your neighbor.
meanie
He's fun on tv. If I still got high he'd probably be even better. Romney would probably be even weirder tho.
1. ? Harold Stassen? "I" The One? Neo? Jesus?
Or 1. or 2., knowing that either one will be 3. anyways. These are politicians were are talking about.
.6. n nVote for Nobody. What politician will never lie to you? Nobody! What politician will never succumb to the temptations of power or personal influence or wealth? Nobody! Nobody knows what to do and Nobody can do it all!!!!
People get addicted to hate imo. In the long run it's like taking poison and expecting your enemeis to get sick but we so easily get in the emotional charge of a real good hatefest.
It's about Romney as he's the “establishment” baby. Trashing Newt really gives none of the others a foot up. n nThe blog is a little disingenuous when failing to endorse but clearly defending the "establishment" and mocking those who siding with Newt. n nOther than that, why the hostility? n n n
Newt, Mitt, Obama = same old shi_ in Washington. Ron Paul is the only one talking about doing something to fix our budget crisis. 1.2 trillion a year overspending. Only Ron Paul is talking about fixing this problem and how serious it is. Not that much would really change, unless you replaced about 85% of congress.