Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 01:43pm 64 Comments
Tweet from DrewMTips, a Newt supporter, who contributes to AceOfSpadesHQ and his own blog:
Here was my response:
Update 4:10 p.m.: I think this may be more of a concern than Romney hatred, people who became active in politics since the election of Obama who look at Romney and how big money and establishment support crushed everyone else, and say, it’s not worth my time anymore, The Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
We are also perilously close to the end of the America we were given by our Founders.
We HAVE to make some VERY fundamental reforms, or we are DOOOOOOMED. (And I am a perennial cock-eyed optimist.)
I personally believe we are already doomed. The fact that we have to nominate a liberal or we can’t beat Obama after all that he has done tells me so.
But it AIN’T a “fact”…it is just an assertion by self-interested people.
We’ve heard ALLLLLL this crap before.
I should say, the fact that we are told that we have to nominate a liberal. In other words there is no them vs. us. Just them vs. them. We are just bystanders.
Yes, that too. I would add that I think we have more information now. The public facade of bland financial guy whose name is familiar is fading. The real Mitt Romney, a self-serving, mean and slippery liar is emerging.
Remember, too, who Romney provided the ALTERNATIVE to last time…
McAnus, the Fabian and demonstrated enemy of the Constitution (i.e., McCain-Feingold).
I’m fully prepared to vote for Gary Johnson for POTUS and GOP for congress and local.
Many of us will likely do the same if extreme Liberal Governor turned say anything car salesman Establishment candidate gets the nod.
Although, if there is someone on the ticket, I still think our votes would be best served going to whoever is under the Green Party flag. If they get 5%, they get Fed help for future elections and splitting the Dem ticket for years to come is a chance I cant pass up if forced to choose between “Them (Obama) and Them (Romney)” (as STF put it)
I hope you mean libertarian party not green party. It will send a signal for sure.
No, getting the “Green Party” Fed recognition will ensure the Democrat vote is split in the future (making it easier for Republicans or Tea Party-like candidates running under a Republican Nomination to get elected)
If the “Libertarian Party” were to gain Fed Recognition it would hurt the GOP/TeaParty and mean much more Democrat Control moving forward.
“sending a message” will be accomplished by the low percentage of Romney-Republican and Romney-Independent turnout. Voting Johnson ultimately accomplishes nothing, and stands to hurt us a ton moving forward.
I will not vote Libertarian because of it unless there is absolutely no other name on the ticket.
I’m a Nader (or whoever) man all the way if Romney gets the nod…
I agree but disagree that the GOP establishment will get the message. They are too arrogant to see that message. They will think it was Democrats that couldn’t vote for Obama. The Democratic party might reform in that scenario but not the GOP. The GOP will only rumored Romneys in the future.
Easier to confront your own when your enemy is destroyed
Green Party recognition would go a long way to undercutting the Democrat party. Their base would be split between two viable candidates getting national recognition.
Doing that would leave a better opportunity for the Tea Party to tackle the GOP without the fear of “handing it to the Democrats” (like the GOP loves to use as their excuse for us to get in line)
Besides, the GOP cant believe that as the GOP and Romney-Ind vote turnout will be lower then they anticipate it should have been. Who really cares if they know we voted Green or merely stayed home and didn’t vote for their candidate? Either way, the overall lack of support they gained will be the message…
Your argument rest on the assumption that the GOP establishment will get the message. I don’t see any reason to think they will. The 2010 are a perfect example of why they won’t get the message. They will have Brit Hume look down on you through his glasses, telling you how stupid you are for voting Green. It’s time for tough love. Four years of Obama with a strong conservative Senate and House will be far better than 4 years of Mitt with a weak House and Senate.
The House and Senate will be browbeat to pass what ever St. Mitt decides is good for the day, which is short for how ever the political wind blows. How is that any different than Obama?
I’m coming to the realization that a Romney presidency would be worse than an Obama presidency. Romney has and always will be hostile to the GOP base, just like Obama.
Your argument is based off the assumption they care either way; message or not.
The Tea Party movement which kicked out RINOs across the country was a pretty strong message and they largely ignored it, well when not blaming it for failing to do enough and win the Senate at least. Now they call the Tea Party Hobbits…
So say you vote for Johnson to “send a message” – the message they receive will be “don’t blame us you idiots, you threw your vote away on Johnson”.
I do agree with you that Romney is worse then Obama if elected President. He cant fix anything; he wants to “trim around the edges”. He is a “go along to get along” type that will likely give us any many Dem bills as Conservative (like Bush in his 2nd term) while ensuring Democrat control in 2016. Which is why we have the choice:
1 – throw away your vote on Johnson to ensure the GOP can point the finger at you as the problem. Potentially, the Libertarian Party gets 5% so it gets national debate coverage and federal recognition. At that point, the GOP is hurt for years to come…
2 – vote Green Party so the Dems are potentially hurt for years to come, while the GOP sits and whines about no Conservatives or Independents voting for their candidate like they insisted would happen.
One makes sense, the other makes problems…
“A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; “take it or leave it”. The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.”
i.e., the GOP is saying ‘you’ll take what we offer or nothing’.
Free will will always triumph. I’ll choose nothing.
They will mandate you buy something.
I will not submit to “individual mandates.” (Dear Lord, what an Orwellian term!)
I will go to jail first. Kicking and screaming. Regardless how they blackmail me and my family.
I hope others would do the same. If not, too bad. I would rather be destroyed in pursuit of freedom than live a slave, constantly hoping for an opening that doesn’t come.
Sometimes you take a stand, and let the chips fall where they may. I’d be prepared to do that. I hope others would, too.
I am part of a nationwide phenomenon that arose (independently – there’s no org I’m aware of) in response to Obamacare and specifically the individual mandate. Myself and others are supporting ($) a fellow who will make of himself a test case by willfully ignoring the mandate when/if it goes into law.
… and the costs just keep going up …
I’m not a doctor so I won’t supply a doctor’s diagnosis. I am a nurse, however, so I can supply a nursing diagnosis.
“Ineffective electoral coping secondary to lack of conservative candidates as exemplified by changing from indifference to outright displeasure to self-anointed Republican front-runner complicated by inevitable Obama victory.”
Dan Riehl nailed this. The GOP will not reform as long as they can count on your vote.
Gee, he got two for one. That’s applicable to the Democratic party, too.
We must infiltrate the GOP from within – just as the Marxists have done to the Democrat Party over the last 40 years.
I would much rather go with our own brand.
Marxists don’t care about truth. I feel we need to start a new brand to get rid of all the garbage the GOP has signed onto.
Sadly the Libertarian Party isn’t without baggage thanks to Ron Paul and his allowing distribution of The Protocols through his newsletter. Not all Libertarians deserve to be fettered to that shame, but now they are.
To paraphrase Huey Lewis “I wanna new Party/One with no junk/One that won’t bray like an ass/One with no trunk!/One that won’t make me Marxist, or that hates the Jews/One that makes me feel like the U.S. when it was new!”
Apologies to rearders for sticking that song in your head for the rest of the day.
Not sure I agree with the diagnosis. I’ve developed a pretty intense antipathy for Romney but rather feel it derives from Romney himself, from his choices (really, an affirmation of what I’d suspected all along in the man, i.e., of a shallow, weak and insecure character finally unable to make any OTHER choice but the embrace of Leftist tactics). Romney seems to embody all the characteristics of a political class I’ve always distrusted and now see coming into its full, prideful flowering, an imitation of the Left but hollower as it lacks the larger ideological conviction and will to triumph. The ultimate outcome of Romney’s lust for power is more fearful and nationally corrosive compromise.
I will oppose a Romney presidency with every fiber of my being, just as I oppose Obama this way. The fact that he has an R before his name means nothing to me.
That philosophical approach is why Establishment Republicans fear the Tea Party more that the Democrats; they can always cut a deal with Democrats.
Just add in his extreme Liberal “accomplishments” as Governor and the fact that since 1994 every one of his competitors has realized and pointed out the man has no actual Principles he is willing to stand on.
He is exactly who we thought he is.
I will also add that nothing scares me more then our electing Romney then watching him flounder for 2 years in typical Establishment fashion, and have him given a Democrat House and Senate (the excuse he gives for being such an extreme Liberal while in MA) in 2014. It will be Bush2 all over again, just in hyper-speed, and will ensure that the Dems not only win the 2016 election, but almost certainly keeping the House and Senate as well and we are stuck with another 4 years like the first 2 from Obama.
Romney: “…a political class … coming into its full, prideful flowering…hollower (than the left’s) as it LACKS THE LARGER IDEOLOGICAL CONVICTION and will to triumph.” Perfectly said. Romney wants to be president; end of discussion. Gingrich sees the presidency as a starting point, with lots and lots of work to be done from there–exactly as Obama sees it.
If the choice is Mitt or O, I choose none of the above.
The solution: form a third party NOW.
Nominate (surprise!) Romney. And work to get him elected. What?
Q. How do you motivate grass-roots conservatives to do this?
A. Give them an incentive. At the convention, go all-in for Romney ’12, but anoint a standard-bearer for ’16. Find someone credible (Scott Walker? Sarah Palin?) abandoned and abused by the GOP who might want to be President.
On November 7, win or lose, start running the New Party candidate. Create name recognition. Raise money. Get the message out. Run our own candidates for Congress in ’14.
The GOP will freak, especially if Romney is President. That will be to our advantage, if their behavior in Florida is any indication. Once the dust settles, people will step back and realize what scumbags people are who behave this way.
Risky strategy? Yes, very. But we’re about to lose our country. May as well be creative.
All that said, Obama is by far the worse option. Romney is scum, but Obama is death. Obama is poised to become a dictator; Romney is just a corrupt, vicious fool.
The bigger risk to this strategy is that you give the opposition too much ammo.
Supporting Romney, knowing he will be a fool, means you have to deal with all the baggage that the other side will pile on you for Romney’s missteps. We already know, and have since 2009, that the MSM will NEVER hold their candidate to the standard they expect our candidate to meet.
The other side of this is yet more backstabbing by the GOP. The Tea Parties united to elect candidates who wore the Republican brand, even if some of them challenged and beat the GOP hand-picked candidates. In return we still hear weekly that the Tea Party screwed the Republicans. No word of thanks for getting them a House majority. Every chance the GOP gets to sell out on a point near and dear to the Tea Parties they do sell out.
Boehner throws us under the bus even when there isn’t a bus running.
You think it will get better if we help put Romney in office?
Stop making this about Obama. Make CONGRESS stand up to the Administration. Force his power grab to go to the Supreme Court. The Constitution must be enforced and it won’t get enforced if we don’t make Congress stop abdicating their responsibilities.
I take your point. I agree with your premise, “Make CONGRESS stand up to the Administration.”
HOW? Ideas please. Here’s the scenario:
We gave the GOP huge wins in 2010. Tea Party grassroots were the difference. But the GOP not only ignores us, they lie to us and tell us to shut up. Then they conspire with Democrats: budgets, debt ceiling, LIGHT BULBS.
The Speaker, by grace of us grassroots, not the GOP or even God, is a mendacious, patronizing ingrate. He comes on Rush Limbaugh’s program to LIE: there is no deal, he says, while he negotiates secretly with Obama to undercut Cut, Cap, and Balance that he’s just passed. To please the rubes, he makes it clear later.
What do we do? Rallies, faxes, phone calls. Office visits, Town Halls. (Republicans sure have stopped been holding Town Halls after their sellouts, no?) They know what we think. They can’t help but know what we want. They don’t want to hear it!
How do you bring such people into line? What more can we do?
I refuse to believe that the nomination will be wrapped up after tonight. We should stop talking as if this is inevitable; it is not inevitable.
If Romney, gets the nomination, then we can lament it. Right now, their is a primary going on, and Gingrich isn’t going to back down; so why should we?
Re CalMark’s comment, ‘16 is too late. Yes there’ll be an election then, but much too damage will have been done. Societal “classes” will be well established and have taken root by then. To Windy City Commentary’s comment about backing down, a question for the professor: Assuming a Romney victory in FL, do any opportunities for some sort of manipulating the system, as Obama did to Clinton in Florida in 2008, remain prior to or in the convention? Absent that maneuver by Obama, Clinton may well have been the nominee then.
You know, that’s the problem with conservatives.
Someone proposes a solution. But if people disagree, do they tweak the proposal? Or do they offer their own suggestions?
“Oh, no,” lament conservatives. “It can’t work. We’re doomed. DOOMED! Woe is us!”
No exception is taken to what you suggest for ’16. Rather, my purpose was to suggest fighting today, concentrating on it while there is still time. The action may well have to be something as downright underhanded and cheap as Obama did to Clinton in Florida in 2008, but if that’s what it takes and it can be done, do it now. Underhanded and cheap is how Obama ended up with the nomination, it is (with no small measure of dishonesty thrown in) how he garnered so many votes in the general in 2008 (though he’d have won anyway), it’s how he passed “pass-it-to-know-what’s-in-it” Obamacare (in the dark of night), how he issues fiat law, and packs agencies with his sycophants. We need a candidate who will, short of outright dishonesty, fight the same way. If he must fight that way to get the nomination, so be it. He’ll have to fight that way in the general election . . . Romney will not.
It is far from over – and the candidates know it.
“There are 2,286 delegates. A candidate must accumulate 1,144 delegate votes to win”
As a commenter to this site pointed out yesterday, Gingrich has 25 delegates and Romney has 36.
“The 2012 Florida Republican primary is being held on January 31, 2012, on a winner-take-all basis. Fifty delegates are at stake, none of them are RNC (or super) delegates. The Republican National Committee removed half of Florida’s delegates because the state committee moved its Republican primary before March 6. It is a closed primary. There are 4,063,853 registered Republican voters as of January 3, 2012.”
If Romney were elected, the downfall of the USA would be slightly delayed, but not by much. I quite simply doubt his ability to do much at all to bring economic sanity to our federal government plus he’d go along to get along and really really make sure we agreed with the nice young people on the Dhimmi side of the aisle.
If “O” were to be re-elected, the downfall of American representative republican democracy would be greatly accelerated. Still, at least that would allow us to focus in on what’s truly important, our freedom, our American heritage, our Constitution, and statement of our inherent rights; because Obama would make every effort to strip all of them away from us. He would establish in fact the Land of AmeriKa, or maybe it would be called the USSA, and he would be titled our “Great Dear Leader!”
Wonder what Holder would call his first proposed new law after Obama is re-elected? Would Holder name it: Brady Bill Fast and Forever?
Lastly, electing Romney would only delay the inevitable collapse of our form of democracy. IMHO, the only way we can do anything to correct the sins we’ve committed in our government is to elect someone who committed to conservative American values.
The professor’s call to support Operation Counter-Weight might be the only realist course of action absent getting a conservative to head the ticket.
Exactly what I said below. He will continue the big government policies of Obama and Bush.
Romney is the neo- and paleo-conservatives choice. That alone should make any small government person worry.
“Wonder what Holder would call his first proposed new law after Obama is re-elected? Would Holder name it: Brady Bill Fast and Forever?”
Brady who? It will be named after the Savior Obama.
This is 2008 all over again, except GOP instead of Dem. Democrats that were for HRC all said they were going to vote against O, but enough folded to give O the win. As a result the Dem party establishment misread the election and look what we got.
We have a choice if Romney ends up with the nomination, hold our noses and vote Romney or vote third party. I see Gary Johnson as a very viable choice. You don’t have to settle for him, he is a man of conviction that only dropped out of GOP race because he knew the establishment was backing Romney.
Do we make thevsame mistake the HRC Democrats made in 08?
The GOP establishment is using us for votes. A Romney administration will continue the spending of Obama and Bush before him but try to wrap that spending in states rights or business friendly spending.
I think it’s because in 2008 we all knew Mitt Romney like Ward and June Cleaver knew Eddie Haskell.
Now we all know Mitt Romney like Beaver and Wally Cleaver knew Eddie Haskell.
Time to start referring to Santorum as what he truly represents: Perot 2012
Conservatives are fighting on two fronts: 1. The GOP establishment; 2. those who desire only to vote for the winner regardless of who that may be.
It is the latter who are responsible for the efficacy of negative campaigning. Their thought process concludes that whether the aspersions are true or not, the target cannot win due to the accusations.
This is so disappointing; we had a chance to make a real difference in this election, but the GOP has once again snatched defeat from the mouth of victory.
“the GOP has once again snatched defeat from the mouth of victory.”
I used to believe that, too, but now I don’t think so. It HAS TO be on purpose. If it were merely stupidity and incompetence, every now and then we’d have a real conservative with real power making a real difference in D.C., just by the law of averages.
No, this is a conspiracy. I truly believe the GOP Elites consider themselves in a win-win position. If Romney wins, they get to be the big kids for a few years. If Obama wins, at least they’ve defeated the unwashed rabble who can’t POSSIBLY understand how unbearably COMPLICATED life is and how utterly CRUCIAL it is to let our Dear Leaders tell us how to live.
In this country, a recipe for revolution. But arrogance tends to blind despots.
Yes, CalMark. I used to think it was stupidity. But I now think it’s on purpose.
But I think Newt is going to win. He’s ahead nationally. Every moment that passes, Romney’s lies get weaker.
Newt’s building a new and unstoppable coalition if the American people team up with him. I think it’s going to work.
I like your optimism. I hope you’re right.
You’re right: as his polls sank in FL, Gingrich pulls away nationally. Romney can’t counter that with carpet-bombing negativity for much longer.
Romney’s ugliness will catch up to him. Republicans aren’t Democrats, who embrace vicious ugliness. We are in the middle of a hysteria. When the dust settles, people will see Romney in a new light.
And the questions. What about Bain, and why IS it off-limits? For that matter, why is EVERYTHING about Mitt off-limits? Gingrich has ideas–what ideas do YOU have Mitt?
True. Sounds familiar somehow…
Read Sean Trende’s latest: Gingrich and Romney Are “Unelectable”? So Is Obama. The fundamentals are not good for Obama. It is still incredible to me we have this slate of weak candidates against a very beatable BHO.
I think some stronger candidates didn’t run for the same reason Hillary didn’t run in 04. The CW tells DC pols running against an incumbent is a bad move. At least Romney – if he is the establishment choice – was willing to offer himself as the virgin sacrifice just as he did when he ran against Ted Kennedy. I find it hard to hate the guy for that. When the powers that be realized how beatable Obama was they tried their darndest to get Daniels to run. He refused. Should I hold that against Romney?
I supported Romney in 08, so did Sarah Palin for that matter. If she had so many issues with him why did she endorse him? There is a lot of hysteria on the right about Mitt that seems less about Mitt and more about “the establishment.” I just don’t see that Mitt was their golden boy or even that it was his turn. 80% of success is showing up, Mitt showed up.
Maybe we all feel as though we have an electoral gun to our heads, I don’t know. I don’t really feel that way. I consider not voting or 3rd party to be playing russian roulette with a fully loaded weapon. That is one choice I know I absolutely can not make.
Did they hold a gun to Pawlenty’s head? He cut and run at first sign he might have a tough fight on his hands. Was that the kind of guy I wanted up against Obama? Short answer: No!
as much as it looks bad, its actually a good and noble thing which all candidates (generally the front runner) do for the people stepping out.
Think of it as a Track Meet. Say you win, and one of the people who came in behind you fell as he crossed the finish line. You would likely reach down and help the man up if he needed it.
Its really no different then that.
BFD, another one got “bought off.” Add that to the list of Michele Bachman, Marco Rubio, Pam Bondi. Let’s see who else is there?
Why do I get the feeling that the Professor and many of the commenters here are talking as if Newt will lose this nomination. “Why the long face” is good as an “A horse walks into a bar” bartender joke, but not good for our attitude.
FIRST OF ALL, maybe I sound like a broken record on this , but you seriously need to watch Newt talk about George Washington in “2012:VICTORY OR DEATH.” Because if George Washington had taken a discouraged attitude, we would never have become America in the first place.
Boo Hoo! The Establishment is trying to trick me into thinking I’m defeated before we get started.
SECOND OF ALL, please review how Reagan was elected in 1980. AGAIN, this is in the speeches……
THIRDLY, please review the history of the 1990’s. Again, Newt, in his speeches, as I may have mentioned once or twice before here on these pages, tells us about how he organized so that the Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in 40 years and THEN WERE RE-ELECTED. His colleagues in the House thought it was a joke even the night before the election. DON’T UNDERESTIMATE NEWT. Cheney said so, Clinton said so.
Newt is using very, very powerful organizing principles. Newt is finding the 80% – 90% issues that 80% – 90% of American agree about — e.g. paycheck versus food stamps. This is in the speeches.
Newt is ahead nationally, yes? The longer this goes on, the less impact the Romney lie-machine will have. I would like to see some RESOLVE here.
People moaning “we’re doomed” while Newt is busy building the coalition is pretty lame.
Professor, I know you are busy. But I am specifically saying, if you haven’t watched the “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH,” speech, watch it. Listen to it on your computer while you cook dinner. You don’t have to sit and watch, just listen to the words. Listen on your smart phone.
It’s totally unnecessary to be discouraged. Look what our founders were up against! Think about what people went through in WWII. Freedom will not fail on our watch.
Don’t buy the MSM and Romney spin. This is just beginning.
NOTE: CONVENIENT LINKS HERE: http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches
Newt is a gift to us at this moment, as Reagan was. Newt’s been thinking about how to solve these problems throughout his life.
Newt has been through the inner trial of fire and has accused himself of his failings. Newt is committed to being honest with himself. So Newt is not susceptible to the slanders of the Left and Romney and the Establishment, which, by the way, are using EXACTLY the same tactics as the Left use.
Newt is looking at the future for our children and grandchildren, and Newt says, we will not lose our freedoms on MY WATCH. And we stand with him.
This contest has just begun. We are not going to lose our freedoms on our watch.
Romney has shown himself to be a weasel. That’s why people hate Romney’s campaign.
The Establishment is trying to force Romney on us. And we hate it. And that’s why DrewMTips hates Romney this time.
But it’s a little soon to be talking about third-party alternatives and the green party. Let’s take back THIS party. THIS party, that claims to be OUR PARTY. This is the beginning of this process. Only Romney benefits if people think it’s over.
Why should I have to leave the party? I’m going to leave out these Establishment traitors. WE did it with Reagan. We’ll do it with more awareness this time, and now we have the internet. This is MY PARTY. (I know, I know, Lesley Gore, but I don’t want to get distracted right now.)
The RINO Establishment traitors and the pseudo-conservative East Coast RINO Elites (Ann Coulter, I’m talking to you) are making their bed. Let them join up with the Left in the general election. Newt is, and all of us are, making a new coalition. Say it with me: It’s all in the speeches.
NEWT will be AN OUTSTANDING PRESIDENT if he’s elected and Newt is creating our coalition RIGHT NOW. If you’re not sure about that, you don’t have enough information about Newt. With all due respect.
PLEASE WATCH THE SPEECHES. If you like Newt, you will like the speeches.
I’m on board! Love the optimism.
You’re right. Your analogy is perfect. 1776 was a BAD year, but GW pulled it out. And it’s a valid reminder that Newt excels against the odds.
Conservatives are too quick to admit to defeat. I’ve fallen into that trap, too. (Cut us some slack for the moment, though–we’ve “won” only to lose a lot in the last 20 years.)
However, you are correct. We can’t just give up.
Darkstar58 @ January 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Unless you object, I have every intention of using this idea, with full accreditation, in an article over at the Rottweiler. I have some additional aspects in mind, but your concept is bloody brilliant.
[…] Like Mana from heaven comes this great link from Legal Insurrection: The Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican “I see a […]
Mittens doesn’t excite me.
Unless he starts going after The Won with the same vim and vigor as he goes after Newt. Or if he selects an awesome VP candidate.
Otherwise? yeah, I’ll vote for him. But don’t expect me to be enthusiastic. And don’t expect one red cent to go to either Mittens or the RNC. I’ll save my pennies for Scott Walker, Sean Bielat, and Allen West and other promising conservatives running for the House or Senate.
Even as a Newt supporter, I think you have to acknowledge his campaign had a bad week last week. There’s still time to correct it and fix it but he needs to realize the mistakes and take action:
1st. His debate on Monday the 23rd was below par. the debates were what won it for him in SC. He had a chance to really cement things in FL and he just blew it in that 1st debate. That wasn’t Romney’s fault, or the elites, or anyone else’s. If Newt performed on the 2rd like he did in either of the SC debates he wins FL, even with all of the attacks. Simple as that.
2nd. He needs to do a better job of rebutting Romney’s false attacks. Like the resigned in disgrace or was forced out. He did no such thing. The party underperformed in the 98 midterms and he resigned as a result. He could have stayed on, maybe wouldn’t have won the Speaker vote. Keep in mind the GOP still won the House that year, just with a few less seats.
Would Romney say Margaret Thatcher resigned in disgrace. She resigned after she saw she wasn’t going to win on the 1st ballot for the Conservative leadership. Roughly equal to Newt’s situation. Would he say Thatcher was a failed leader? Newt needs to have these facts ready and be able to bring them up and slap Romney down.
there have been 20 debates. To my knowledge Newt has not mentioned in any of them that there reason romney didn’t run for reelection in MA was because his approval rating was donw to 34% by the end of his term and he had zero chance of winning. He damaged the GOP in MA. The Senate lost 1 seat and the legislature 4 or 5 over his term. Romney basically abandoned any hopes of a second term to focus on running for President.
Why has Newt never mentioned that Romney was deeply unpopular in MA by the end of his term, mention his failed term as Governor and how he was so unpopular he left the door open for Patrick, losing the Gov for the GOP for the 1st timne in 16 years? And, btw, Patrick was the test run for Obama in 2008, managed by Axelrod. If Romney had won and beaten Patrick Obama may have never run in the 1st place. It was Patrick’s campaign that really convinced people it was doable.
These are basic facts Newt should bring up at every debate.
Under Newt the GOP took the House fo rthe 1st time in 40+ years. they held it for the next 12 years, despite Clinton’s popularity and his big win in 96. 5 more elections. Yes, smaller majorities, but still in control. By contrast look at the dems and Pelosi who won in 2006 and suffered an epic defeat only 4 years later. Newt had nothing to do with losing the House in 2006. That was all W and the GOP elites.
If that’s failed leadership what’s romney’s 4 year term, leaving at near 30% approval, costing his party seats in both houses of the state legislature and costing the GOP the Gov mansion for the 1st time in 16 years?
These are just a couple of examples of how he needs to be more on the ball.
Aside from just focusing on the mandate in Romneycare he needs to bring up the abortion issues. The $50 copay, the fatc that planned parenthood was appointed to a state health board under it. Issues that matter to a lot of conservatives.
Also, I think he needs to have a much more focused message of what his argument is. Romney has a one sentence agrument. “I succeeeded in business and turned around failed companies and I’ll do the same for the US economy”. It’s easily understood. What’s Newt’s one sentence argument? He needs one. Stop wasting time on moon colonies, Alinsky, food stamps, etc…
BTW, why does Newt never attack Romney’s economic credentials. Why does he never point out hat MA was 47 of 50 in job creatin under Romney, 48 of 50 in GDP growth, that it well underperformed the nation as a whole during his term? he should have these facts at the ready and spit them out at every debate. Make sure everyone knows them and leave Romney stammering. The facts show that whatever his business success, they in no way translated to his time as Gov and there’s no eveidence they’d do so as President. By contrast Newt actually has plenty of data that show that when he was in charge of the House and largely responsible for US economic policy, the economy performed at its best level arguably ever. He needs to make those contrasts, they’re easy enough to do.
I could go, but these are just som examples of improvements. there’s plenty of time left to turn things around, but he needs to start getting on the ball. romney adjusted after SC. Now Newt needs to adjust.
Everyone knew Romney was going to run, you have said so a million times. “He’s been running for 4 years…” The problem is twofold: you never thought he would get this far and, in spite of all the assurances of power, strength and influence in the grassroots movement, no one thought ahead to unify around a single, viable candidate. Trying to convince those of us who care more about Obama than Romney, and really are on the fence that we should vote for Newt as the Outsider, the anti-establishment candidate, and trying to do it in January 2012 is too little, too late.
Frankly, if you are not happy with the way things are going right now, you have no one to thank but yourself. How about you all get together and come up with something better for 2016? I mean, you know it’s coming…
[…] Mana from heaven comes this great link from Legal Insurrection: The Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican “I see a […]