Image 01 Image 03

The attack on Newt goes Sci-Fi

The attack on Newt goes Sci-Fi

ABC is hosting a debate Saturday night.  I’ll be live here.

Should be fun.  Let’s see if Romney has the guts to confront Newt face to face with all the “crazy” talk being spread about Newt by Romney’s campaign, surrogates and supporters, and if he can do it successfully.  If not, he’s Tim Pawlenty.  I’m betting on Pawlenty.

The anti-Newt derangement not only has gone off the rails, it’s now intergalactic.  The former historian of the House, who Newt fired as one of his first acts as Speaker, has this to say:

If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, Newt Gingrich is from the planet Trantor, a fictional world created by Isaac Asimov in his classic Foundation series about galactic empire.   Newt’s master plan for America does not come from a Republican Party playbook.  It comes from the science fiction that he read in high school.  He is playing out, on a national and global scale, dreams he had as a teenager with his nose buried in pulp fiction.

Back on planet Earth, Mark Levin (not a Newt supporter) sees exactly what is going on (via Protein Wisdom):

There’s only one way this country can be saved, with a conservative! And it’s high damn time that so-called conservative pundits, and conservative outlets, and conservative websites, and conservative magazines start acting their role! And I don’t just mean in their fundraising appeals, how conservative they are, but I mean use their intellectual power, use substance to support a conservative!

Romney is not a conservative. You’ve been going on and on about how Newt’s not a conservative. Great! So is the Weekly Standard going to endorse Santorum or Bachmann? Will National Review endorse Santorum or Bachmann? Will the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has it’s own conservative problems with open borders and some other dumbass positions that it takes, will it be backing Santorum or Bachmann? Or are they all going to rally behind Romney? Now all of a sudden they want conservative purity when they apply it to Gingrich, but they don’t want conservative purity when they apply it to Romney.

Levin’s audio is here, you must listen particularly to his point about Romney’s hiding behind others to do his dirty work.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I could be making overmuch of not much, of course, but I am hearing some disturbing whispers indirectly from insiders associated with various conservative politicians that seem to be about what the Romney money and machine can do for them in their own personal career bids versus what Gingrich can do. Is this how we want to choose a president?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to janitor. | December 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    I’ve been thinking the same thing, the Romney campaign is spreading the wealth like no one else and the business connections will pay off big time in the future.

    Yes Virgnia Malonth, crony capitalism is alive in both parties.
    There really is a cabal of DC insiders who win no matter what party is in power, which is why I think I will go with the guy who scares them the most. These folks live for the “deal” or what most people hear as “doing something.” I intend to “embrace the horror” of gridlock. Once small businesses know that DC is completely incapacitated, business and hiring will resume .. did you ever notice that profits are the best while Congress and the President are on vacation.

The former House historian has a point about Newt. I will try to say it in a different way. While Newt has a conservative streak in him, Newt is not content to be a conservative. Newt watches the central planners and thinks if we are going to do central planning of the economy, I am much smarter than these liberal hacks and can do a much better job. Newt can not resist the urge to prove the superiority of his central planning and therein lies Newt’s problem.

Whether it’s education, energy, manufacturing, etc., Newt can not resist the urge to show the media and belt-way insiders just how creative and smart his central planning ideas are. It will always sound grandiose. Something like 21st Century American Education Solutions would be up Newt’s alley.

But what is not there is conservatism. Where is Reagan’s idea that we don’t need a federal department of education? And that is why I distrust Newt.

Henry Hawkins | December 9, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Our problem is that none of the true-blue, no-doubt-about-it conservatives that are electable are running. Bachmann does not seem ready for the White House in terms of experience (a couple short terms in Congress with no signature legislation), nor in terms of temperment or judgment (fairly major self-immolations on HPV hysteria and a string of minor gaffes and mispoken silliness). Santorum looks good on paper, but for whatever reason has been thoroughly rejected by his own party, in PA in his last election attempt, and currently in the GOP nomination race.

Hayley Barbour isn’t running, nor Jim Demint. Neither is Mitch Daniels, nor Paul Ryan, nor John Thune. Not Rubio, not Rand Paul, nor Chris Christie, and so on down the list of real and perceived potential conservative candidates.

Our choices are on the table. Bachmann is premature, Santorum has zero traction, little footprint at all. Huntsman… blech. A Venezuelan Girl Scout with BB guns could intimidate a Ron Paul administration. Romney is 100% pure squish and is negated by Obama in the general by Romneycare.

Who’s left? Gingrich. We can accept him if only by default, or we can accept arguments that he’s the guy on his own merits, but who else is there?

In some ways, it feels like we have a slate of candidates that are, respectively, a Pinto, a Chevette, a VW Bug, and an AMC Pacer, and people are bitching because none of them will go 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds. The expectation is unreasonable only because of the limitation of choices.

    “Hayley Barbour isn’t running, nor Jim Demint. Neither is Mitch Daniels, nor Paul Ryan, nor John Thune. Not Rubio, not Rand Paul, nor Chris Christie, and so on down the list of real and perceived potential conservative candidates.”

    Barbour, Demint and Daniels would have been good conservatives. Ryan, Rand and Rubio are way too young, and Rubio and Paul are way too inexperienced to be credible candidates. Maybe someday. Christie is a Rino – good on unions, but not going to get the Republican nomination – think Guiliani. Thune? Are you kidding? The party establishment likes him, but he has done nothing to validate consideration for the presidency.

    “Who’s left? Gingrich. We can accept him if only by default, or we can accept arguments that he’s the guy on his own merits, but who else is there? ”

    Perry, the one with the great resume. It’s much easier to train an impressive candidate to be an adequate debater than to take a talker and inject him with different DNA or change his resume.

      JayDick in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      I don’t think it would be possible to convert Perry into what he needs to be in the time available, or maybe ever. If nominated, Obama would make him look foolish. For goodness sake, he makes himself look foolish without help.

      One of the characteristics most needed to beat Obama is to be a great campaigner. I think Newt shines in the regard. He will make mincemeat of Obama on the campaign trail. Romney might be OK too, but Newt is better.

      Running a great candidate who loses won’t help anything. If Obama wins, we’re doomed.

        dmacleo in reply to JayDick. | December 9, 2011 at 2:20 pm

        do the people care about the shine and polish now though?
        I say this as a non-supporter of perry, but I think its worth considering people may not care.

          Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | December 9, 2011 at 11:34 pm

          his huge support vanished solely because of his flubs in the debate – people care…

          I like the guy, a lot, and was pulling for him before he got into the race. But wow, at this point I’m not sure he could give his complete name and address without fumbling.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      My omission of Perry was an honest oversight – I type and hit Submit. I don’t edit.

      But let’s not haggle over individual noncandidates. That misses the point. My point is that the true blue, clearly electable conservative candidates aren’t running. The ones who are do not seem very electable. To apply standards of conservatism to who remains will always render who remains not quite up to snuff.

      Perry is like Santorum. On paper, both look like and are solid conservative candidates, but for different reasons neither is currently hitting on much. Then again, like in sports, we can predict outcomes but there’s a reason they play the games. either could surprise in Iowa. But if not in Iowa, it’s pretty much over for both.

I’d love to see Gingrich as an advisor, but he should never be President. Why, Professor, is it so easy for you to dismiss the experience of those who actually had to work for him? Yes, I know he’s said he’s matured. When? In the past few years he’s supported all sorts of liberal fads. He spent extravagantly just earlier this year on his campaign, going way into debt – NO excuse for that. And recently he missed the campaign deadline in Ohio and Missouri. Of course, he “intended” to miss the Missouri deadline. Yeah, right.

He’s still too undisciplined to be President.

Here’s Brit Hume on Gingrich:

    William A. Jacobson in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    “Why, Professor, is it so easy for you to dismiss the experience of those who actually had to work for him?” Because those are the people who came close to destroying the Republican Party until the Tea Party movement, which they hate more than they hate Newt, showed up. I don’t trust their judgment or their petty feelings.

      That may be true of some of them, but absolutely not all of them. They are giving conservative reasons for opposing him, so I don’t think you’re being totally fair here. Also, a leader has to be able to work with people to lead. Gingrich has had a lot of people problems. Smart guy, but always chasing rabbit trails, and he supported mandates. My big issue is Obamacare, and I do not trust that he will work to repeal it. I don’t believe he wholeheartedly opposes it.

      Thanks for the response, btw. I love your blog.

        JayDick in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm

        OK, let’s hear your proposal for beating Obama. I don’t think anyone but Romney or Gingrich has a chance and I think Newt is the stronger of the two. What say you?

          NbyNW in reply to JayDick. | December 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm

          Obama’s policies will defeat Obama. An endless list!

          Obamacare is still overwhelmingly unpopular.(And if either Newt or Romney gets the nomination, Republicans will not be able to win on that issue, nor do I believe we will see repeal).

          Those who are so concerned about Perry’s gaffes forget about all of Obama’s – which are more numerous and substantially worse. That includes verbal gaffes when he doesn’t have his teleprompter. Checked out YouTube lately? Let the Dems try to hit him on that – it’ll be fun returning fire with fire.

          Darkstar58 in reply to JayDick. | December 9, 2011 at 11:48 pm


          Obama’s gaffes wont be played every 10 minutes for 3 days after they happen though. That’s just the world we live in.

          And Obama still has the entire Democrat party, the Unions and their dirty game, plus a gigantic percentage of minorities which he wont lose solely because he himself is a minority. The only way “ABO” wins is by solid plans that wont completely turn off all Mods/Dems and by simultaneously bringing Obama down hard enough to where we grab some of his votes and make everyone else less likely to show up.

          I don’t trust anyone to attack Obama hard with realistic statements (which is the part that rules out Bachmann) other then Newt and possibly Paul – but I cant trust Paul with the keys to my car, let alone to the White House. Otherwise, Romney is a light weight (as we see in his going after Newt); Perry cant communicate the attack after he delivers it (see the Mitt v Rick slapfest) and Santorium – well I don’t know about him, he gets such little attention that we don’t know what he is truly capable of I guess…

          It should also be noted that Obama has been running against Mitt for 3 years with his class-warfare rants. Mitt is the one who sees a good chunk of possible support basically destroyed because of it; with his Wall-street background and all. Obama really wants Romney to win it, which is why the Admin/Dems/Media constantly tell us he is the “default” or “only serious” or whatever.

          NbyNW in reply to JayDick. | December 10, 2011 at 1:03 pm


          I truly believe Newt supporters overestimate Newt’s ability to debate. He hasn’t really been attacked. We’ll see how he does at tonight’s debate when that will probably happen. The one time Mitt did attack Newt on his own past support of mandates, it sent Newt mumbling. There’s stuff to criticize all the candidates on, but I’m looking most for commitment to conservative principles, which Newt and Romney do not consistently have. Bachman and Santorum do, but Bachman has noooo executive experience which is essential, and Santorum isn’t a winner. So Perry is the one. Plus the fact that I am more concerned with how my candidate will govern once he’s there. Some want to see Obama humiliated in debate, and that seems to be all they care about. Not me.

Newt is a psychohistorian? Kewl.

Newt seems to be the default conservative candidate at the moment. But never forget that this time last election Giuliani had it all wrapped up at this point. Then the voting happened.

I believe if Perry or Santorum can do respectfully in Iowa, the voters will give them a second (or in Santorum’s case a first) look. The party energy always has to go somewhere and now it rests on Newt. Before Newt, Cain had it and before Cain, Perry had it.

I say this because I sense on this blog site that no one has settled on Newt because they think he’s ideal. Rather, Newt has one important factor on his side, as did Cain and Perry: he is not Mitt Romney.

    JayDick in reply to Malonth. | December 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    I want whoever is most likely to win. Right now, I think Newt is that person, although Romney looks OK too.

    Santorum seems to have little appeal to anyone, and I can’t see that changing much. Perry comes off as a complete fool way too often. I don’t think either of them would provide the kind of opposition needed to beat Obama.

      NbyNW in reply to JayDick. | December 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      Perry comes off as someone who’s not used to the national spotlight. His resume proves he’s no fool. He’s improving, and if he improves enough to get the nomination, no one will be worried about his early performances. Just like they’ve forgotten about Newt’s rejection of Paul Ryan’s ideas as “right-wing social engineering”. Which, by the way indicates how Newt really thinks – that’s really not something that’s going to improve in a few months.

I would gladly, and forcefully support a revived Santorum bid. But only if it was a campaign about real issues, and specific changes, not a nebulous feel good paean to Social Conservatism.

This election, win or lose, needs to be about advancing real choice in the direction of this nation. Not forever nibbling around the fringes of ossified set-piece issues, as much as the left would like us to stay on that familiar (and as they see it winning) ground.

It is ruling class vs. country class, and whoever most fully embraces this paradigm can win.

    “not a nebulous feel good paean to Social Conservatism.”

    Isn’t it interesting that as Romney is losing to Newt Gingrich, Romney’s campaign quickly resorts to ‘social conservative’ issues such as length of his marriage to the same woman.

    Darling, the Republican Establishment typical abuse towards social conservatives aside, you are kidding yourself if you believe the Progressive Left will not divide and conquer the nation via social issues such as marriage, abortion, illegal immigration etc.

    The Proggs will make up ‘social issues’ crap to pile on any Republican candidate be it Romney or any one else.

    Just take a look at what Proggs in California did to Mormons over Prop 8; funny thing is, the majority in California who voted for Obama voted against gay marriage.

    Heck, Obama is against gay marriage yet for some odd reason he is not considered a ‘social conservative’!

    Why not stand and defend instead of hiding behind your wallet pretending Proggs will keep social issues off the table?

    If you cannot stand for something greater than your own wallet then do not demand that I should rise to defend it.

“Now all of a sudden they want conservative purity when they apply it to Gingrich, but they don’t want conservative purity when they apply it to Romney.”

Why Mark Levin is The Great One.

    NbyNW in reply to syn. | December 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    The main reason people get fired is for personality problems. Romney is no conservative, so I agree it’s hypocritical in that light, but you don’t hear people attacking his ability to work with others to get the job done.

1. Peggy Noonan has a hit piece on Gingrich. The misleadingly evenhanded opening makes it a dishonest hit piece.

2. I don’t support Newt at this time, but I don’t oppose him like I opposed Palin after her resignation.