Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

If Newt survives the next two weeks

If Newt survives the next two weeks

The latest polling has caused an avalanche of attacks on Newt from just about every corner:

  • Newt had an extensive interview with Glenn Beck (audio and transcript).  Beck hammered Newt on all the known Newt policy issues, and all of the questions were appropriate.  I think Newt handled it extremely well. Listen to the audio, and Newt fully addresses accusations that he is a “progressive.”  Beck has been a frequent critic of Newt, which shows that Newt is not afraid to go into a hostile forum. (added) Katrina Trinko has a good sampling of excerpts from the interview.
  • Michele Bachmann again shows why I never could vote for her (other than against Obama).  She was on Greta last night repeating like a mindless robot that Newt wants to legalize 11 million illegal aliens, and on the Beck show calling Newt a “frugal socialist.” Really, we can do better than Bachmann, please I hope I never have to vote for her.
  • Ron Paul is going negative for 4-5 days of new anti-Newt ads in Iowa.
  • Romney backer Ramesh Ponnuru is warning about “heartbreak” if Newt gets the nomination; Jennifer Rubin is doing her usual anti-Newt routine; and Rush is going all out as I type pointing out that the beltway Republican media is going all out against Newt.
  • MSNBC, picking up on a theme pushed last week by Politico, is accusing Newt of having a “split personality.”
  • A “conservative” concern troll at The Atlantic who always has been anti-Tea Party is saying Newt will be the end of the Tea Party.

If Newt survives the next two weeks in the lead, it will be hard to stop him.

I think he will survive the onslaught because none of these critics (other than the candidates themselves) makes the case for anyone else.  It’s just trying to tear down the latest challenger to Romney.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

With the Republican insider attacks going over the top (e.g., JRubin: Newt not smart) more conservative undecideds like me lean toward him.

Are we forgetting who the true enemy is? The public seems to respond better to concrete talk about how to fix our broken country than throwing spit-balls at every contender that seems threatening to them personally. We could do a lot worse than Newt, and there is no denying the fire he has going on. Newt is showing spine, which is a lacking commodity these days in critics of the *elite*. When Newt attacks the shoddy governing (and that’s putting it politely!) while the other candidates attack him, it doesn’t serve the competition well.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Jmaquis. | December 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    he public seems to respond better to concrete talk about how to fix our broken country than throwing spit-balls at every contender that seems threatening to them personally.

    Which is why it is so puzzling that somehow self-described “Tea Party Patriots” are continuing to back Bachmann.

    Newt is saying and doing everything a Tea Party Patriot wants (or at least can realistically accept); and while he has made mistakes, who hasn’t? On the other hand you have Michele turning the “Tea Party” into the “Me Party”, running around bragging about herself and throwing stones any chance she gets.

    The death of the Movement is going to come at Michele Bachmanns hands. She’s much more “Occupy Tea Party” leader then “True Patriot”

Michele Bachmann has had this problem of not knowing when to “let go” of actively pursuing an issue as a campaign focal point.
She lost me on the HPV vaccine. I pretty much agreed with her, but she just acted more than a bit over the top.

Newt was able to differentiate himself by finding a reasonable middle ground on immigration. The Democrats always cast immigration as deportation or citizenship. Meanwhile, even today, there are thousands of legal aliens who are not on a road to citizenship with most who don’t want to be citizens.

Newt knows how to talk the talk. I admit I enjoy his interviews. During the campaign ONLY it will be fun listening to him say all the right things and get our hopes up… However, it is hope that will be sorely disappointed if Newt get elected.

You must understand that Newt is the Republican version of BO. He is NOT a conservative but a big-government progressive of the worse kind. Consider:

1) He cheated on two wives – two examples of extreme dishonesty

2) In 2006, he supported liberal Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI) who was challenged by conservative Tim Walberg.

3) In 2008, Gingrich aggressively supported and campaigned for liberal Congressman Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) who was challenged by conservative Andy Harris.

4) In 2009, he supported radical liberal, pro-abortion, pro-union establishment Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 race while the tea party supported conservative Doug Hoffman

5) In 2010, Gingrich campaigned for RINO U.S. Senator Robert Bennett in Utah, calling him “a true-blue conservative.”

6) Gingrich has supported for many years the federal government giving financial support to “renewable energy” projects and the development of clean energy technologies. Federal ethanol subsidies is one of the things he supports.

7) He supported the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, which forced broadcasters to air all sides of a controversial issue. It was, of course, government infringing the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.

8) In 1994, he voted for GATT, the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade, that subjected Americans to the international authority of the World Trade Organization. When Gingrich testified to the House Ways and Means Committee, he said: “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. . . . This is not just another trade agreement. This is doing something twice, once in the 1940’s and once in the 1950’s the U.S. Congress rejected . . . It is a very big transfer of power.”

9) In 2003, Gingrich urged “every conservative member of Congress” to support the Medicare drug benefit bill. He called it the “most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965.” He declared: “Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation”s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.”

10) In 2008, Gingrich backed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. He opposed it before he “reluctantly” endorsed it.

11) He advocated an individual mandate for health insurance, similar to the mandate in ObamaCare, in his 2008 book, Real Change. “[I]ndividuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs.”

12) In 2008, Gingrich starred with Nancy Pelosi in an infamous TV ad supporting the human-caused global warming hoax

13) In 2009-2010, he traveled around our country with liberals Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan, promoting Obama’s new educational policies.

14) Earlier this year, Gingrich attacked Paul Ryan’s budget and Medicare reform plan, causing Ryan to respond, “With allies like that, who needs the left.”

15) Gingrich’s close association with Alvin Toffler and his strong support of Toffler ‘s radical “The Third Way” should alone be sufficient to end his presidential campaign. It is a part of Gingrich’s record that waves a huge red flag. Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. In his book, “The Third Way,” he wrote to the Founding Fathers: “For the system of government you fashioned [U.S. Constitution] including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century.

Points 1 thru 14 are troubling, but point #15 is scary. If Romney is a progressive then Newt is an Uber-Progressive. His support for “The Third Way” is a pathway to Marxism.

———————————————-
As the American Spectator’s David Catron pointed out, Gingrich has long been a fan of Dr. Donald Berwick. Berwick just resigned as President Obama’s director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees Obamacare. Obama put Berwick there because of his professed love for Britain’s socialized medicine.

Berwick’s views are so radical that not even a Democratic Senate would confirm him, yet Gingrich wrote this in a Washington Post op-ed published in 2000: “Don Berwick at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has worked for years to spread the word that the same systematic approach to quality control that has worked so well in manufacturing could create a dramatically safer, less expensive and more effective system of health and health care.”

Gingrich’s wonkish delight in industrially rationed health care may come as a shock to some on the Right, but it is entirely consistent with his long-standing enthusiasm for individual mandates in health care. In his 2005 book, “Winning the Future,” Gingrich put it this way: “We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”

Gingrich’s most frequently repeated claim to the mantle of conservative leadership, of course, is the Contract with America and the Republican revolution of 1994. But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., made a strong case in his 2003 book, “Breach of Trust,” that Gingrich’s affinity for the trappings of power led him to undermine the momentum for fundamental change. As Coburn described it, the fervor of the freshmen lawmakers of 1994 quickly put them at odds with the first Republican House Speaker in four decades: “Gingrich would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously … We were from the outside and wet behind the ears in terms of politics and we obviously didn’t know as much about history as he did. It would not take long for us to become ‘the conservatives’ to him.”

More recently, as The Examiner’s Byron York noted yesterday, Gingrich has been seen as an ultimate Washington insider, as exemplified in that $1.6 million he was paid to represent Fannie and Freddie, and his work with Nancy Pelosi on behalf of cap-and-trade. Such facts make it difficult not to view Gingrich as an exemplar of Washington’s professional Republican politicians who talk the talk to get elected, but often don’t walk it once in office. He has an answer for such worries no doubt, but will it persuade Republican voters, many of whom watched in frustration as the Contract with America faded into political oblivion?

————————————————

And one more thing… We on the right have criticized those who voted for BO for being sucked into voting for a candidate with great speaking skills yet without substance, now we are doing the same thing. We are so hungry for someone who will fight and defeat BO that we are compromising our core values for someone who can talk the talk. If we vote for Newt we are no better than the mindless wonders who voted for BO.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to ChuckLit2. | December 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    You just put all that information together in response to my post, right?

      No, of course not. So, are you implying that because I was prepared that somehow makes the facts less factual?

      I have been a subscriber to your RSS feed for a long long time, and I usually enjoy your posts, but your support for Newt is troubling. If Newt becomes the Republican nominee, that will mean once again the public will have a choice between a progressive on the left or a progressive on the right. If Newt becomes President he will slow things down, but the direction of America’s decay will remain. And I am afraid we will have missed our only chance to save our country.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to ChuckLit2. | December 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm

        A lot of those complaints are old news, and many just not correct. I encourage people to listen to and read the Beck interview. As to the prepared comments, we are approaching a season when people working for campaigns (whether officially or unofficially) will try to flood blog comment sections, and I sensed that from your post which looked pre-prepared. I can’t speak for all the readers, but my guess is that people are looking for real dialogue, not cut and paste comments.

          workingclass artist in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm

          Professor since it’s your blog is it alright to provide quotes with links to back up a stance in the dialog? I tend to do that but I won’t if you’d prefer commenters not to in the thread.

          I appreciate the spirited dialog you promote at your forum…You run a great blog.

          Here is another post that hits most of those notes, but Chucklit’s post is a definite fleshing out of these facts. If anyone thinks we can “win” with a candidate that embodies many of the think we’ve fought against – at a core level for so many years….is that victory worth it? Is there anything left to fight for?
          It was Mr. Gingrich who wrote the forward of a book called
          “Creating a New Civilization”, written by Alvin & Heidi Toffler:

          “The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered…to create a whole new structure of government… Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures… The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

          Doe this seem like a person who would uphold the constitution any more than Obama does…….really? I’ll add that news is both a Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations member, just the same as almost everyone in the upper echelons of the White House right now.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm

          workingclass artist – you can post links, but if you do more than one it will be caught in moderation/spam until I clear it

          “doombroker:

          Here is the first comment to appear in your linked blog, listing all of Gingrich’s sins.

          John Hancock | November 19, 2011 at 8:54 am | Reply I’m sorry But I honestly don’t see this entire compilation of ‘revelations’ about Newt as much of an indictment, If that is what the casual observer is supposed to think, for a man who has been in politics as long as he has been.”

          There’s more, but this snippet says it all.

        logos in reply to ChuckLit2. | December 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm

        …”but your support for Newt is troubling.”

        The word “troubling” has always raised my troll detector when used in comment threads.

        “If Newt becomes President he will slow things down, but the direction of America’s decay will remain. And I am afraid we will have missed our only chance to save our country.”

        You fail to provide your solution to save the country; you must have one. I’m all ears.

          doombroker in reply to logos. | December 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm

          I would recommend having as many true conservatives as possible in the Senate and House as possible, but now that “legally” the executive branch towers over the other two branches of government in how much power it contains, there is no true solutions that can be had from our human institutions, as the presidential candidates we are presented with are absolutely unfit for that office. Yet, that office, with all of it’s enormous power must be filled. Do you see the problem here? Do you see how there is no easy solution to be had? What is your solution, anyway logos, smartguy?

          doombroker in reply to logos. | December 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm

          My solution is to get the hell out of this country and live in the woods or get a TWIC card and hope to be in the ocean when the inevitable collapse occurs. Because that will occur and it won’t matter much who has the good ideas when our country collapses from the inside, preceding an invasion from the outside.

          logos in reply to logos. | December 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm

          My solution is: Anybody But Obama.

          Oh, and obey Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Do Not Speak Ill of other Republicans.

    janitor in reply to ChuckLit2. | December 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Chucklit2: I certainly agree with you that honesty (it’s about trust) is important. It just seems to me that as we all struggle to figure out what we should do in a crucial election, disagreement with each other in our conclusions is one thing, but we still should strive to be balanced and accurate, i.e. “trustworthy” in our presentation of the facts and our reasoning.

    Any of us, particularly the many lawyers here, could string points out of context and make an apparent cumulative result appear substantial. But if someone has a 40-year record of achievements, with regard to which we could hypothetically list scores or hundreds of positives, then a list of even 15 points of unweighted “negatives” might be insignificant. Conversely, if someone has little or no record to speak of, then percentage-wise, having fewer negatives on a comparison list out of context would be meaningless.

    We are not the “mindless wonders who voted for BO”.

    The “Fairness Doctrine versus freedom of speech”, and other political controversies (ditto candidates), do not always lend themselves bright-line assignments of “right or wrong”, but rather, it’s about weighing multiple and often complex and competing considerations. (By the way, has major media journalism improved since 1987 do you think?)

    I guess you would be against King David since he committed adultery and even had his lover’s husband killed. There are such things as a changed life. Maybe even yours. Certainly mine.

    Funny thing about supporting more moderate vs. conservative Republicans. I think Reagan appointed some of them to high positions in his administration. Maybe even made one his vice-president. Who, when push came to shove, decided to cave on “no new taxes”. It’s called unifying the party, and sometimes results in mistakes.

    As for changing positions and backing bad legislation and policy, none of the candidates are squeaky clean on this.

    “His premise in this book as well as in his other books is that just as the agricultural first wave has given way to the second wave industrial age, that it in turn has yielded to the third knowledge revolution. He outlines the differences and prescribes the need for change.” — from Amazon review

    This sounds more like a industrial policy theory than a political theory. And we have been seeing this sort of stuff for over a decade now. Yeah, the post office is in trouble because the internet took away it’s mojo, and while this is something that is addressed by politicians, it’s not a new political theory.

Newt’s biggest problem aren’t all the attacks – it his his own record and mouth.

Taxpayer vs. Fannie & Freddie, Newt was on Fannie & Freddie’s side.

Obamacare? Newt was for the healthcare mandate.

Many people think this primary has already come down to two people: Mitt & Newt. I believe there is room for a third, because there are some people who can’t stand Mitt or Newt. That third candidate will come from Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum.

This primary, since the states moved their primaries, will not be over by Florida. The longer this race goes on, the harder it will be for Newt to exercise control over his own ego and mouth.

At this point, I’d give Newt a 30-50% chance of winning the primary, depending on how optimistic you are concerning Newt (I think he has a 1 in 3 chance).

am4constitution | December 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm

Thanks ChuckLit2, you said it all. And I am troubled too, by the support shown on this blog for Newt. He is a big government progressive.

Oh how I wish we could evaluate each candidate on their positions, not so much on their campaign tactics. The tactics fade, but the policies and positions will remain long after the pressure of the election fades. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, this is where Newt fails.

This vote, as much as everyone wants to make us choose the anti-Obama, anti-Romney,establishment candidate, it does matter more than that. If we choose someone like Newt or Romney, the progressive train keeps on chugging. WHO Will save the REPUBLIC? THAT should be what your vote/support is based upon!

    “And I am troubled too,…”

    “troubled”: campaign troll alert!!!!

    “WHO Will save the REPUBLIC?”

    I await your answer to your own question….

    Well….

      am4constitution in reply to logos. | December 7, 2011 at 3:38 am

      I am not a troll… never have been, never will be. I am concerned about Newt’s past, he is, as I stated in my post, a big government progressive. I am not! Therefore I AM TROUBLED!

      If I had a clear cut answer on “WHO” would save our republic, I would have posted it!!!

      You sir, are the TROLL.. I read all of your comments calling everyone out, it seems to me that you are the one trying to stir it up.

      Add something to the discussion or move on instead of just calling out everyone as a troll with your “troll detector” because I used one of your “troll words”, troubled indeed!

      Neo in reply to logos. | December 7, 2011 at 1:49 pm

      There is a difference between a “Progressive” and a “progressive” .. one has a title, the other has progress.

    Complain all you want. In reality, your choices are limited. So, choose one and be prepared to defend it or just be quiet. What’s it going to be?

    Is Obama your first choice? If not, then pick a Republican and go with it. And, vote for the Republican nominee or prepare for four more years of Obama. Those are your only realistic choices.

      logos in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 3:02 pm

      JayDick:

      “So, choose one and be prepared to defend it or just be quiet. What’s it going to be?”

      Certainly. My choice is: Anybody But Obama.

      And, don’t forget Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Speak no ill of fellow Republicans.

      “Is Obama your first choice? If not, then pick a Republican and go with it. And, vote for the Republican nominee or prepare for four more years of Obama. Those are your only realistic choices.”

      Since I don’t live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida, I’ll vote for the last man standing on the Republican ticket.

      I’m not going to kick any of them. Obama is the one to defeat – not any one of the Republican candidates.

Nice talking points there. I like Newt too, he’s an abrasive genius but I think he would get pasted in the General election. To explain it, I’ll tell you a story.

Once upon a time long long ago (2002) in a faraway mythical land (Kansas), there was a young and conservative legislator named Shallenburger. The season of Primary was upon the land, and the young lad was filled with the Spirit of the Season, and threw his hat into the ring. Many were the opponents of the young lad, but in the end he had won the Primary, and was headed off to the General election, in which he would face the dreaded Sebelius. But his fellow Republicans were greatly distraught at the Conservative roots of the young man, and the things he said, and great was their fear. So when the Sebelius unleashed her waves of mud and slime upon him they did stand around and make uninterested noises instead of defending him. And they also contributed their own little bits and pieces to the gathering storm created by Sebelius, until a great wave of blue did wash the Sebelius into the Great Seat of Power, from which she ruled for many years.

Thus I expect Newt to be treated, for if he should gainsay the elusive post of Nominee, not only shall he face the slings and arrows of the Administration and their minions (MSM), but a veritable horde of his fellow Republicans flinging mud and rocks. And if you thought he caught a lot of crap in ’86, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    workingclass artist in reply to georgfelis. | December 6, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Well done georgfelis…

    “the dreaded Sebelius. But his fellow Republicans were greatly distraught at the Conservative roots of the young man, and the things he said, and great was their fear…”

    Epyllion!…lol…But the “Argonauts” lose

    Thoughtful and entertaining as hell.

    “Thus I expect Newt to be treated, for if he should gainsay the elusive post of Nominee…”

    [gain·say [ gayn sáy ] 1.deny something: to say that something is false
    2.contradict somebody or something: to oppose or contradict somebody]

    “…for if he should deny/oppose/contradict the elusive post of Nominee…”

    Pardon me?

    “…not only shall he face the slings and arrows of the Administration and their minions (MSM), but a veritable horde of his fellow Republicans flinging mud and rocks.”

    Please name a Republican candidate who will NOT face the false claims, lies and innuendos of the mainstream media?

    So, if the Dems, the MSM and the elite Establishment Republicans fling mud and rocks, that makes Newt an attractive “outsider”.

    I guess the only candidate the Establishment Republicans won’t fling mud and rocks at is…Romney?

    JayDick in reply to georgfelis. | December 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    First, Newt is not Shallenburger (I am not familiar with the candidate). Newt is very tough and will respond hard when he needs to.

    Second, he doesn’t need the Republican establishment even though it might be helpful. He is running for President and will conduct his own campaign his own way.

    Moreover, Newt’s responses to attacks are likely to be more damaging to the attacker than the attacks were to Newt.

    Newt is a fighter the likes of which are seldom seen in politics. Sometimes that’s a negative, but I think this year it will be a positive. I can’t see Romney or anyone else conducting the kind of tough campaign it will take to beat Obama. I also think that’s part of the reason he is catching on with Republican primary voters.

I could vote for newt (unlike romney) but am very suspicious of his past.
I think (no proof) that he may have changed and he knows he will always be scrutinized due to his past statements and actions.
he admits making mistakes, no way to tell if those admissions are truly how he feels or just trying to garner votes, but he does seem to care about dismantling what obama has done.
I just wish we had proof he actually would move towards a lot smaller fed government and return power to states.
IMO he and perry are tied for my vote, either better than romney and what I just flushed is betetr than obama.
I like bachman but her habit of attacking candidates is coming off as mean spirited.

    Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | December 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I like bachman but her habit of attacking candidates is coming off as mean spirited.

    Michele Marie Bachmann, Supertar!

    Astroman in reply to dmacleo. | December 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    I don’t like Romney or Gingrich, but I’d vote for Romney before I would Gingrich.

    Romney isn’t liberal, he isn’t conservative, he’s ambitious. He wants to be president. If Romney becomes president, he will be a status quo Republican like Boehner or McConnell.

    But Gingrich is still the same ol’ Gingrich – his ego is out of control. Out of control ego = I know better than you = shoving stuff down your throat.

    Want proof? Gingrich has already declared, let’s face it, I’m the nominee. Despite a wild primary, that he has a weak organization, and not a single vote has been cast.

    Newt says he was paid millions for a history lesson – and he thinks you’re dumb enough to believe it.

    If you compare Gingrich and Perry, you don’t have to hope Perry will be more conservative than Gingrich – Perry’s record IS more conservative and consistent than Gingrich’s. Perry isn’t always right, but he has something Gingrich will never have – humility. Perry is willing to admit mistakes and listen to the will of the people vs. Newt who thinks he knows what’s best for you.

    As flawed as Perry is, it is no contest.

      JayDick in reply to Astroman. | December 6, 2011 at 2:54 pm

      Perry against Obama would also be no contest. Obama would win going away. Perry has no idea of the dirty tactics Chicago politics involves.

      Obama must be defeated. Romney and Gingrich have the best chance of doing that. Gingrich seems to have more toughness than Romney and therefor might have the edge. No one else running comes close.

        workingclass artist in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 3:36 pm

        JayDick…Obviously you’ve never met a Texas Democrat.

        If a Chi-Town Democrat went up against a Texas Yellowdog I’d put money on the Texan and win the bet.

        Perry has been through the ringer with liberals in Texas who have hated him with a vengence ever since the former Rising Bluedog Star jumped the fence to the GOP in 1989. Where do you think the WAPO painted rock story came from…a loser file from either the Texas DNC or Rove’s KBH his won’t work in Texas file.

        About the only people who hate Perry worse is Ron Paul fanatics who are trolling for hookers & strippers in Austin with ads but there’s nothing there.

        When Perry sent the Texas Rangers to OK to fetch fleeing yellowdogs who were trying to hijack the session it was a hoot. Perry can negotiate with them but he won’t let them push him around. The democrats always get the slim pickings off a rotten bone in a legislative contest against Perry.

        I’m not worried about Obama’s Axelrod Machine & I doubt Perry is either.

        Perry is the only candidate in the race to beat both an Axelrod and a Rove campaign.

          “If a Chi-Town Democrat went up against a Texas Yellowdog I’d put money on the Texan and win the bet.”

          Perry couldn’t handle Mittens in their little love-tap episode a few debates ago – how in the world do you think he will be able to stand up to a Media Supported pathological lair, and class-warfare champion, Obama?

          I like the guy, a lot, but there is just no way he can beat Obama at this stage of his career because he just cant think on his feet and/or relay an answer in an acceptable manor. He will be a media punching bag like we haven’t seen since, well, the second term of Bush; which you might remember, happened to give us the huge Progressive movement we are facing now…

          Perry would be an ideal VP though, with the constant public-eye experience being what is probably needed to see if he can learn to handle on the fly public speaking and eventually run for the top spot again.

          Darkstar58, do you really think Romney got the best of Perry in that spat? I encourage you to watch the clip again and notice how Mr. Cool Romney loses his cool, turns bright red, places his hand on Perry, and pleads “save me Anderson Cooper, you’re my only hope!” Not to mention Perry forced Romney’s gaffe “I can’t have illegals, I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!”

          If you think the media will allow ANY Republican to “beat” Obama in the debates, you are kidding yourself. Take Gingrich, for instance. Let’s assume Gingrich runs circles around Obama in the debates. That’s a positive for Gingrich, right? WRONG!

          The media will spin it not as Obama being the weaker debater, but as Gingrich as the fat white-haired Southern pasty white guy acting condescendingly towards the young, hip black guy.

          Since the racist stereotype of blacks is that they aren’t smart, there is NO WAY the media would allow the story to be a white guy outsmarting or out-debating the black guy, even if it was true in this particular instance. The media would sell it, and the public, being scared to death of being thought racist, would buy it hook, line, and sinker.

          No, the best outcome we can hope for in the debates with Obama is to present a clear contrast with Obama – a clear not-Obama. And what better contrast to the Chicago politician than a blunt, plain spoken Texan who isn’t about words, but about a record of results?

          Yes Romney won that spat because it made both of them look horrible childish buffoons – but at least Mitt came off as the one actually trying to get off of the absurd and just answer the rather pitiful attempt at an attack.

          And how did Perry fair? He got the Peppermint Patty treatment…
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDdb5fQSlE

          Way to go you Tough Texas Yellow-dog! :/

          As far as Obama v Newt – the media cant cover up situations like the whole Paul v Newt debate and simple dismissal of Pauls entire argument with a single 3 word response. Obama tries his “ATMs destroy jobs” or “bailing out GM created millions of jobs” nonsense against Newt and its going to be borderline hysterical watching Obama get torn apart.

        GrumpyOne in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 9:59 pm

        Chicago mob political manipulation goes way back to a century or more. Most notable was the stealing of the 1960 Presidential election by the “dead” voters in Cook County. Perry would never stand a chance against that bunch.

        And I think that you’re right as regards Romney’s vs. Newt’s chances against the anointed one. Romney’s a more, “steady as she goes,” type of personality.

        I still look to Newt to implode in less than a couple of months.

      dmacleo in reply to Astroman. | December 6, 2011 at 3:01 pm

      he’s ambitious. He wants to be president

      that describes obama too, souless panderer.

      romney is an earthworm, he twists around on himself and knots himself up in a pile of muck. he will always tell you what you want to hear. just ask him.

        Astroman in reply to dmacleo. | December 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm

        I’ll take the unprincipled politician any day over the committed ideologue who is guided by ideals directly opposed to conservatism.

        The unprincipled politician will be a mixed bag of good and bad, but the one who believes he is smarter than you and knows better than you will cram it down your throat every chance he gets.

I dont think it can be understated how toxic Bachmann would be for the GOP in a general election. There is not a single circumstance in which I would even consider voting for her.

workingclass artist | December 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Well I’m a Perry supporter because I’m a native conservative Texan and I live in Texas. If Perry can turn it round for other states then liberals will quit moving here.

If I had to choose an alternative it would be Newt over Mitt but I have grave concerns given his erratic leadership history. These are legitimate concerns and the “New” Newt hasn’t sold me.

I would not vote for any congressional backbencher so that takes out CrazyUncle Paul and Bachmann.
(Sorry but Bachmann and Santorum are annoying as hell)

Santorum lost his last race and has a google problem he keeps whining about.

So that leaves aside from Perry, Mitt, Huntsman, Newt.

Huntsman has some good conservative plans and a pretty good record in Utah..But he’s made a mistake in running as the different Mitt. I think he could win disaffected democrats more than Mitt can. He’s also supposed to good at retail politicking & Mitt is not.

I’ll vote for Johnson or Roemer in an independent run before I’ll vote for Mitt since I think the race is lost with Mitt anyway.

Mitt will not undo Obamacare…He’ll try and fix it and sell it to the rest of us because his ego is in it with Romneycare.

I frankly don’t think Newt can win former Clinton democrats…But I could be wrong.

I’ll stay with Gov. Perry as long as he’s in the race and I think he’ll surprise some people.

    A vote for Johnson or Roemer in an independent run is a vote for Obama. Do you prefer him to Romney?

    The only way to defeat Obama is to vote for the Republican nominee. That’s what I intend to do.

      logos in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm

      JayDick:

      I concur.

      workingclass artist in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm

      A vote for Obamalite is a vote for Obama.

      (Latinos except for maybe Florida won’t vote for Obamalite.)

      *If you can’t see that I can’t help you.*

        Do you remember the 1992 election?

        George Bush (the Elder) won 37% of votes cast.
        Ross Perot won 19% of the votes cast, and
        BILL CLINTON won 43% of the votes cast.

        Thank you Ross Perot!

        I hope someone reminds Johnson and Roemer of the outcome of the third party run in 1992.

workingclass artist | December 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm

When Perry was on Megyn Kelly’s show she asked him what Big Media 24/7 were going to cover if Congress becomes a part-time legislature?

I for one like the idea of Washington becoming inconsequential in my life…Like Austin is except for 140 days session every other year.

Henry Hawkins | December 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm

Wow, lol……. RELEASE THE CONCERN TROLLS!

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pdates.pdf

Here’s the primary election schedules.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and now Florida, will drive the selection of the candidate – just like in elections past.

    GrumpyOne in reply to logos. | December 6, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Don’t count on it… No longer does the winner take all and that ensures that the primary season will be an extended effort. It’s even possible that it could end up in the hands of the convention.

    Look for a messy show that will be long running…

Henry Hawkins | December 6, 2011 at 4:06 pm

The Dems understand, I believe, that they are screwed whether the GOP goes with Gingrich or Romney. It’s the GOP establishment that’s going apoplectic over the rise of The Newt. Just for the fun of seeing big gov GOP squishes squirm, imagine Newt actually wins the nomination. OK, now imagine he chooses for his running mate……..Sarah Palin.

    With Obama approval among independants in the 30% range, I think both Newt (and sadly Romney) are capable of making sure the lid gets shut on the liberal coffin for the next 8 years.

    My VP selection on the Republican ticket is Marco Rubio.

    I’m dreaming of a Rubio vs Biden debate…

What I like about Newt is he debates like a street fighter. Any other candidate with as much luggage as him would be dead in the water. I dare say he’s the GOP equivalent of the Clintons in that regard, but with 1/10 the amount of corruption.

Is he perfect? No.

Can he get us out of the present economic callamity? Probably.

Can he halt and end Obamacare without compromise?…. he’s said he would. I hope he’s not speaking in campaign tongue.

Will he be tough on foreign policy? Yes.

Illegal immigration. ????

Abortion? I expect he’ll be as good as Bush.

Reducing the size and scope of Government? I’m nervous.

Reforming Social Security and Medicare? He can’t do worse than all the previous presidents combined.
others?

    Darkstar58 in reply to Andy. | December 6, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    “Illegal immigration. ????”

    Its a Yes – and he will likely actually get it done instead of pushing an ideal which ultimately leads to nothing more then the conversation never going away.

    Look, we have to realize that this pipe-dream of “deport everyone and put tanks on the border” is just that, a pipe dream. It is about the most unrealistic thing talked about in politics, and it is doing absolutely nothing more then feed the Democrat narrative of “Racist Republicans want to break up families because they hate everyone”

    Michele Bachmanns “he is going to give Amnesty to a hundred million quintillion centillion people” because he dared come up with a solution which can get done, secure the border, satisfy Conservatives and not send Democrats off the deep end on a “see, they hate everyone and want you dead” rant, is doing nothing but hurting her and the Tea Party she repeatedly claims she represents.

      Astroman in reply to Darkstar58. | December 6, 2011 at 4:59 pm

      Gingrich is not a question on illegal immigration. He will push for amnesty.

      The fact is, we don’t need to deport the millions already here. If we actually enforce the law for once, they will self-deport.

        Darkstar58 in reply to Astroman. | December 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm

        There is nothing, anywhere, that says Gingrich will push for Amnesty other then Bachmanns wild claim

        Michele did hire Amnesty-pushing faithful, and 40year insider, Ed Rollins as her campaign manager though…

      GrumpyOne in reply to Darkstar58. | December 6, 2011 at 10:13 pm

      Uh, enforce ALL of the current laws regarding border security and illegal immigration and you’d be surprised on just how fast the issue resolves itself.

      Look at Alabama… Tough new laws, (well at the state level), and they are leaving in droves.

      Enforcement is exactly what Eisenhower did in the 1950’s when faced with a similar crisis and yes, the problem went away all by itself in less than a year..

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Andy. | December 6, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Aernate Bachmann illegal immigration plan: force them all to take HPV vaccinations.

Henry Hawkins | December 6, 2011 at 4:43 pm

“What I like about Newt is he debates like a street fighter.”

Exactly. Pelosi makes a threat about outing info from the ethics investigation when Gingrich was Speaker. Within *hours* Newt smacks that ball back across the net and down her throat. Within *one day* Pelosi is backpedaling so fast her hooves are a blur. That is a skill this year’s GOP nominee must have.

As for affecting the economy, dealing with Obamacare, reducing the deficit, cutting spending, etc., whichever GOP-er hopefully wins the White House need only sign the bills sent him or her from Congress, at a minimum. “Just shut up and sign the bill, sir.” The key, of course, will be if the GOP leadership in the House and Senate will have the cajones to make major moves. If the GOP takes the WH, you have to believe they will also strengthen the majority in the House and at least close the gap in the Senate – if not take the Senate outright.

We’ve held the WH and both houses before, and fairly recently. If they win all three and blow it again….

I don’t even want to think about it.

ConserveLiberty | December 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm

All this bomb-throwing does is make me sympathetic to Gingrich – a sentiment I am not certain I should hold.

    Heh… No need to be doubtful. If the politicians can have their fun, we should also be entitled for fluster, rant, rattle and maybe even shoot an insult or two..

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend