Image 01 Image 03

Guardians of conservatism unite against flip-flopper Newt

Guardians of conservatism unite against flip-flopper Newt

Thank you Jennifer, Michael, Gene, Quin, Ann, and others, for telling us that Newt Gingrich is unacceptable as a nominee because he took some positions in the past that were not conservative.

I don’t know where we’d end up without you.

At least we have one candidate whose record is clean:

Just before Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts governor’s office and first ran for president, 11 of his top aides purchased their state-issued computer hard drives, and the Romney administration’s e-mails were all wiped from a server, according to interviews and records obtained by the Globe.

Romney administration officials had the remaining computers in the governor’s office replaced just before Governor Deval Patrick’s staff showed up to take power in January 2007, according to Mark Reilly, Patrick’s chief legal counsel.

As a result, Patrick’s office, which has been bombarded with  inquiries for records from the Romney era, has no electronic record of any Romney administration e-mails, Reilly said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Charles Curran | November 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Interesting that there is no access to any of Barry O’s college records available, since he has had them all sealed and continues to spend ‘Millions’ to keep them sealed. More interesting that noone can find most ,if any of his records as Senator in Illinois. Where is the media here? When he was elected in Illinois NPR proclaimed him to be ‘Our Kenyan Born Senator’. Why won’t the media do it’s homework?

    The media isn’t going to investigate Obama. They have too much political capital with their ever-shrinking viewership and readership tied up in making him out to be the Liberal savior after the Bush administration.

    Expect to see glowing articles over the next 12 months about how, even with a global recession, international political upheaval and continued terrorism, Obama managed to keep the United States economy slowly growing, pass universal health care and restore moral dignity and international respect to the United States after the dark days of the Bush Administration.

    It’s all a farce, but one the media will willingly and eagerly support because of “the historic nature” of Obama’s presidency.

All I can say is that Romney may be the smartest guy to run for publlic office since the first email account was born. In every field of human endeavor, your enemies and rivals get you with the emails.

Clean record, eh?
This reminds me of the issues Huckabee had in 2008 when no one could get any of Huckabee’s records as governor. I seem to recall computers and hard drives being an issue. Yet, why wasn’t this brought out about Romney in 2008?

I guess the motivation to knock off McCain was greater than properly vetting Romney. We are paying a price for such stylishness.

“… Newt Gingrich is unacceptable as a nominee because he took some positions in the past that were not conservative.” Jennifer, Michael, Gene, Quin, Ann, and others have just had three years of perfect-candidate Obama, a candidate who had never taken a position on anything. What could be better.

Jennifer, Michael, Gene, Quin, and Ann are just trying to make a living. (Five write-ins for Ron Paul? Whaddaya think?)

You have to remember where these individuals are coming from. These writers intensely dislike the TEA Party movement, except for Coulter, who I think is just being a snarky pessimist and happens to dislike Gingrich to begin with. If you were to give ANY of these writers a bad TEA Party news day, they would be writing drivel about how “the movement is faltering” and “we need to rally around the establishment who can get things done.”

I like Coulter, but she’s got a short memory sometimes. She asks the question of where were the Conservative purists when the Republicans were nominating John McCain. I’ll tell her: We were in the forefront telling the Republican party “GO TO HELL!” which is EXACTLY why McCain LOST.

The Conservatives said (about McCain) “we don’t want this guy, we didn’t nominate this guy, the ‘Establishment Republicans’ have ignored our wishes and nominated a RINO, so we’re staying HOME. Good luck on winning without us.”

We paid a price for sitting on our hands in the form of Liberal-Statist government control for 2 years, but it lit a fire under the Conservatives to support the TEA Party, which now has a likely once-in-a-generation opportunity to actually elect strong Conservatives and actually UNDO some of the Statist foolishness put in place over the past 10 (YES 10) years.

The pundits long ago got behind Romney under the guise that “he appeals to independants,” and the fact that he can’t seem to break the 25% support barrier is starting to infuriate them, making them sloppy.

What those pundits don’t seem to realize (or don’t want to admit) is that WE CAN WIN WITH MARGINAL INDEPENDENT SUPPORT if the Conservatives (those who self-identify) turn out to vote.

    Coulter’s great when she’s attacking D’s or talking about an issue. She’s lost when she’s talking about Republican politicians.

    She’s spent most of the past year pushing Christie to be the Republican nominee. For someone that usually does such a great job doing her homework, she completely failed to do so with Christie. The man’s fantastic when taking on the NJ Teachers’ Union, but otherwise he’s a Moderate D.

    Want to take on Coulter over her criticism of Newt? Look at where Christie stands on the issues she’s hitting Newt for. He’s as bad or worse on any of them, yet she was all-in for Christie.

Isn’t a hat tip in order for your commenter Neo, Prof. Jacobson?

Here’s a standard question to ask those attacking Newt: “Is Romney better or worse on this issue?”

They’re attacking Newt as not being the ideal Conservative candidate. Well, we’re not going to get an ideal candidate. The field is set. The date to get your name on the ballot for the early primaries has come and gone.

Perry & Cain are both longshots now, unlikely to recover. Not ready for prime time (I’d support either for Senate or Governor, but they’re clearly not ready to run, and win, a national campaign).

So, its Newt vs Romney.

Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi and did a commercial for global warming, Romney actually signed legislation imposing carbon limits in MA. This resulted in a nearly 20% decline in electrical generation in the state, as coal-fired plants were shut down. To this day, they’ve yet to recover and must import power at a higher price.

Name your issue. Don’t tell me where Newt stands vs the ideal Conservative. Tell me where Newt AND Romney stand, and I’ll decide which I prefer. Because, if you tear down Newt, what’s left is Romney.

I’ve yet to find an issue where I prefer Romney. Not one. Frankly, RomneyCare alone is a disqualification.

    javau in reply to Aarradin. | November 17, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    exactly. newt is criticized for things he said while romney actually did those thing. if the main complaint about health mandates is the deprivation of liberty romney would have us believe it is okay for the state government to deprive you of it but not the federal government. whats the difference

    our guardins have lose lose scemerio. if our candidate loses the general its bc we nominated him. if their candidates loses its becaue we werent enthusiastic. when our team loses its never bc of defects in our guadians. look what they did with senate in 2010. it wasnt rossi or fiorina it was angle and odonnel.

Don’t you think it should be the other GOP candidates who should be leading the herd in vetting Romney? I do.

We had the sad tale of Tim Pawlenty. The minimalist attack by Bachmann. The bumbling and stumbling accusations and rejoinders by Perry. The others have remained largely silent.

It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of futile ground to explore here, the evidence is overwhelming. Romney has a huge bullseye on his forehead (no, I don’t mean literally).

If our cadre of candidates can’t stand up to Romney and contest him on his background, why should any of them be considered for the nomination?

Where, professor, is your choice for the nomination on taking Romney to task? Is he hiding behind the Reagan Doctrine because he too lives in a glass house?

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%….”

Let the teeth gnashing begin….

    mdw9661 in reply to logos. | November 17, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Why should there be a “gnawing of teeth?”

    Look folks, don’t play ostrich with allegations about Newt Gingrich. I’d rather see everything out in the open and have him openly challenged by them now than later by Obama should he be the nominee.

    I’d prefer to see the same thing done with Romney, but none of the other candidates (including Gingrich) is stepping up to the challenge. What are they afraid of….glass houses?

    As for polls, we all know how volatile they have been and will remain to be with approximately 50 days before the Iowa Caucus.

      javau in reply to mdw9661. | November 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm

      it is basically not the other candidates going negative. its the guardians of conservatism and the msm. mitts getting the mccain treatment the msm is keeping their powder dry for general. i bet the most popular photo if mitt is nominated is bain capital with romney with money falling out of his pockets

take this with a grain of salt..

does pique my interest though, however I would still choose him over romney.

Romney supporters are fine ones to talk about taking non-Conservative positions. Romney has at least as big a rap for that as Gingrich. For example, Romneycare.

    Gingrich apparently supported the government mandate.

      No. Read carefully. Gingrich supported a “you need to cover your expenses” position. He did NOT support a “government mandate” plan a-la RomneyCare or ObamaCare. He said you should EITHER get health insurance or be required to post a bond. You know what that’s called?

      It’s called a Catastrophic Health Care Expense Policy. And Obama and the Democrat Party have done EVERYTHING they can to destroy that insurance market, because it actually restores market forces to people’s health care spending.

        littlebeartoe in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 17, 2011 at 9:33 pm

        It’s called a mandate. I post a bond in order to exist as an American citizen? “Mandate” is an insufficient word. It’s un-American, illibertarian, and downright sucky.

        And Newt’s dissembling RE: his being a de facto lobbyist for Freddie Mac is yet another embarrassment for his long biography.

logos | November 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm

While reading that headline, I thought I heard the distinctive sound of knives being sharpened in the background, and it wasn’t exclusively on the other side!!!

Sounds like Generic Republican is the best bet, if (s)he can be persuaded to run.

    Aarradin in reply to gs. | November 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    Which is why I miss Pawlenty. Who’s more “generic Republican” than Pawlenty?

    We already know Obama plans to run a negative campaign, it’d be tough attacking a guy that’s basically ‘Mr. Rogers’ in a suit jacket rather than a sweater.

Tucker is a conservative?

Since President Nixon discovered the problems with keeping accurate records, and this has been underlined by FOIA requests resulting in total e-mail dumps as happened to Governor Palin, I expect to see lots of “information” lost by total obliteration of as many documents as possible.

What better answer to FOIA requests than “Oops. The documents were all wiped out.” Seems that both Perry and Romney have learned from the past.

Republicans, eating their own. There’s a reason why we have a person as President who never even had to prove his location of birth. It’s because the Republicans are too busy tearing down their own candidates to focus on the real race.

This Jennifer Rubin is too lazy to even formulate her own opinion of Newt. She merely recites her impressions of Andrew whatshisname from Weekly Standard. Andrew is a wry and sarcastic writer who makes money mocking people with money (like himself). His last book was a big hardy har har on the privileged children of his own ilk trying to get accepted to “elite” colleges. This is what passes for deep conservative thinking for the likes of Rubin. Her Newt essay is unfocused and without understanding of Newt’s accomplisments that are indeed significant.