Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“We understand a load of crap when we see it”

“We understand a load of crap when we see it”

Via The Fix, two prominent Iowa supporters of Newt Gingrich held a phone conference late this afternoon with the press in which they pushed back against the attacks on Newt:

Iowa supporter of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich assailed Mitt Romney’s negative attacks, even as the former Massachusetts governor pulled back. “We understand a load of crap when we see it, and that doesn’t win caucuses or elections in Iowa,” said Linda Upmeyer, Gingrich’s Iowa chairwoman. “They must be close to panicking,” added former Rep. Greg Ganske. Earlier, Romney said he didn’t ask his campaign surrogates to criticize Gingrich.

Would that make Romney’s attack plan “don’t ask, don’t tell”?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Oh, good… Romney’s appealing to voters by proving early in the fight that his Vaunted Campaign Might consists of people who are not under his control.

Maybe he’s just setting up his defense for future Congressional Hearings… “I’ve NEVER known what my staff do. Does. Did? See? Clueless.”

More like “What, me worry?”.

While I understand that we can only pick from the people that are running, here is what Rand Paul had to say:

Republicans would take a giant step backward by choosing Gingrich

As a U.S. senator elected from and by the tea party, I am often asked about the tea party, the conservative movement and the presidential race.

While conservatives and limited-government activists did, indeed, make great strides in 2010, those could easily be set back by nominating someone with a different set of ideas and values in 2012.

Let me start with something important. I have two goals for 2012:

I want to prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next.

I want to elect a president who will defend the ideas of constitutional conservatism and limited government.

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012.

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — “one of the most unpopular government programs in American history,” even according to President Obama’s own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

Not only that, but because the single biggest tasks of our next president will be to right our economy and undo President Obama’s signature health care scheme, can we really afford to nominate a candidate who doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to critical issues such as TARP and ObamaCare?

Moving past both those issues, however, I believe Romney’s candidacy is well-established. He’s a moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that.

But what worries me is that the voters are being sold a bill of goods in Gingrich.

Gingrich began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party. And though he has often spoken and occasionally acted like he left that wing, it is clear from his flip-flops and multiple “apologies” that his heart is still there.

His record features “highlights” such as global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood, and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception.

Not only that, but Gingrich took money as a Freddie Mac lobbyist — one of the well-known government-backed agencies that served as a root cause of the financial meltdown of 2008.

While one candidate in the race, my father, Rep. Ron Paul, was publicly warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crisis they were helping to create, Gingrich was earning millions to not only endorse but also promote the status quo.

One group of Gingrich’s also took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas, such as the individual mandate.

His lobbying and promotion of the housing crisis and the health care mandate have helped to make him a wealthy man, but they have also put him outside the conservative mainstream on most issues.

While in Washington, Gingrich also refused to stand up on right-to-work laws and Second Amendment battles. He supported the Brady Bill and the Lautenberg rifle ban. He voted to create the U.S. Department of Education.

Gingrich will tell how he helped balance the budget and voted for President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. So did many Democrats. Those two acts do not excuse the long and exhaustive list of things where Gingrich or other big-government politicians have gone against the principles of the conservative movement both in and out of Congress.

My concerns aren’t limited to the distant past.

In the race that helped launch tea party electoral activism in 2009, Gingrich earned the ire of conservatives nationwide for his endorsement of the liberal establishment Republican in a New York congressional race, just as the conservative, Doug Hoffman, was set to win. Gingrich returned to his Rockefeller liberal roots to support the candidate who favored abortion, and who was anti-right-to-work, anti-gun, and anti-family values.

Once Gingrich’s endorsed liberal Republican candidate realized she had no chance of winning, she chose to endorse the Democrat in the race instead of the conservative, Hoffman.

So much for Gingrich’s desire to put political party over principle. In the end, both lost.

This list could go on. So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.

He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.

What establishment politicians like Gingrich don’t understand is that the Republican Party wins when it stands up for what it believes in, as many of my new colleagues did in 2010.

We also win when we effectively run against big government. We cannot do that if we nominate a candidate who has both embraced it and been enriched by it.

We have a choice to make in a few weeks. If the tea party is to continue the work we resolved in 2010 to undertake, then we must not make a giant leap backward by electing big government, status quo Republicans like Gingrich in 2012.

Ok so who does Rand Paul endorse? Romney? Perry? Give me a break. Newt is the best we have. Is he perfect? No. Is he better than everyone else? Yes, by a mile. If Rand Paul is so concerned he should f*ing run.

Could Rand Paul possibly have a conflict of interest? Why would we listen to him any more than supporters of other candidtates re the presidential nomination? Of course he supports his father. Are they this dumb or do they just think we are?

Rand Paul should work to elect more senators and members of congress whose views match his. If he does enough he and the others can determine what laws get sent to the president for signature. If he does enough perhaps the newly constituted congress can be more effective than the class of 2010 has been.

And Rand Paul is an on the attack sock puppet for who exactly …

huskers-for-palin | December 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Dear Palin,

Stay away from this pile a GOP poop!!! They treat you like crap now their surrogates clammer and bitch for your support.

Welcome to four more years of Barack Obama.

The GOP has disintegrated into near chaos and it is very clear that the best and brightest are nowhere to be found.

The more I see or hear from or of Gingrich, the more I see bad memories rekindled. I’ll not go into details here but Peggy Noonan’s recent appraisal pretty well nailed it. The last thing we need is someone who could be compared to a loaded gun with one in the chamber, a hair pin trigger and no safety… Yep Newt! If for some bizarre reason he were to be nominated and elected, the majority of Americans would hate as bad or worse than Obama within eighteen months.

No thanks!

The only hope for this nation is for it to descend into a super crisis zone in the next four years that the generals take over. Either that or a Jeffersonian revolution.

Just be prepared for rough sledding ahead.

Poor Mitt. He’s probably feeling about like Hillary did in 2007/2008 when it became apparent that she wasn’t the “choice”.

I’m in the ABO camp, the thing that will get my vote is who can defeat at marxist moron in the WH next November.

The fact that Romney cannot even take on Newt is not good, I would rather have Romney directly confront Newt on the main point. WHO IS MORE ELECTABLE IN THE GENERAL AGAINST BARRY SOETERO?
That I would respect of Romney, he seems reluctant to do that

As for Newt, I cannot stand this man, absolutely loathe him, I was a Clinton supporter in the 90’s, I remember all the temper tantrums the Newt had, if Romney wants to win, he needs to make the point of his argument exactly that, do you want a candidate who has a lesser chance of beating that marxist in the WH?

Being said that I cannot stand Newt, I will vote for him if he is the repub nominee, and for me to come to that conclusion is more than I can fathom. The undemocratic radical party has no place for conservative JFK democrats like me. The entire party can get flushed down the toilet for all I care, I’m a registered Independent now and plan on staying that way.

As for the comment one poster said about Hillary not being the DNC’s choice, note, that’s why I call it the undemocratic party, they stole 4 delegates from her to give to that marxist Barry, THERE IS NOTHING DEMOCRATIC ABOUT THE “DEMOCRATIC” PARTY.

The republican nomination party seems much more democratic, as much as it pains me to say it, as a recovering demonrat.

Romney, or Newt, ABO. ABO, I will support either in the general, there is nothing the DNC can say to make me not vote for the republican nominee. This process is only toughening them up, because you can bet the MSM will be in full campaign mode for their dear leader in 2012.

    JayDick in reply to alex. | December 10, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Your position is much more logical than some of the other rants posted here and elsewhere.

    I agree that by far the most important consideration is who is most likely to beat Obama and that our consideration should be focused there. I think only Romney and Gingrich have a reasonable chance. So, which is a better candidate?

    To me, Gingrich is a much more vigorous and effective campaigner. He will confront the lies and distortions in Obama’s rhetoric like no one else can. His memory is encyclopaedic with instant recall. Obama won’t be able to get away with false statements that sound good; Newt will confront his lies directly. A likely response: “Mr. President, that’s just not true.”

    Romney would make a decent President, but I don’t think he would be as effective a campaigner. How about Romney as VP?

    But, as you say, ABO.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to alex. | December 10, 2011 at 10:50 am

    “…who can defeat that marxist moron in the WH…”

    Alex, could you be more specific? This only narrows it down to 200-300 people.

Thank you for posting that Rand Paul editorial, I agree with Dr. Paul.

Newt reminds me of Gollum in Lord of the Rings, stoking “the precious” ring of power. I trust no one with that level of power, especially not Newt. But who can evict Barry next november???! Romney really needs to up his game and hit Newt where the weak spot is, if the goal to is defeat Barry, who has the best chance to do it? That is the main argument!

I want solid constitutional conservatives in Congress to keep a tight leash on the executive branch.

I would suggest that folks who definitely don’t want Romney but cannot stomach Gingrich ought to take a long look at Rick Santorum. Social and fiscal con, won two terms in blue PA, super strong on family, little baggage, Tea Party approved, hawkish on nat’l defense and border security, etc.

Subotai Bahadur | December 10, 2011 at 11:48 am

First, let me say that I am not in any way committed to Gingrich. I supported Sarah, then Cain. I do detest Romney. This is in no way, however, specifically in support of Gingrich.

I’ll not go into details here but Peggy Noonan’s recent appraisal pretty well nailed it.

Peggy Noonan is NOT on our side. She supported Obama in 2008, changing sides and joining Frum, Parker, as tame “Republicans” who the MSM could count on to attack anything more conservative than Trotsky. Despite a few tentative moves after the 2010 election to try to preserve a career if Obama loses; she has spent the entire time since the 2008 campaign spreading venom about conservatives, the party base, and anything associated with or supported by the TEA Party. Taking heed of her is like listening to George Stephanopoulus [sp?] with less sincerity and more contempt.

I have my distinct problems with Gingrich [and recently made part of an evening miserable for one of his campaign workers who called me], but I do not listen to anything Noonan says except as gathering information on what the Enemy is saying. There are plenty of other, more credible, sources for attacks on Gingrich.

Subotai Bahadur

I don’t believe that Rand Paul’s father’s candidacy has much to do with the opinion piece. Rand Paul has a great deal of integrity. Now I will say that if he doesn’t like Gingrich or Perry, he needs to give his opinion of who should face Obama. And if he says Ron Paul, I have to say Gingrich is better.

I believe that’s the first time I’ve seen the words ‘normal’ and ‘Ron Paul’ in the same sentence.