Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Savagely lashing news goalie”

“Savagely lashing news goalie”

I guess I’m upsetting some people with my vigorous posts regarding Newt.

Robert Stacy McCain says I’ve “hopped aboard the Gingrich bandwagon and [am] savagely lashing Newt’s critics.”  Actually, the bandwagon jumped on me, because my endorsement predated Newt’s surge, if only by a few days.

John Sexton of Verum Serum says I’ve been “playing news goalie for Newt,” because I did not accept  his analysis of Newt and Freddie, and criticized the failure of numerous critics of Newt for  downplaying Newt’s call for the “need to improve the regulation of GSE’s.”

So am I a “savagely slashing lashing news goalie”?

I have made the case, and people can judge what I say on the merits.  I fully disclosed my support position, so no hidden agenda.  If only the MSM would do that.

I have pointed out the Newt pile on, and I think people are coming around to my view, not about Newt necessarily but about the almost bizarre treatment of Newt by the conservative media.

If calling out National Review about it’s martian cover, calling out Ann Coulter about her flip-flop and birther card play, calling out Michele Bachmann for her unfounded “money is changing hands” accusation, and standing up against the Romney strategy of crazy makes me a savagely lashing news goalie, then maybe that is a compliment.

If Newt is not the nominee, I’ll apply those principles to whomever the nominee is, just like I have done in the past in defending Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and many others who unfairly are targeted.  That’s my territory, and I’m sticking with it.

(And for the record, I take no offense at the criticism.  Both bloggers do good work and I’ll continue to link to them.)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


” … Oh!! Jacobson with a brutal hip check of Romney into the boards. Here we go! Off come the gloves and helmets! Oh! Jacobson is messing up Romney’s hair! He’s going after the perfect hair! Savage hair-messing goalie! Oh, Look out! McCarthy is skating over for a piece of the action … and goes after the perfect hair too!”

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    That’s funny!
    This article is spot on. I can only vote for Newt as the ABO candidate due to his position on illegal immigration.
    But the coverage by the conservative media has been way too heavy handed.
    And quite a lot of it comes from the same group that hate Sarah Palin.

Bitterlyclinging | December 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm

“If you’re getting flak, you must be over the target!”
Note how AP/Yahoo ran the story on its banner page for nearly three days on how the FBI was almost on the verge of initiating a sting operation against Newt. The average life cycle for a banner page story being roughly six hours. I’m looking forward to seeing Newt flip Obama over his shoulder, then pin him to the mat for a three count during the debates.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 18, 2011 at 12:25 pm

The internet creates a “momentum effect” or “herding effect”.

What I mean by that is that Newt started very low in the polls. His rise was very slow and gradual – but consistent. But after the Union Leader endorsed him, it resulted in a huge surge in a short period of time as people believed he was the real “anti-Romney”.

It think the same “momentum” effect happened in the conservative media. Once a couple of well respected opinion shapers criticized him, it was fair game for them all to pile on.

Now so many conservative media types are anti-Newt, they’ve created the impression that he’s not a serious candidate and anybody who supports him is not a serious person. I don’t agree with it, but I think that’s the impression they’ve created and what they intended with the pile on.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | December 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    I also use that term -“piling on ” -it is just group bullying .

    I took a look at Newt when he showed his knowledge & analytical acumen on his full understanding of Dinesh D’Souzas book . Like Sarah Palin & Victor Davis Hansen he can see right through stealth defended Obama.

    That is the first step.

    Newt knows the enemy.

    Santorum is a the best of the rest in this regard but it takes an ally cat to fight an ally cat.

“If you’re getting flak, you must be over the target!”


I give you a big BZ professor. The mittbots are sounding a lot like obamabots from 08. I have the same feeling about both men (obama and mitt).

Do I think that the two would nominate greatly different folks to the federal bench/supreme court? There wouldn’t be a dimes worth of difference (souter anyone?)

Do I think that either would reduce the size of government? Good god no.

Do I think that either would reduce the federal budget? No

Do I think that either would kill Ocare? Um (lets keep the good parts?) NO

Please someone make a compelling argument that a vote for Mitt is not the same a vote for obama. Please just remember that in that explanation you need to make it simple. I mean I was not smart enough to vote for obama in 08 like my intellectual betters said I should surely do.

Either Newt self-destructs as he always does, or he wins the nomination first and then screws conservatives.

Now even the Wall Street Journal is “unfairly” attacking Newt – by quoting him. Now he’s saying he will ignore Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees. In effect, he is saying he will put himself above the Constitutional check on Executive power, like a dictator.

Well, you know he always pictured himself with the olive laurel and a toga . . .

    andcar in reply to Estragon. | December 18, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    If I understood correctly, he’s not saying he will put himself above constitutional checks- he’s saying this particular check is not as “constitutional” as we’ve always believed it to be.

    There is at least some merit to that position- “judicial review” appears nowhere in the Constitution. It comes out of Marbury v. Madison, a case decided by…the Supreme Court. The Court basically gave itself that power, and it’s authority to do so was…?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Estragon. | December 18, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Newt’s position on the courts is going to subject him to a lot of criticism, but thinking it through it is not all that radical. (That’s not an endorsement of his plan in all aspects.) If the Supreme Court ordered the armed forces to stand down in time of war, would the Commander in Chief obey? If a judge issued an injunction that the armed forces could not invade Iwo Jima, should the armed forces have waited off shore until the appeals process was completed? The problem to me is not unpopular decisions on items clearly within the juridisdiction of the courts, but when courts take on the role reserved for other branches and become super legislators or usurp the powers of the Executive branch. The line is not always clear, but there has to be a line. As Mark Levin pointed out the other day, Newt is raising an important issue of balancing about which we are afraid to talk, but needs to be talked about.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 18, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      Andrew Jackson’s true words ought to have been recorded .

      And etched in stone on every court in the land.

      Courts are as fallible as any other human construct.

      Sorry, the man wants to drag federal judges – appointed for life and removable only by impeachment – before Congress to explain decisions which may be unpopular, threatening to send U.S. Marshals to fetch them if they don’t appear voluntarily.

      This is not some considered reflection on a legal philosophy.

        andcar in reply to Estragon. | December 19, 2011 at 8:05 am

        Sorry, you’re distorting the man’s position to make it sound more extreme than it is. Holding judges- who wield vast power and are currently unaccountable for it- responsible when they render decisions well outside the mainstream understanding of an issue would not be a bad thing. Read his position paper.

        This is a considered reflection on a legal philosophy.

So am I a “savagely slashing news goalie”?


I found your blog about a year ago and can honestly say that I do not recall you savagely lashing out at anyone. I am for all the candidates except Ron Paul and want whoever has the best chance of beating President Obama. I believe that candidate is Mitt Romney………you prefer Newt Gingrich, we disagree…….so what, that is America. You still have a great blog……I look forward to seeing what you have to say every day.

I would pay more attention to Newt’s critics if they weren’t applying such a painfully blatant double standard. They say Newt is unfit because he hasn’t been a reliable conservative, but seem to have a bad case of mass amnesia when it comes to Romney’s less-than-stellar record.

    This situation reminds me of the primary race for the senate seat here in Florida. The powers that were decided that Charlie Crist was their man and no amount reasoninf would change their minds. In fact, Cornyn & Co. only reluctantly embraced Marco Rubio after Crist left the party. For reasons that escape me, the Republican establishment has crowned Romney and they ain’t backing down. The nastiness of their attacks against Newt and his supporters have been disheartening to say the least.

    Newt is not the perfect candidate but he is, by far, the best we have. If I were a Democrat (perish the thought!) I would be enjoying the Republican feeding frenzy to no end.

“Actually, the bandwagon jumped on me, because my endorsement predated Newt’s surge, if only by a few days.”

C’mon. Don’t be so humble. Your endorsement CAUSED Newt’s surge!

And to continue the ice hockey metaphor, the establishment GOP and media minions have pulled their goalie in an attempt to overcome the Newt surge.

I think I see what happened to all that stimulus cash. If what I see is not true, then it will make a good fiction novel. Regarding “National Review”…..that has long been an establishment Republican publication, hardly the stuff of revolutionaries.

It’s your blog and you can support who you want. At least you’re out front about it. However, it does get dull when you blog about the debates, and the videos you post seem to be only about Newt.

I like your blog because you have more about Wisconsin than most blogs, and that’s why I continue to check it out. I like some of the other stuff too, but I tend to blow through the pro-Newt stuff pretty fast.

Not for a moment should you question your backing of Newt. All I hear are those Republicans and Conservative who feel Newt is a mean man. Mean is it? Mean because he could stare down his own weak kneed majority, force the weasels to pass a balanced budget, welfare reform…, justifiably a small start, but historically a huge start, Give me a mean man and make him angry too, because being nice hasn’t worked and won’t work, its life and death, its a future here. This county wasn’t founded by an establishment of desk sitters backing emotionless candidates, they were revolutionaries, who stared life and death in the eye and did what is best for the future of our republic. Be like those who stared into the future and not like those who carped about upsetting the King.

Mr. Jacobson, at the time you endorsed Newt, his upcoming surge was foreseen by many people, just as Cain’s implosion was foreseen by many folks, too. I predicted Cain’s implosion long before he eventually collapsed, just as I’ve been predicting Newt’s implosion.

I believe Mr. Jacobson has gotten too close to be objective here. Do you remember how myself and many others were pointing out that Newt’s crack was anti-capitalist, and you were in denial about it? Even Newt has admitted that what he said wasn’t in accord with “his values.”

And in response, you have repeatedly made a big deal about how Romney’s response was supposedly socialist, too. But you completely missed the point of Romney’s counterattack. Mitt wasn’t attacking Newt for spending big bucks at a fancy place, nor was it for being rich (Romney is far richer). He was going after Newt for trying to position himself as a regular Joe when in fact he was VERY wealthy, too (Newt’s $10 bet vs. Mitt’s $10,000 bet). “What’s this $10 bet business? You’re a million-dollar historian, bro!”

“It’s their rink, their ice and their _ _ _ _ ing town…”

“It’s time to let ‘em know you’re there.” (Slapshot)

(caution: ‘R’ rated language)

The recent big hubbub has been about MF Global, and “rehypothecation”. Even smart money men had their funds taken, when they thought they were safe. It seems Corsine went through London, just like Madoff, to rehypothecate beyond what is legal in the US. Morgan Stanley and your brokerage are probably also playing in those waters. With Europe faltering toward insolvency, we don’t know how many US banks could go with them.

This seems like hysteria or conspiracy theory, but real people and real business (like farmers I chatter with) had funds taken. It seems derivative gamblers may actually have seniority over those that put actual funds in their brokerage accounts, thanks to some of those emergency TARP like secret agreements.

This financial high jinks may supersede Obamacare, illegal immigration, and high unemployment combined. Yet I hear almost nothing about promises to investigate the financial shadow banking frauds.

Perhaps we need Eliot Spitzer to take on the role of Eliot Ness … the prostitution and cocaine us are rampant on Wall Street, but the real problem is the leveraged gambling, now underwritten by every American that has saved and invested. Ron Paul is probably the one closest to facing these huge problems … but what chance does he have?

If Newt called for limiting GSE’s, and has a plan to rein in the shadow bankers, they will pull no punches in trying to destroy him. But Newt’s praise of FDR is strange … he seems willing to compromise … A LOT.

I don’t know a single tea partier that thinks Obama was born in Africa, but I know a lot that are outraged at selective bailouts and now this “rehypothecation” Madoff game, which seems to have put our savings at risk. The can is being kicked down a dead end road, they are whistling past the graveyard, while pushing on a string, on thin ice …

Obama has everything kicking in in 2013. We need serious commentary and laid out plans, not hyperbole over hair or moon rocks.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Midwest Rhino. | December 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Good reminder about ‘everything kicking in in 2013″.

    Re the financial arena I can remember a court wiping out secured creditors in the GM /Chrysler deals. The courts will be no protection if your scenario eventuates.

I think you’re on the money with Newt, Professor, the capitulation by the token opposition represented by the Congressional GOP only highlights his accomplishments and Boehner is careful not to add fuel to that fire and along with Cheney gives him credit where due.

Not that it matters, you are a bit lost on Rep. Bachmann. One look at what happens to those who go after the High Princess, Romney, and Michele’s tack of keeping her head down making points where she can should be obvious.

Not saying it’s a winning tack, even less so courageous, but your lack of insight is provincially Eastern. Moreover, her proclivity for groundless rumor alone disqualifies her.

That said, build on your strengths, the Newt analysis is your best stuff since the blog morph.

Well, Professor, I disagree with you on Newt but that isn’t news. The most recent point that perplexes me most is that you seem to believe Paul Ryan’s budget was “right-wing social engineering.” I find that unsupportable.

Ryan’s plan started walking down the path of reversing left-wing social engineering. But it didn’t nearly go far enough. If any attempt by anyone to reverse 80 years of left-wing social engineering is “right-wing social engineering” then we have lost the ability to take back our country.

I am convinced you are wrong about Newt and will be terribly disappointed should he win the presidency but that is your choice. Frankly, I am not enthused about anyone in the race.

But I respect your opinion and enjoy the blog even if you get it wrong once-in-a-while…

    Newt’s far from perfect as a GOP candidate, but at this point the alternative is Romney.

    Gingrich has made mistakes and said some pretty non-conservative things- absolutely. The other side of it is what he has actually *done.*

    Leading the GOP to take over the House for the first time in 40 years, the Contract with America (which our anointed golden boy Mittles opposed from the left at the time in an effort to get himself into the Senate from Massachusetts), maneuvering Bill Clinton into going along with welfare reform (to my knowledge the only significant reduction in the entitlement state since the New Deal)…these are not small things.

    In my opinion, Newt’s record of conservative *policy* outweighs his occasional forays into boneheaded non-conservative *speech.*

      WarEagle82 in reply to andcar. | December 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      My point has always been that Newt talks a more conservative game than he delivers.

      In 1994, Newt could have substantially de-funded the left-wing strongholds throughout the government but he didn’t. In fact, he delivered very little of the Contract when he had the votes in the House to do so.

      Newt talks a great dame but he doesn’t appear intent on delivering any of it…

        WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | December 18, 2011 at 4:26 pm

        er, “game” not “dame.”

        Was that a Freudian slip or what?

        So because Newt didn’t manage to single-handedly dismantle the entire welfare state in one swoop, the accomplishments he did realize are to be dismissed? Again, winning majorities in both houses after decades in the political wilderness, welfare reform, balancing the budget, etc.

        I’d say the exact opposite of what you said. To boot, that Newt delivers a more conservative game than he talks.

          andcar in reply to andcar. | December 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm

          Let me emphasize the welfare reform thing again. Lately, people have been piling on Newt for his comment about the Ryan plan (a plan since walked back by Ryan himself, btw). They’re saying that this proves Gingrich to be a big-government wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing.

          Newt’s actual record however tells a different story. The welfare reform package he got Clinton to go along with was the first (and still only) significant reduction in the entitlement machine since FDR kicked off the New Deal. Newt is the only politician in this country to have led a successful effort to reduce the size of the federal government anytime in the last 80 years.

The old saying, “Make your bed and sleep in it,” rings true here.

Newt made his own bed years ago and continues to do so. For example, he just made a statement to the effect of defying any Supreme Court ruling that he doesn’t agree with.

I sure would love to support a revolutionary out-of-the-box thinker but not a loose cannon. Newt is definitely in the latter category.

It’s starting to sink in that Romney will be the one…

    WarEagle82 in reply to GrumpyOne. | December 18, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Romney is easily the most liberal candidate in the field this year and may be the most liberal GOP candidate in a long time.

    Be careful what you ask for…

      GrumpyOne in reply to WarEagle82. | December 19, 2011 at 5:57 am

      I’m pragmatic and look at things like fixing broken things like budgets, tax policy management experience. Romney has a solid record in this regard.

      I would have rather have had Cain but… The MSM took care of that. And I was a contributing supporter too!

      But be assured, I don’t want four more years of you-know-who…

    andcar in reply to GrumpyOne. | December 18, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    If Romney is the one, I’m not sure I’ll be able to bring myself to check the box. I’ll just have to keep reminding myself that the alternative is four more years of Obama. Then again, maybe another Obama term will finally be enough for the GOP establishment to get it through their thick skulls that nominating their anointed “moderates” is not the way to win a presidential contest.

    In any case, if I do end up having to vote for Mittles, I’ll probably throw up in my mouth a little when I do it.

      GrumpyOne in reply to andcar. | December 19, 2011 at 6:09 am

      I think that four more years of O’bammy would be horrific for the country. He’s already far outdone the damage that J. Carter did in his entire term.

      Romney is a proven manager, would most likely have a friendly congress which could pave the way to some solid undoing of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi damage inflicted on us to date.

      Save the throwing up if R Paul gets the nod…

        andcar in reply to GrumpyOne. | December 19, 2011 at 8:15 am

        Yeah, but too much of Romney’s proof of his managerial acumen comes from bankrupt companies and liberal governance, pushing things like Romneycare.

        TBH, if it wasn’t for his nutjob foreign policy ideas, I’d happily take Paul over Romney.

Nope, not goalie, but one savaged referee. Everyone hates the umpire and the referee.

So Professor, you know you are being even handed when everyone is criticizing you. There is no higher praise than to hear the ref or the the ump needs glasses because you called the play to the dissatisfaction of the fans. Don’t you feel the love and affirmation???

I think it would take a certain level of curmudgeonly demeanor to enjoy the role of the arbiter. There is a certain satisfaction to saying a pox on both your houses.

A curmudgeon’s reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They’re neither warped nor evil at heart. They don’t hate mankind, just mankind’s absurdities. They’re just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.

Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can’t compromise their standards and can’t manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.

Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.
– JON WINOKUR from –

Prof. Jacobsen, you’re one of the few bloggers who is not letting his emotions get in the way.

I bet your former legal adversaries are glad you’re in the ivory tower; but they’ll see you again soon, in the form of your well-trained students. BWAHAHA!

Professor Jacobson, I am so glad you endorsed Newt early. I’ve been watching his speeches and interviews for months. I support Newt whole-heartedly. I know others who have studied his speeches and also enthusiastically support him.

I think many people are getting their information from the media, which of course is distorted shards and fragments of what Newt is actually talking about.

You actually LEARN something from a Newt Gingrich speech or interview.

The Staten Island Tea Party speech; “The Future of American Education”; “2012: Victory or Death; “Michigan Must Change or Die”; “Strong America Now.” A search on YouTube for speeches longer than 20 minutes or by title finds them.

This is a new day. People can find out for themselves. No one can stop a person from finding out the score, as long as the internet is available.

Thank you, Professor Jacobson, for endorsing Newt early. I agree. He is proposing some amazing solutions.

This is an opportunity for the American people to use the new technology to make sure we are free and have opportunity. AND to make government responsive to the American people. The government is NOT the boss of the people in the USA. The people are sovereign here.

RE: Gingrich’s ‘right wing social engineering’ May 2011 comments in reference to the Paul Ryan plan…

Anyone curious about it might take another listen to it and catch the nuance:

It is very clear that what Gingrich was objecting to was the *imposition* of radical new changes to long-running federal programs on the American people without their consent or participation in the planning or without a transparent process. He was directly criticizing the imposition of Obamacare, and was saying Republicans shouldn’t *impose* such radical reformations either. His objection was to the *imposition*, not the plan per se, though he and now Ryan agree it was flawed.

The defining ‘money’ quote was:

“I don’t think right wing social engineering is any better than left wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate…”

The term engineering implies an engineer manipulating parts, energy, and processes to create a product. The parts, energy, and processes aren’t asked if they’d like to be thus manipulated. That is *imposed* on them, if you’ll pardon a clumsy analogy. Ryan’s plan, if enacted, would have been imposed by Congress on a populace that had no part or voice in its design – Ryan wrote it and must take it or leave it, basically.

I do think the comment is misconstrued and misreported, and that it was the imposition aspect Gingrich found objectionable rather than the plan itself; his objection was more about the process than the product. Ryan wrote it without public discourse and presented it as complete, whereas Gingrich favors open and public discourse by legislators whenever writing such a momentous reform. Of course, Gingrich objected to parts of the plan itself and articulated those objections elsewhere, and Ryan has himself admitted problems with it.

Newt Gingrich has been savaged by nearly every pundit alive, but he still remains at the top of the polls in Iowa, South Carolina and especially Florida. I’m surprised no one mentioned the advantage he has with the South and Mitt Romney’s weakness with the region.

In hindsight, maybe the attacks helps Gingrich. He weathers the criticisms, shows he doesn’t have a glass jaw or the “odd temperament” he’s supposed to have and remains steady. Better the skeletons come out the closet now than later. And the polls show people don’t care, there are more pressing issues at hand.

If Gingrich keeps his cheerful, thoughtful grandpa persona intact, he could possibly win the Nomination and the Presidency. Interesting times we live in. I don’t expect any miracles, just someone who leads with a belief that the US is an exceptional country that can and will do better. I’m almost convinced Newt Gingrich could be that person.

    andcar in reply to GoldenAh. | December 18, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    “In hindsight, maybe the attacks helps Gingrich.”

    I think there’s something to this. The MSM has been reliably sliming GOP pols for decades. Consequently, conservative/toss-up voters have learned to take media reports with a grain or three of salt. The conservative punditacracy shouldn’t really be that surprised that these voters are now skeptical of their reports as well.

    In some cases it goes beyond skepticism. When the MSM and GOP establishment set their attack dogs on Sarah Palin, it only made her more popular. There might be a bit of the same thing going on with Gingrich.

Windy City Commentary | December 18, 2011 at 9:38 pm

Before the Newt is Marvin the Martian Cover from National Review, there was Paul Ryan as FDR. Meanwhile, Newt is taking a bunch of flack for once saying that FDR was a great president. National Review clearly does not practice what they preach.

Thou shall speak out against the circular firing squad.