Image 01 Image 03

Fearmongers for Romney

Fearmongers for Romney

It’s really no surprise. As Mitt Romney has faltered from inevitability to modest favorite, a chorus of pro-Romney voices in the media and Republican Party is insisting that if Newt is the nominee, we not only lose the presidency we also lose the House and fail to take back the Senate.

It’s pure conjecture.  If a bad week can cost Romney 20 points in South Carolina, it can cost him that much in Ohio, or Florida, or Virginia in the general election.  Current polling is interesting, but overstated in its import.

Yet the argument is stated with absolute certainty.

S.E. Cupp, who wrote a demeaning attack on Newt a week ago, tweeted last night: “South Carolina conservatives pull lever for Obama.”  Jennifer Rubin, who has been vile towards Newt (and Cain, and Perry) tweeted: “let’s be honest with newt GOP loses WH AND the House.”

Thomas Defrank in The NY Daily News quotes an unnamed Romney supporter:  “Newt means losing 45 states,” a Mitt-leaning GOPer told the Daily News. “It would be a catastrophe for the country.”

Roll Call quotes several pro-Romney Republican strategists making the same point.

Electability is a legitimate issue, and I have expressed doubts about Romney’s ability to defeat Obama.

But the hyperbole being expressed by Romney supporters in the media and inside the party has crossed over from argument to fearmongering.

No one at the Romney campaign wants to take my advice:  Make the case for Mitt, not against others.  You will not win it by making us afraid, very afraid.

Update 2:25 p.m.:  When I wrote this post I was unaware that this morning Rubin wrote An Open Letter to Republican Leaders (h/t Karl at Patterico) begging several high profile Republicans either to get in the race to stop Newt or united behind either Romney or Santorum as the not-Newt:

The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.

Much like Ann Coulter, who a year ago told us with absolute certainty that Romney would lose to Obama, Rubin wrote a series of blistering posts that Romney was unelectable for refusing to walk away from Romneycare.  Rubin also wrote last May that Santorum was constitutionally illiterate and unqualified to be President.  And we are the unwise?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


These were the same people that for the same reasons said Mitt would beat Newt in SC.

    It really is that simple. I would expand on “the same people” by adding “representing the same money”. It’s key damage was done yesterday to the confidence among the same monied interests who are funding both Obama AND Romney. We now need to watch the money flow and see if it now embraces Gingrich instead of Romney.

    Gingrich has the right anti-establishment message. Now we need to press this establishmentarian to find out whether he can be trusted for a change to mean what he says.

    We Tea Partiers are in a much better place today than we were Friday. Now we need to follow up on the toe-hold we just gained on the process by moving on to the next step. Can Gingrich be trusted? I don’t trust him at all.

Cupp and Rubin are not so much demeaning and vile toward Newt as they are toward the party faithful who voted for Newt in good faith. We all know that the opinions of the great unwashed are by definition ill-informed and stupid, don’t we?


Brit Hume, last night, was visibly shaken by the votes of the great unwashed, and he sternly lectured us that we are headed for a disaster if we keep doing this type of thing.

I agree and have read the same things you mention. For me, other than the interesting info found in the results..all the numbers some analysts flog, Newts win says some basic and simple things.
The Romney “enevitable nominee”: Really? For a guy with nearly every advantage goy beat.
“Electability”? Romney is the one to beat Obama.
Again…really? I recognize Im a pretty simple sort yet Ill ask anyway: If Romney will do so well against Obama? Why did he lose to Newt? Seems to me that proclaiming Romney as the more electable in November one important factor is ignored: The voter.
These Romney forces think Obama is going to be easy in November? We havent seen anything yet.
The guy that beats Obama has a sales job ahead of him. Hell need to sell the public on the notion that our way forward is better than Obama’s. The economic way forward etc.
Ill ask another simple question. Who well sell this concept better? A characture of everything the left despises or a guy that indeed can relate to and with Johnqaverageamerican. I still think of that old Gilligans Island. The Professor and Thurston Howell.

Newt lose 45 states?

Ummm … he’s going to lose a good bit of the South to Obama?

Obama, the guy whose just completed third year shows his lowest Gallup approval yet?

His lowest approval rating of his three years … even though he personally shot and killed bin Laden this last year? Even lower than the year of the 2010 midterm election where the GOP picked up an amazing 63 seats? Lower than when Kennedy’s seat went Republican? And the GOP took the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia?

Newt actually could lose 45 states … if we suddenly have 57 states, Biden loses his voice, and Obama fills out that empty suit … but don’t count on it.

    stevewhitemd in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Yeah, it’s just hyperbole. Newt isn’t going to lose 45 (out of either 50 or 57) states.

    Question is, how many of the battleground states will he win?

    Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Virginia, North Carolina. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri. New Hampshire.

    Those are the states that realistically are in play. Be it Newt or Mittens, either will win Georgia, and neither will win California.

    I have no idea how Newt or Mitt will do yet in the battleground states; the polls right now are meaningless. But Newt does seem to have much higher negatives, and if he’s the nominee (which might happen) he and the Pubs had better have a plan for handling that. Part of the plan might be to seize on the discontent with Obama, but there had better be more.

    The question for all the Newt supporters is this (and I’m serious): what’s the path to victory in November? I can see a path for Mitt but I don’t yet see one for Newt. Explain to me how Newt gets 270 electoral votes. I’d like to be convinced.

      McCoy2k in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Newt’s been saying it from the beginning. He wants people, young especially, to work, to learn to work, to build a reputation as a productive employee, because that’s what is going to keep people employed, and help them go on to the next step, or the next job. Newt is by far the most optimistic candidate with an optimistic message in this cycle. That optimism, that focus on work will play in the upper midwest, which is where the election will be decided.

      Hi Stevewhitemd,

      Of the states you list as battleground states, Newt will likely take Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri.

      Newt has a chance to take Wisconsin depending on how much backlash there is to the Gov. Walker recall by the state’s Republicans (turn-out will be important).

      New Mexico and Nevada are less certain due to the recent demographic changes of those states (Democrat-Latino influx of voters).

      New Hampshire is likely to go to Obama. While it will have a much closer margin, it suffers from the “we’re close to Massachusetts” problem of liberal North-Eastern culture. I generally write off anything north of the Southern Pennsylvania border and east of Indiana as a lost cause. Pennsylvania though I think will be an exception this year, and be taken by Newt if he is the nominee.

      Georgia, as you said, will go to the Republican candidate regardless.

      California actually has a chance to be competitive, but it’s a very small chance. It depends on how organized the party can become given their new “non-partisan” partisan redistricting process which already pulled the wool over the public’s eyes.

      Just from reading the polls, I think that Newt’s generally got negatives as high as he has due to poll structure and over sampling democrats and liberals. If newt gives even ONE debate performance against Obama as well as he has given in the past 3 weeks, those negatives will evaporate amongst the Republican base, and largely clear up in the independent voters as well, who think they were sold a bill of goods with Obama.

      As for path to victory, here it is:

      Virginia (13),
      West Virginia (5),
      Kentucky (8),
      Indiana (11),
      Ohio (20)
      North Carolina (15)
      Tennessee (11)
      South Carolina (8)
      Georgia (15)
      Alabama (9)
      Mississippi (6)
      Arkansas (6)
      Louisiana (9)
      Missouri (11)
      Iowa (7)
      Florida (27)
      Texas (34)
      Oklahoma (7)
      Kansas (6)
      Nebraska (5)
      North Dakota (3)
      South Dakota (3)
      Alaska (3)
      Idaho (4)
      Montana (3)
      Wyoming (3)
      Utah (5)
      Arizona (10)

      Either Pennsylvania (21) or New Jersey (15)

      Ohio and Indiana will be the critical positions in the North East (big electoral college numbers, moderate populace that is soured on Obama).

      Newt can cede California, Oregon, Hawaii and Washington State to Obama. It’s not worth spending so much as a DIME there in campaign funds. Same with New York, Massachusetts and Maryland and Illinois. Let the local committees and PACS fund those states with local dollars. Maybe a brief campaign stop to photo-op with the local TEA Party candidate IF AND ONLY IF Newt is already in the area and is passing through.

Its simple professor, they CANT make the case for Romney.
When you can’t win on positives, the only option is negative.
When you can’t win on just negatives, the only option is fear.
That’s where the Romney campaign is at now.

    Pro-Romney people at Lucianne have resorted to ad hominem attacks on Newt, like this comment: “Well, he has a gut, that’s for sure – what is his BMI and is he physically up for the job of President?”

huskers-for-palin | January 22, 2012 at 11:06 am

Methinks they “jumped the shark”. This was the same BS in 2010 when they blamed the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for not winning the Senate.

What Newt and Sarah have done is to separate the wheat from the chaff. To paraphrase the Joker:

“Lets roll back the clocks four years ago. Nobody would touch you, nobody would cross you. The donations, votes and volunteers would just come in like rain while you had your fiefdoms and gravy-train perks. If any yahoo outsider got into the mix you nixed them with the help of your MSM buddies or you simply bought them off.”

“Life was good….”

“Now…what happened?….did your balls just fall off??? Hmmmmmm? Now, you’re relegated to having ‘group therapy sessions’ on FOX News in broad daylight.”

“I’ll tell you your REAL problem. You see, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have exposed your true colors to the body politic. They’re not scared anymore. On the contrary, they’re pissed.”

“As to the Tea Party and the alternative media? They’re just the start of your problems. Soon, little Karl Rove and Dickie Morris won’t have a plug nickle to give to their grandmother.”

    Picture this: Sean Hannity sitting on the couch with “The Architect” Karl Rove. Hannity really needs to do some soul-searching. “I’m a Conservative, not a Republican” just doesn’t sell. Most of us are conservatives. That is not the same thing as being a Conservative. The difference is getting too stark for Hannity to be allowed to skate by forever. He is a Republican tool at best.

    Now picture this: Sarah Palin sitting on the couch with John McCain. Face it, she is an establishment Republican tool. You just can’t reconcile her words with her actions.

      Which is why the establishment Republicans love Palin so much?

      Didn’t Ronald Reagan campaign for Richard Nixon? Guess under your definition there are no winning conservatives out there and never will be.

        You don’t launch a conservative career by endorsing the very face of everything is wrong with the corrupt and entrenched GOP establishment. Palin’s actions have been at odds with her conservative message from the very beginning. She went off the rails with her “Mama Grizzlies” meme when she started endorsing liberal women over Tea Party conservative men (e.g. Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore).

        If you mean that conservatives will never win unless they embrace the enemy, well hasn’t that been the problem? Don’t we have enough partly pregnant, sometimes honest politicians already?

The more they try to push Romney down out throats, the more I want to vote for Newt… and I don’t even like Newt. Obama has to go and if Newt is the only one who’s willing to get dirty doing it, then he’s got my vote.

    Hope Change in reply to Jenny. | January 23, 2012 at 12:14 am

    Hi Jenny — if you watch Newt speak for himself you might get to like him a lot better. I sure did.

    Here are CONVENIENT LINKS to 17 of Newt’s speeches:

    I suggest starting with the 2009 speech “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH.” For one thing, Newt is prescient in this speech about the outcome of the 2010 elections. He also talks about the wasted opportunity by Republicans in the 2004 election and why the Republicans got their clock cleaned in 2006, and deserved it.

    The title “VICTORY OR DEATH” refers to George Washington. Newt talks about George Washington and Washington’s small American Army as they walked through a snow storm to cross the Delaware on Christmas Eve in 1776. Newt tells us that the password that night was “victory or death,” because Washington and all of them understood that if the Americans didn’t win the war, the British would put them to death. It’s very inspiring.

    Part of the reason many people don’t like Newt, IMO, is because they know him mostly from how he is being described. But remember, many of the people describing him have every reason to hate and fear him.

    Newt is proposing a scale of change to profound that some of these people will lose their prestige and maybe even some of their income. Some of them want more than anything to stop Newt. More than to defeat Obama.

    Then the spending and irresponsible behavior just continues in Washington, driving the American people crazy and making us think that electing people does no good at all. The Matrix consumes them once they get to Washington.

    The internet has made us more powerful than kings and queens of the past. You can use it to make up your own mind. Here are the CONVENIENT LINKS again:

    IMO, if Newt is the nominee, Republicans, who will mostly have teamed up with the plans, will gain ground in the House, control the Senate, and Newt will decisively defeat Obama.

    The the real projects begin. It is so thrilling. Newt and the legislature are going to have a whole agenda of laws and repeals (Obamacare, for example) ready for the first days and weeks. So the American people will be voting on a very clear agenda.

    I believe this will be the chance of a lifetime to restore Constitutional government and prosperity, so that we will pass along a free and prosperous nation to our children and grandchildren.

    Read the 21st Century Contract With America to find out what’s being planned. It’s genuinely exciting.

How many years have the average Republican voter voted for the preferred candidate of the establishment? And exactly what has the gotten them, and where are we now? I suspect that the elite GOP is truly shaken that Tea Party has not gone away. Like Jenny notes, the more the inside-the-beltway crowd pushes Romney, the more the grassroots wants someone else. There is a lesson to be had from yesterday, if the Romney Team is willing to learn from it.

    People forget that Reagan was not the establishment candidate. The establishment wanted Gerald Ford and then George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan was a blip, and they desperately want to get back to business as usual with another country club Republican they understand, Mitt Romney.

      scooterjay in reply to OCBill. | January 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      I was a lad of 15 in 1980, I clearly recall Reagan being considered “unelectable” and vividly recall that debate where Carter invoked little Amy’s fear of “nuclear arms” as what America was concerned about. I recall my father cheering when he saw the polling data after that debate. I think we saw that scenario play out this week as well.

      Casey in reply to OCBill. | January 22, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      …And GHW Bush started getting rid of genuine Reaganites as quickly as possible after he took over…

Fearmongering? Or an overwhelming preponderance of opinion.

Even retire05 is warning us.

You know retire 05 … aka the man who says Perry is the only choice. Perry, aka the man who, having the choices of endorsing nobody, or endorsing somebody else … immediately and adamantly endorsed Gingrich … Gingrich, aka the man retire05 warns is a disaster.

Got that? It’s got to be Perry … but Perry is making a disastrous decision right off the bat.

LukeHandCool (who likes twisted pretzels, and who likes logic, too … but not in the same snack).

RefudiateObama2012 | January 22, 2012 at 11:23 am

Sarah Palin will be on FNC with Hannity Monday and will then be on FBN with Eric Bolling an hour later. I’m anxious to hear what she says about how the fearmongers are going to fail.

    She is already pushing the “Gingrich is inevitable” meme and defending his conservatism (gag me). So much for her conservatism. We need a brokered convention to come up with better alternatives. Gingrich is a only means to an end for now. We need Santorum and Ron Paul to start scoring points too. A brokered convention is getting more and more likely. All we need is for Gingrich or Santorum to win FL. Ron Paul running strong (or winning) in VA would be HUGE. It’s all tactics for now. The end game will be handing Romney’s head on a wooden plate to the GOP elite at the convention and telling them to sit down and shut up. There will be changes made around here.

make the case for Mitt, not against others

But what is the case for Mitt? There is no conservative case for Mitt. He was pro-TARP, pro-stimulus, pro-Planned Parenthood, and is still for the Individual Mandate (convinced it’s a conservative idea, no less), and by all accounts would have no issues with ObamaCare if it were implemented on a state-by-state basis instead of as a federal program.

His record of appointing Democrats to the Massachusetts judiciary does not provide much reassurance that he would do differently if elected, so his supporters can’t even legitimately say we need him to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. There is no evidence in his record, i.e. what he’s actually done as opposed to what he’s said, that would suggest we’d get anyone more conservative than David Souter (who was brought to us by big Romney supporter John Sunnunu).

The only case for Mitt, if there is one, is his alleged electability, but if he’s getting blown out in South Carolina, I’m not sure he’s all that electable, and this is before the Democrat attack machine has even gotten warmed up.

The case for Mitt. I’m still waiting.

    johnnycab23513 in reply to OCBill. | January 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    In 2008, we ran a McCain, a left wing Republicrat who lost even though he had the help of having a true conservative on the ticket. So this year we (the elite) want to run a man that makes McCain look like a far right winger. Why vote for Obama lite when you can have the real thing.

      stevewhitemd in reply to johnnycab23513. | January 22, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      In 2008 Mitt was the conservative alternative to the Cranky Old Man™. Think about that for a moment before dismissing Mitt as too liberal.

        Actually, in 2008, Mitt was the “won’t you please believe I’m a conservative now” alternative to McCain. Fred Thompson was the actual conservative alternative. We wound up with McCain because he was supposed to be the most electable (since the media loved him for all his maverick ways).

          ThomasD in reply to OCBill. | January 22, 2012 at 7:14 pm

          Don’t forget it was Fox’s Carl Cameron who floated the BS story about Thompson at the Iowa State Fair that did so much to damage his campaign.

          The fix was in then as much as the fix is in now – Wall Street, the Beltway, and the MSM (triple redundancy, I know) all want Romney vs. Obama.

        Romney was never the “Conservative” alternative to McCain. I’m not sure that there even truly WAS a Conservative candidate in the campaign (although to be fair, I liked and was rooting for Huckabee based on FairTax support). Fred Thompson, I suppose, came closest, but he had severe campaign problems.

I covered Reagan’s candidacy as an intern reporter and remember the same doom-fraught howling.

It’s always about fear. Of course, the establishment has more reason to be afraid now, both from within the party and without. Times are changing in epochal ways; the system itself is collapsing. They sense it like we all do. And Reagan was still a “company man.” He wasn’t interested in fundamentally changing Washington or reforming government. Gingrich on the other hand is terror on wheels.

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | January 23, 2012 at 12:36 am

    Hi Raven — but I think Reagan was interested in genuinely reforming government. It’s just that so many ideas of Reagan’s revolutionary ideas were brand new, and he had the Soviet Union to deal with.

    I mean, no one knew what a Laffer Curve was. The fact that taxes REVENUES might go up when tax RATES go down was not understood. This was voodoo economics to the Establishment.

    The Venona papers hadn’t been released, the deceit of the USSR was still something the liberal elites refused to acknowledge.

    Reagan accomplished as much as he did, by “going over the heads of the media,” directly to the American people. But he needed radio or TV to do that. (Naturally that infuriated the media.) But Reagan needed the media.

    The big, big deal here today is the internet. Think what Reagan could have done with today’s social media. And Newt gets it. The campaign is building the network not just for the election, but so we can all communicate with each other when Newt is actually president.

    Have you read An Army of Davids, by Glenn Reynolds? Newt understand this. Most of them do not yet understand. If they did, they wouldn’t DARE have supported SOPA/PIPPA.

    Newt says that Reagan would say, back then, that he was shining the light for the American people so that they would turn up the heat on Congress.

    Wikipedia’s recent blackout and initiative for people to contact elected officials to stop supporting SOPA/PIPPA was enormously successful. (We need to keep up the pressure, but we made a start.0 I read that 126 MILLION people called Washington offices.

    This is a new day.

    What Newt and his team are trying to figure our right now is how to set up a Lean Six Sigma loop of communication for continuous improvement between the American People and the government. He says he knows how to send a tweet to 1.6 million peole. But what if they all decide to write back?

    The potential is truly awesome.

    The Establishment knows Newt is an outsider who will break up the current flow of money. Taxpayer money, bank money, whatever the money is that they are getting by being close to the government with no accountability.

    But — whatever — I digress — I think Reagan would agree exactly with what Newt is doing if Reagan were here today. I think Reagan was a profound reformer.

If the elitists (Cupp, Hume, Rubin, et al) in the Republican party think that Romney can ‘Cary Grant’ his way into the White House..You know, that debonair demeanor and “dashing good looks”, they have another think coming.

To that unnamed Romney supporter, “Newt means losing 45 states”, going by ObamaMath that leaves 12 states, isn’t that correct sport and to be fair, sportette?

To that same unnamed Romney supporter, the real “catastrophe” is, given another 4 years, Obama will go back to HIS Constitutional law book and determine that the 2 term limit is voidable. If that doesn’t work, then the Race Card will again be on the table..

One of the, if not THE best explanations of Newt Gingrich, ever (at least in my eyes): Posted by Noesis Noeseos re: ‘Why Newt?’ on

Not everything Newt has advocated or accomplished can be labeled “conservative,” but I can’t think of anything Mitt has done that merits that description.
Granted, Newt has a big ego which he does not always control well, but having watched him in the debates, I am convinced that he is the only one who attempts to subsume the ambitions of that ego to combating what he well articulates is the crisis facing our constitutional republic. He is also the only candidate who has included the audience in his comments, from “every one in this room has experienced personal pain” to, more importantly, “I ask you not to be for me, but with me.” He knows that it is we the people who must endeavor to restore the government our Founding Fathers bequeathed, that no president, even with an allied congress, can do it without our dedication. This he has reinforced with the honesty to tell people that as the federal government shrinks, the states, the localities, and the people themselves must take on more responsibility for the commonweal. (sic) He alone understands subsidiarity.

And, as Lincoln said of Grant, “He fights.”

Our nation at this juncture does not need a ‘Cary Grant’. It does need a ‘U.S.Grant’..

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 22, 2012 at 11:36 am

“But the hyperbole being expressed by Romney supporters in the media and inside the party has crossed over from argument to fearmongering.”

Because that is all they have left.

Where it’s not about media control, or promises and pay-backs for money by Romney and Co. to politicians’ campaigns, this is Northeast ego-centrism.

One of the annoying things about Romney supporters has always been their arrogant certainty that anyone who doesn’t support their man is a moron, or a traitor to the Republican party, or to America.

Honestly, they argue like Liberals. “The science is SETTLED! Now shut up and buy a Volt.”

Maybe he really will win but I’ll feel a lot better about that if he wins by fighting for it, rather than just having it handed to him.

“No one at the Romney campaign wants to take my advice: Make the case for Mitt, not against others. You will not win it by making us afraid, very afraid.”

I don’t think it’s a matter of choice or will. I expect they may be more afraid of making the case — or engaging in the process of making it — than they are of the consequences of fear-mongering.

Stuck in their world of fear, they can only project it outwards. It’s all they’ve got.

Fearmongering??? I still see Newt cozying up to Nancy [maybe trying to cop a feel?] saying that we need to do something about global warming . And Newt calling out Paul Ryan for “right wing social engineering”. And Newt justifying his ethics problems, because, after all, everyone does it. And Newt defending his “consulting” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And Newt claiming that he is the one to clean up Washington. And Newt claiming that Capitalism is wrong, because Bain Capital made money for investors, even when Romney was no longer in command.
Could the democrat machine be so obtuse that they will overlook these “gifts”?
Please, bring the puke bowl closer.

    Uhhh, i’ve dug in to most of the issues you name. Are you sure you are opposed to what Newt has done and said, or to what hostile, dishonest talking heads have said he did and said?

    We are dealing right now with a slander machine that has methodically taken out candidate after candidate in this race, so that we are left with an entirely different selection. Romney has been a big participant in this.

    There was a time when I would have spat at the thought of voting for Newt Gingrich for President. But, he grew once he got out of office, and he has been slandered tremendously since, and I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen that, when he and the candidates get together, he’s the leader. He controls the tone, and all the candidates have benefited from his stance.

    Newt’s creative. He’s a problem solver. He welcomes solutions from any source, and builds bridges with anybody who is willing to work with him on a given problem. He plainly has a deep respect for each individual. He has great energy, and a broad-ranging, penetrating intellect. He IS what this country tried to elect in the last presidential election, sans the photoshopped halo.

      Hope Change in reply to Valerie. | January 23, 2012 at 12:47 am

      OMG, Valerie, I agree! I know what you mean.

      Did he or did he not:
      Cozy up to Nancy Pelosi and embrace the Gore lie of “global warming’ later to morph into “climate change”?
      State that Paul Ryan’s plan was “Right Wing Social Engineering” and was as bad as “Left Wing Social Engineering”?
      Take a $1.3 million fee for consulting for FM and FM?
      Censured and fined for ethics violations?
      Don’t mistake my resolve. I will support Newt if he stumbles into the nomination [remember, he forgot to register in Virginia]. I will vote for a dirty, smelly worn out tennis shoe [preferably a right foot] before I will vote for Obama.

        Weirddave in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 23, 2012 at 7:55 am

        Actually, for most of those the answer is “He did not”. Sure, he sat on the couch with the Wicked Witch of the West. This was before the duplicitous nature of the “science” of “global warming” was known. I’ll give him a half pass on that one, he’s repudiated that position as more facts came out.

        He did not call the Ryan plan “right wing social engineering”, he said that trying to force it on the country without selling it to the public, without their buy in, THAT would be RWSE and he was right. That statement was about the method, not the plan. Go listen again.

        He took a fee for work performed. I’d be the very first to shutter Fannie and Freddie, but they exist and they offered Newt a legal job. Newt had a company that consulted with GSEs. Should he have said no out of some ideological purity? You ever represent clients you can’t stand? Do they have a right to competent representation? What’s the difference?

        Finally, Newt paid his fine in advance-and then was cleared of wrongdoing by the time the ethics investigations wound up. It’s….funny how things like this keep happening to Republicans(see: Palin, Sarah), charges trumpeted to the skies in a great media fanfare…….and the inevitable acquittal months later gets a blurb below the fold on page 27. Odd that.

Folks in SC are to be congratulated for the turnout. Looking it seems like just abit more than 600,000. Compare with ho hum 2008 of 445,000.
Obvious interest in SC.
Newts 243,000 are about 100,000 ahead of McCain in 2008.

What will be interesting to see is the effect in Florida polls.

On the other..all the fearmongers. Hey…we understand its difficult to admit defeat or a plan failure. Sometimes its needed as a wake up call.
I see Romney will release tax records Tuesday.
Not that they were a reason for the loss…but come on Romney…so the Charitable Contributions line is blank. No big deal. (Im kidding)

The elites are starting to crack. If Gingrich wins Florida it may start getting comical, if we haven’t reached that point already. As others have said, they can’t make the case for Romney because a legitimate case cannot be made.

The contemporary Democrat, liberal, and progressive is in the business of selling indulgences, with tangible promises of physical, material, and instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent exploitation.

As for Newt, his problem is that a large minority of people prefer a singular account of bias with a twist of prejudice. They have come to believe that presumption of guilt is the superior position. This has been a problem for both Romney and Newt, but also for other Republican candidates. It’s worth noting that the same people afford greater empathy for murderers and rapists.

So, if a majority of Americans, and the fictitious, schizophrenic, and illegal choose to exchange their dignity for promises of instant gratification and indulgences then Obama will indeed win a second term in office.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | January 22, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    I’m surprised that anyone would disagree. The pattern is quite obvious. It is the same model followed by the central Christian churches of yesteryear, where endowment of wealth and property to the church would guarantee a comfortable afterlife. The central, and key, difference is that the secular cult populated by contemporary Democrats, liberals, and progressives promise a reward in the person’s lifetime.

    If you have a prejudice and feel uncomfortable then vote Democrat.

    If you have a bigotry then vote Democrat.

    If you have a phobia then vote Democrat.

    If you feel that your life has caused distress to the environment then vote Democrat, and be at peace with your miserable existence.

    If you feel that premeditated destruction of developing human life is the surest path to preserving the opportunity for physical instant gratification then vote Democrat.

    Why wait for a postmortem, when physical, material, and ego instant gratification can be yours now? I suppose this could be compared to private confessions offered by the church, but the contemporary Democrat, liberal, and progressive has conducted their operation through both involuntary (e.g. taxation, lawsuits) and voluntary (e.g. “donations”) exploitation on a progressive level. They ran the racket and now there is a peaceful revolution to hold them accountable. Fortunately, Americans are not nearly so bloodthirsty as their French counterparts.

The house would have never been won if we had listened to the RINO establishment. It will be lost if we listen to them now.

oh, the elitist drumbeat is droning on…….from the top of the DC beltway crowd down to my pal whose wife is in the SC House of Representatives….”You TEA party people are too stupid to realize what you are doing, you people have no business in politics” WHAT THE HELL? Involvement in politics is a basic right of being an American. Who decided that we have “no business’ doing what we are doing? Give me Liberty, or give me DEATH!

[…] Insurrection is all over this topic in this post. Be sure to read it because it exposes the […]

Jusuchin (Military Otaku) | January 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Rather than Afraid, very afraid. I think it should read:

“No one at the Romney campaign wants to take my advice: Make the case for Mitt, not against others. You will not win it by making us angry, very angry.”

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | January 23, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Thank you, Raven. Sean Trende does a very interesting analysis. But he still think Romney is the “front runner,” which tells me that Sean doesn’t yet understand what’s building here, at least is things are as they seem from my point of view.

johnnycab23513 | January 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm

The Republican Elite need to be the fearful ones. A Romney nomination will force true constitutional conservative voters to band together and form a third party as there will be no difference between R’s and D’s.

Look, who cares what all these Establishment Pushers and Doomsayers say about electability? Its meaningless; they are merely trying to force us to vote for who they want us to. They fail to mention the Dem Establishment and Doomsayers are whining and fear-mongering and running against Congress at the same time for the sole purpose of trying to get people in their base to actually vote for Obama again.

Because that is the only important question at this time – who the hell is going to actually vote for Obama?

I mean, this is a President who has a 50-something “definitely does not deserve re-election” polling. This is a President where 60+ percent disagree with every one of his policy choices and the overall direction he is taking the country. This is a President who cant even make the simplest of decisions (Keystone) for fear of turning off voters he desperately needs. Sure, eventually he decided he is less likely to loose Union support then Environmental support and tried to cover his tracks with a “re-draw the lines” position to hopefully (in his eyes) satisfy the unions – but come on, this stance alone (despite 3 years of “its fine” reporting from panels) is proof he knows he cant get re-elected.

There are only about 30% Liberals in the Country and when you talk to them on the street, about half of them cant stand this idiot.

Then, he is polling in the 40s with Independents, so even if we are generous and give him 50% of the Ind vote, we are merely looking at 40-45% of the overall voting.

So around 40-45% of the vote, and the worst part for Obama is, all those people wont vote – what motivation do they have to do so? “Hey guys, you don’t really like the job I’m doing, but it could be worse so vote for me?” You really think that is going to be a great get-out-the-vote line?

The only way Obama wins the election is if we pick someone who Republicans wont want to vote for, and in turn, have low turn out ourselves. So let’s think, who is it that Republicans cant stand the idea of voting for… Oh yeah, Mr. never over 30% in any given state!

Romney will leave a huge chunk of the Republican party sitting at home watching TV while we toss a coin to see which of the two political leanings can actually grab enough of the few people interested in voting for either of the two poor choices. Who takes the House? Who knows, ideally Republicans who refuse to vote for such a Liberal Governor turned Republican Candidate still turn out and just leave the Presidential box empty – but it isn’t a given at all.

On the other hand, I’ll fill everyone in on a little secrete – a fairly large percentage of Blacks like Newt for his revitalizing their communities with Welfare Reform. Something near 70% of capable welfare recipients went to work, and that had a solid impact on inner-city communities. On the other hand, Obama has failed them, leaving them with the single highest unemployment rate in history. With Newt, they would at least have a candidate who has previously helped their families and communities, plus a President they like save a bit of face after a disastrous start to his Presidency as well.

I’ll let everyone in on another secrete – Hispanics realize his Immigration Solution is at least something they can swallow, and will not be completely against voting for him like they would for Mitt or Rick because of their unrealistic “I’m going to deport each and every one of them” stance. Obama has failed them too, and they will have an alternative that is at least trying to be realistic about a solution while making it a priority to his Presidency (unlike Obama, who they now realize just used them for their votes and has no real shot of proposing and passing a realistic a solution)

Even Democrats, in the form of Blue-Dogs and Reagan Democrats, at least respect Newt in a fairly solid percentage.

In reality, the people who hate Newt the most are the Republican Establishment and Establishment Democrats (which is now controlled by the extreme left/Progressives).

Which makes for an interesting question – will the Establishment Republicans destroy their standing and power in Congress and get Obama re-elected for the sole purpose of bringing down a Nominee they know will gut the Establishment Power if elected president? (ironically, he just happens to be the same man who created the new Republican base they have been fighting against since the days of Ford; and have since witness grow into a Giant willing to destroy them in the form of the Tea Party)

It’s really a lose-lose for the Establishment with Newt; and that’s why they are forced to go so far in on Romney that they will prop up Rick and Fear-monger their own base (again) to try and get their way…

    stevewhitemd in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Who will vote for Obama?

    He has 40% of the vote off the top. That’s the Democratic minimum in just about every election. They can add to that.

    Remember, the Cranky Old Man™ got 46% in 2008 after running one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history.

    That 40% for Obama includes the progressives, the greenies, the black vote, the yellow dogs, academia, and so on. Add to that a chunk of Hispanic, Jewish and Catholic voters who pull the ‘D’ level by reflex.

    Independents will add to that, though not nearly as well as in 2008, and Obama plans on rousting the young voters — the Dems always plan on that but Obama actually made it work in 2008.

    That 40%, and a chunk of the rest, also include the ‘dependent’ voters — people who depend on government, rather than themselves, to get by. Food stamps. Section 8. WIC. Unemployment. Social security. Medicaid. Add it up; the gravy train (such as it is) flows for a lot of people who will vote for whoever promises to keep the train running on time.

    It’s not just getting to 51% nationally but winning a majority in the battleground states. Mr. Axelrod won’t care if Obama only gets 30% in Georgia as long as he gets 50.1% in Florida.

    Whether the Pub nominee is Mittens or Newt, the Pub starts behind in the general election. No one should forget that.

      Darkstar58 in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      see, you’re just incorrect.

      Since at least June (the earliest poll I can quickly find in the state), Obama has been under water at about a 38%-55% in Florida. If you really think he is going to be able to get the remaining 7% of undecideds (who almost never go for an incumbent if they are undecided that late in the game) plus pull 6-7% of the people who think he has done a bad job; well I have some beans you might be interested in…

      That isn’t to say the election will be a walk in the park no matter what – but you are painting a drastically unrealistic picture which just doesn’t line up with the facts we have.

      Obama is currently under water in almost each Battle-Ground state. Meanwhile Republicans/Tea-Party Independents are so excited to replace Obama with a “Conservative” (read: Not-Romney), while at least getting close to half the Democrat party would rather he be gone leaving little to no enthusiasm in the base. Its a recipe for a Democrat who will likely get in the 45% range, maybe lower, as long as Republicans show up.

      Oh, and Republicans did show up (and held their noses) to vote McCain; John just had no draw what so ever among Independents after the crash. Independents hate Obama now though, with a 35%-65% range of support among Independents at this time – with it being especially true in swing states. Even the NY times recognizes that:

      Obama is a long-shot to get re-elected, no matter what the Media and Establishment-types insistently tell you…

    Hope Change in reply to Darkstar58. | January 23, 2012 at 12:56 am

    totally hear you, Darkstar58. thank you for the insights. well said.

A lot of people freaking out after last night, sure glad I’m not one of them lol

“There are only about 30% Liberals in the Country and when you talk to them on the street, about half of them cant stand this idiot.” I am one of them.

There really are people who still support Obama, and the ones I know that CAN stand him, get their news from NPR and the New York Times. The lacunae in their knowledge of the the actions of this administration are breathtaking. That ignorance is dangerous to our country.

A Newt Gingrich presidential candidacy will be problematic. There are people who know, KNOW, I tell you, that Newt Gingrich is a hot-headed, undisciplined, hateful, racist, angry attack muffin that wants to destroy public education. That’s why Newt Gingrich was confronted by an angry black man in South Carolina, and challenged to meet with Al Sharpton on the subject of education(!!) I waited and waited, but found no comments about that incident, beyond the mention that Newt said he knew Al Sharpton and would be glad to meet with him.

It took some digging, and I had to plow through a lot of Rachel Maddow lying about what Newt has said, and I did find some original source references on this topic. If you look at the dates, you’ll see the problem.

The guy who confronted Gingrich didn’t know that he and Al Sharpton have been talking, and that they do find an area of agreement where they can work together. But Sheila Jackson Lee and Bill Maher are working hard to make sure that people don’t know it.

Newt Gingrich on Education Reform

Rev. Al Sharpton on Education Reform

Sheila Jackson Lee

Bill Maher

If you have the stomach to watch the Bill Maher clip all the way to the end, you’ll find something else: an admission by the panel that they all agree that Newt has substantial appeal among Democratic voters.

I think it can be done.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Valerie. | January 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    If you have the stomach to watch the Bill Maher clip all the way to the end, you’ll find something else: an admission by the panel that they all agree that Newt has substantial appeal among Democratic voters.

    Yep, its a portion of the huge secrete no one really wants to address. I’m surprised they even acknowledged it.

    As I mentioned above, Newt’s Conservative pushing is the reason Clinton had to run to the right. In turn, Clinton’s Presidency was saved in the eyes of Democrats and some Independents – keeping him from becoming the second Carter himself. And Welfare reform, as much as the Dem Talking-heads hate it, was a necessary positive in the eyes of so many in the country.

    Blue-dogs and Reagan-Democrats, in the very least, respect that.

    Newt of course wont take a huge percentage of the Democrat vote or anything – but there is at least a larger percentage of Democrats who don’t despise him like the Media insistently portrays. In the least, it will mean some Democrats will be fine staying home and not casting a vote for either Newt or Obama – and he may even steal a few of them away.

    What Newt has going for him is that he is at least an interesting candidate to some more-moderate Democrats or Dems who despise Obama; as well as an interesting candidate to Blacks and Hispanics. The Media doesn’t want us to know that, but its true.

    Thanks for the links, btw. Will make for interesting watching when I get some time later. (although, I don’t think I will be able to stomach the whole Maher segment.)

    stevewhitemd in reply to Valerie. | January 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Valerie: thank you for the research. It’s helpful.

    Jusuchin (Military Otaku) in reply to Valerie. | January 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Thanks for the links, shall be looking through them after work!

    Hope Change in reply to Valerie. | January 23, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Valerie, thank you for digging up those original sources. Seriously, the Establishment is toast.

    And I agree with you that Newt will have tremendous appeal to many Democrats.

    Newt is visionary and he wants solutions where everyone wins. Democrats have kids in school and want better school, just like Newt. Democrats what jobs and all the things Republicans want. newt can explain how we can team up and create a country in which people of every background will have more opportunity.

It seems Romney’s fear-mongering includes the predictable and already-used subtext that Gingrich is crazy or unstable. I left some comments in the “Tip Line” linking to the latest attempts to portray Gingrich as nuts. Those who voted for Gingrich are considered “nuts” by extension too. That line of attack may backfire and anger conservatives even more.

The most common theme out there today…and started last nite attemts to paint Gongrich win in SC as something similar to the 2000 New Hampshire primary. The obvious “pitch” is McCain won that solely on the basis of his townhall performances close to the primary.
So..the narrative is…Newt’s win is more or less a debate “bump” and doesnt really mean much over time.
Reminds me of instructing the Justice Department to go back and support my decision after its been made. Like reverse engineering. Find me historical results that support my new narrative.
Heres the problem with that logic: It assumes the two primaries are the same and both are equally valid.
If we assume that logic holds? How do we explain that sometimes NH is accurate and sometimes…well..not so much.
Romney supporters want a simple external “thing” to spin an uncomfortable loss.
Sorry..I wont bite at the spin that it was all a function of debate performance. That explanation avoids a simple truth: Romney and his supporters had the curtain pulled open and like The Wizard have been exposed. for what they are, not what they would have us believe.

    Darkstar58 in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    yep, that’s what some are trying to say. Of course, a few are smart enough to point something out though:

    (Cant remember who linked this Sean Trende article, but here:)

    This is worse than George W. Bush’s loss to John McCain in New Hampshire. John McCain caught Bush off-guard in 2000, but Bush was given an opportunity to regroup. He hadn’t fired any major shots at McCain at that point, and was able to bury McCain beneath a torrent of attacks in South Carolina.

    Romney has already been put on notice that Gingrich is a threat, and has already launched his assaults on him once. What does Romney have left? I assume that there are still bombs left to drop on the former speaker, and that the pre-Christmas attacks in Iowa were only a preview. But let’s also note that, two days before the primary, Gingrich’s ex-wife accused him of seeking an open marriage. We have to at least consider the possibility that voters may have already priced in Newt’s baggage, and just decided that they don’t care. If that’s the case, then Romney’s problems go even deeper than I suspect.

Apropos of none of the above, does Florida have the hottest Attorney General, or what?

And of course, Pam is hot in more ways than one.

Whatever happens later this year, one of the extraordinary things happening across the country is the emergence of attractive, compelling personalities on the Republican-conservative bench. Not only those like Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Nicki Haley and Marco Rubio who are already on the national radar screen, but office holders the next tier down like Pam Bondi and Alan West (must be something in that Florida sunshine) who will be heard from.

As for me, I want Newt to carry on and do well, as long as he continues to say what he’s been saying, and as long as he means what he says.

Yep, I’d vote for Mitt over Obama, I’d vote for Santorum over Obama, I’d vote for Newt over either one and certainly over Obama, I’d vote for Paul, well maybe (That would be like 1972 for me, can’t recall who I voted for then, but know it wasn’t for John Anderson, Wallace, or McGovern.).

Newt’s background isn’t perfect and he’s certainly done things that a Conservative shouldn’t do. But, his words have meaning and he has shown his intent to back them up with deeds; he must make sure that those good words become true.

Newt’s one problem, in my view, is that he doesn’t have a fall back position, he’s locked into doing what he has said that needs to be done. His words are his promises and God help him if he doesn’t meet America’s expectations because there will no further redemption, no forgiveness, now for such a failure.

    Doug, I hear where you’re coming from. But, didn’t Reagan paint himself into a corner too? “Government is the problem.” He wasn’t able to shrink government, but he did enough (got the economy back on track and tamed the Soviet Union), that the griping against him (which I remember well from such as National Review) for not fulfilling promises is not remembered.

    If Newt can make some strides against government regulation, open up oil and gas production, and get the economy going that would be huge. Hectoring Congress on balancing the budget and getting nearer to that goal would also be huge.

    What do you think?

      Hope Change in reply to T D. | January 23, 2012 at 1:11 am

      T D You’re not factoring the role of the American people in a Gingrich administration. Newt will not be “hectoring” congress. Newt wants to effectuate the will of the American people.

      If we want a strong American energy policy, using social media, we will let our elected representatives know. Just like last week with SOPA.

      That’s why Newt says we need to be With him and not just For him.. Because the scope of the change needed is so great that no one could possibly do it alone.

      If you watch Newt’s speeches, you will find all of this and much more. It is amazing to hear the complexity of the ideas and the simplicity of the solutions. It’s easy, it just need the genius and the energy of the American People.

      Here are CONVENIENT LINKS to 17 of Newt’s speeches.

^^ the RCP analysis. Saw that and of course the implication that sort of says “but Bush came back and won” which more or less supports why I call it spin. It becomes a subliminal that devalues a Gingrich win…which is why it was selected.
Republican machine believes…let the little people have their SC win…after all…we know who will win in the end.
And I agree with the last sentance…”go even deeper than suspect.”

    jiminsocal: excellent point. I’ll read it again with that in mind.

    holmes tuttle in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    so all Romney needs to do is make sure the voters in FL know about Newt’s illegitimate black kid and he’s in good shape.

      I was expecting that they would accuse him of something close to it, but that’s a good one.

      I feel Gingrich is approaching “Teflon” level, whereby the accusations thrown at him slide off.

      After a while voters, like those in SC, just want to listen to what the man has to say and make up their own minds.

    Darkstar58 in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Yeah, but where the RCP says “Bush came back” – it also explains how he was able to because he hadn’t even fired the first shot really, where Mitt has nearly emptied the clip at this point.

    Plus, the dirtier Mitt gets to try and fire more bullets, the more kick-back he will also experience. It gets to be a risky proposition.

      jimzinsocal in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Dark…what Im getting at is of all the choices for another contest to compare last night to..its telling that 2000 in NH was chosen. We know McCain surprised Bush and Bush went on to win the nomination that year. My suggestion that choice wasnt an accident. Its like reversed engineering. Find an example that suppoorts “party position”
      Why not use SC history instead? No republican candidate since 1980 has lost in SC and gone on to win nomination.
      To search out examples in other states just strikes me as an obvious search to fit a narrative. Get it into voter’s heads that sure…”just like NH in 2000…McCain one that one so therefore…we know the rest of the story”. The subliminal seems obvious for me.

holmes tuttle | January 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm

One thing overlooked is the Bain attacks worked.

65% in SC said they didn’t matter. But 35% said they did. Of the 65% who said they didn’t Romney beat Newt 41-34, a slight edge. However, of the 35% who said they did matter Newt crushed Romney 50-3 with the rest split among Santorum and Paul. Basically 1/3 of the electorate said they mattered and they went against Romney 97-3.

Now, keep this in mind. This was in SC, a strongly conservative/GOP state, with a strongly conservative/GOP primary electorate. This was with the attacks being made for only a couple days, and in a somewhat haphazzard fashion by Newt and Perry. With all of the conservative and GOP media coming out in force to defend Romney and bash Newt(even Rush did). With the messenger being a somewhat unsympathetic Newt who was way down in the polls at the time and who many had written off for dead. With Romney being the heavy favorite and most t hinking he had it wrapped up. With Newt only spending a few million to make the attacks.

Yet, even with all that and more, 35% of the conservative/GOP primary electorate in SC said it resonated and they went 97-3 against Romney. That margin cost him the stae,

Now, in a general election, the electorate will be very different. It’ll have dems and independents. If 35% in SC said it mattered, I’d suggets the % will be much higher in less red states like say OH, FL, VA, NV, CO, NC, IN, MI, PA, WI, IA, NH, etc… And I’d further suggest that they’d be even more against Romney than the GOP voters in SC were.

Moreover, the attacks wouldn’t be for just a few days by an underfunded guy on his last legs like Gingrich. They’d be being made by a billion dollar campaign machine led by the affable Obama, Axelrod, and Plouffe. They’d be ongoing over months/ they’d have the full enocuragement and support of the media. They’d be tailored and directed to each individual state and market. They’d be the best put together ads you’ve ever seen. Be running nonstop.

Put all that together and you can guess what the result would be. We saw what happened after only a couple days in rock red SC.

The Bain attacks worked, and they may have proven fatal for Romney.

Also, SC was the 1st state where Romney faced parity in terms of tv/radio ads. And he lost by 12 in a conservative/GOP state. Against Obama they’re won’t be parity, he’ll be swamped. And it’ll be in a far less favorable electorate.

Good for Newt for going there and for using it effectively to bring down Romney and possibly finish him off.

Midwest Rhino | January 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

I’ve tried to argue at various places for a long time that the real Tea party is the 65-70% that Rasmussen says want smaller government and lower taxes. But both parties prefer to divide and conquer us with various issues. Republican establishment seemed willing to accept the vilification of Tea partiers as extremists, since the common “good man” versus elite does not play to their highness.

Rick Santelli actually kicked off the tea party, standing against bailouts for the overextended that bought more house than they could afford. He argued against the moral hazard of government manipulation of the market, and phony handouts to the too big to fails.

The argument for Romney means accepting his newly formed false positions on recent flops. He wants to be our CEO, and tell us (his employees) that we must buy health care, which he’d support with fed funds on the state level.

I do appreciate Mitt’s business acumen, but Gingrich has experience at bringing conservative principles to government. Romney’s experience is “playing” with people’s lives (in the companies Bain CONTROLLED) to yield HIMSELF a profit. Romney profited from the easy money, junky debt merger era, which Greenspan once called “irrational exuberance”.

Free market profit is good, but in the context of our current debt crisis, is it a conservative government attribute? Soros buys and sells companies. GE’s Immelt is the Obama job czar after all, and GE is building in China.

My two years (1998-2000) daytrading companies showed me business traders are ruthless … which is fine in a system set up for a fair fight. Romney’s boasting that his 25 years success in business trumps Gingrich’s puny four years as speaker indicate to me Mitt just doesn’t get it. Public service is different, or is supposed to be.

I don’t see much necessarily “conservative” about being a successful capitalist. Bain gave their money mostly to Democrats, as did Goldman Sachs. Conservatives want to decentralize a limited government, as our constitution established. Wall Street (and socialists) are more about centralizing power … giving us the debt ridden too big to fails that demand trillions in taxpayer bailouts.

We are ALL Tea Party now … us versus them. Their divide and conquer strategy has not served us well. The Tea party is not just republican or religious zealots or whites. It is the 70% that want limited government and divided power. “THEY” want to marginalize that movement. Just say NO.

sorry for the length … got carried away … need a cigarette and a beer now … ahhhh 🙂

[…] » Fearmongers for Romney – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion Update 2:25 p.m.:  When I wrote this post I was unaware that this morning Rubin wrote An Open Letter to Republican Leaders (h/t Karl at Patterico) begging several high profile Republicans either to get in the race to stop Newt or united behind either Romney or Santorum as the not-Newt: The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy. […]

Isn’t it amazing that not only Coulter and Cupp, but Steyn, Kevin Williamson, and Michael Potemra at National Review are all blaming those conservative knuckle-dragging, bitter, cling to their religion and guns voters for stupid choices. Who would have thought that the same people who used to defend voters are now joining the Left’s ongoing chorus about how voters are too stupid to know what’s best for them.

    MadCon in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Not only are the voters considered too stupid to know what’s best for them, they’re crazy too!

    “Who were these crazy people? They were Gingrich voters, Frankensteins stitched together from the parts of other, extinct conservatives.”

    Jake Blues in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Ann Coulter is only relevant to liberals who like to hate her. She once had interesting things to say, but that ship sailed years ago. Mark Steyn, another interesting guy, but ultimately he gets tiresome. NRO – didn’t David Frum write for them at one time? And Katharine Jean Lopez has been in the Romney tank for years. So all the elitists in the club sit and discuss how stupid the Tea Party is, how horrible Newt Gingrich is, and almost hoping to lose if we don’t deliver them Romney. Well, like others have said, I’ve done that and I’m tired of it. My vote counts as much as any of these self-appointed wizards of smart, and while they are entitled to their opinion, I’ll follow my head. I still think half these people think they will be the inner circle of a Romney administration, while Gingrich wouldn’t have any use for most of them (just look how he’s used Hannity all these years.)

It started already. Chris Christie called Newt’s past “an embarassment” to the party. Something Mitt would never be. Um, hey Chris…what do you call Romneycare? A shining example of doing the people’s work?

The narritive was born: Look at the date and time

South Carolina 2012 is to Newt as New Hampshire 2000 Was to McCain?

By Rich Lowry
January 21, 2012 5:57 P.M

Henry Hawkins | January 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm

The pendulum swings, back and forth, back and forth. The Nixon era led us clear the other way -we picked a pastoral, sweater wearing peanut farming liberal from Plains GA. His liberalness and ineptitude pushed the pendulum far in the other direction and Saint Ronald took two terms, setting up his VP for another. Bush II failed to move the ball, and the pendulum swung fully back the other way and Slick Willy took residence for two terms. Sick of Slick, America pushed the pendulum once again in the other direction and we had George for a couple terms. Now we have Mr. Obama.

I think… I hope… that what we are seeing is perhaps the greatest swing of the national political pendulum in modern history, of at least the past 100 years. Obama has proved so inept and so incredibly liberal he goes off the known scale – even more inept and liberal than was Jimmuh Carter, the standard bearer for these detriments. His four years of malaise set up Ronald Reagan for two consecutive landslide victories plus the first Republican majority in the House in many decades. And now the table is set in very like fashion.

Who were the Reagan Democrats if not the equivalent of our Tea Partiers? The smaller government, lower taxes, common sense government sentiment is currently right there in the American people, thick as grapes ripe for the picking, and the Romney combine cannot reach that high, indeed, does not see them at all, chasing moderates and independents instead. But Gingrich can see them, in fact, he was there for the Reagan Democrats, progenitors of the Tea Party, front and center, to reap the whirlwind of establishment fear and loathing of anything and anyone so uncontrollable.

I can see it forming, the arc of the pendulum as it prepares to slice back towards conservatism and responsible government. The 2010 midterms stopped the Obama pend at its apex, turned it back, and now it is gaining speed. We are about to retake America and cripple liberal socialism beyond easy redemption, perhaps for good.

The pathway to certainty on the future, whether this guy or that guy will or can win doesn’t exist. All the stats and polls in the world will not provide you confidence. Conventional wisdom is neither. Conventional wisdom, we are told, says New cannot beat Obama, has no path to the White House. Conventional wisdom also says a football field is 100 yards long. But, it is not. A football field is 120 yards long. F**k conventional wisdom and the dreck pumped out by the conventionally wise ‘experts’.

Heed your own counsel, know your heart and vote it, but most of all have faith. This can work. It’s all lining up, just like in 1980. The pendulum is gaining the speed necessary to make the upswing. Trust it. Faith!

    Darkstar58 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 22, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Great write up

    I would just like to point out that Reagan Democrats and the Tea Party are, for the most part, a separate entity though – and the Tea Party aligns better with what is considered Blue-Dog Democrats. (and that is, ironically, something you can partially thank Gingrich for!)

    Regan Democrats were, for the most part, Northern Working-class Democrats; where the Tea Party is strongest in the south among those Republicans that cant stand the establishment Elites and Blue-Dogs who see the Democrat Party moving way too far to the Left.

    What Newt did was become one of the first to tap into the Goldwater movement which started to show the weakness in the South. Back when Newt was coming up in GA, you could nearly count the number of Southern “Conservatives” on one hand, but many had shown the cracks in their leaning with the Goldwater Defeat of ’64. Although he wasn’t alone in doing it of course, he nearly did by himself in GA and overall played a major role in creating the Southern Conservative movement which became key to Reagan, and pushed more moderate leaning Democrats further right to what would eventually (1995-ish) be called Blue-Dog territory.

    If you realistically trace the Tea Party movements ideals and demographics back thru time, you will find Newt’s name in the very early pages; as one of the first to capitalize on what Goldwater had earlier showed us.

    Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 23, 2012 at 1:17 am

    Henry Hawkins, I agree 100%.

Wow, the Romney camp must be scared silly.

The guy who said he wouldn’t leave New Jersey voters in the lurch and wouldn’t run for president because he wanted to complete his first term as governor is considering leaving them for the VP spot.

    Jake Blues in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    I seriously do not get the Christie-mania. The guy’s okay on unions and not much else. He’s a northeastern liberal Republican. Kinda like Romney…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Jake Blues. | January 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Christie’s pro-gun control record alone means that he’ll turn off conservatives and merely duplicate Romney’s ‘strength’ among moderates and liberals. A Mass gov and a NJ gov, both moderates, both squishtastic, will not play outside the northeast. In other words, Christie as VP gains Romney nothing.

Don’t worry. As a last resort die hard establishment Republicans and pundits can always do what they did in 2008 – save the party by voting for Obama.

PS. If you think Gingrich has baggage, just see how long Mr. Obnoxious, I mean Governor Christie, would take to wear out his welcome with the American voter.

Hey, here’s a tossup question:

Why is AFSCME, one of Obama’s biggest union supporters, spending $1 million in Florida to attack Romney in a Republican primary?

    MadCon in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    For the same reason that the AFSCME hates Gingrich.

    “While AFSCME’s got a gripe with Gingrich, the union has just as much reason to be angry with Romney.”


    “AFSCME, which has been a key player in the struggle to defend state and local workers against the anti-union juggernaut launched by newly elected Republican governors and legislators, has long been at odds with Newt Gingrich.”

      JEBurke in reply to MadCon. | January 22, 2012 at 6:01 pm

      I don’t doubt that AFSCME doesn’t like Gingrich.

      However, they are running $1 million of ads against Romney in the Florida Republican primary. The likely effect of this will be to help Gingrich to win in that state.

      So the question remains, why?

        MadCon in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        They probably assume, like the entire political class does, that Mitt will be the nominee so they wish to weaken him. They’re working on weakening Gingrich at the same time. So does weakening Romney benefit Gingrich? Not necessarily. This strategy may ultimately benefit Santorum and Paul.

    Darkstar58 in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    To add to MadDog’s response, remember:

    4 days ago Romney was still “Mr. Inevitable”

    prior to 4 days ago, AFSCME was setting up their Obama v. Romney campaign anticipating his being the nominee. Hindsight shows they were a bit too eager in their desire to chip away at the Republican Nominees chance of beating Obama.

      Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 5:43 pm

      errr, sorry, “MadCON‘s”

      JEBurke in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 5:57 pm

      They could switch gears, make new ads attacking Gingrich and put them on the air instead of the anti-Romney attacks in 24 hours.

      So why don’t theyZ.

        Because Mitt is still the presumed nominee?

        “But there’s a not-insubstantial chance, call it 35 percent, that Romney won’t be the nominee.”

        Darkstar58 in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm

        why would they do that though?

        Romney is still the likely winner, so the ads will still likely be relevant.

        Plus, I’m sorry, but you don’t make new ads that people will take seriously over a 24hr time period

        Most likely situation is they just run most, but try to sell some of the previously purchased time slots and save that money for a much harder push after they feel Romney is secured (or in the very least protect themselves with multiple ads available in case its still up in the air for a long time)

        However, if you think its really some big conspiracy pointing to them wanting Newt or paying off Newt or whatever, well hope you have your tinfoil hat ready and otherwise have fun with that, I guess…

          JEBurke in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 6:59 pm

          You may be “sorry” but the fact is that these days, a half way decent media guy can make a 30 second spot and email it to stations where time has already been bought in a lot less than 24 hours.

          I specified a full day turnaround only because it is likely to take some time for decision makers to make the call.

          No “conspiracy” even hinted at.

          The obvious answer to my question — fastidiously avoided by several people here — is that the Dems and their union shills would rather see Newt as the nominee.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | January 22, 2012 at 7:14 pm

          “The obvious answer to my question — fastidiously avoided by several people here — is that the Dems and their union shills would rather see Newt as the nominee.”

          I didn’t avoid it – I specifically mentioned it first under the conspiracy theory paragraph at the end. Because that is what the “Dems want Newt” answer is; a conspiracy theory.

          People in the Democrat base/range are more likely to vote for Newt then Romney. All of Blue-Dogs/Reagan-Dems/Blacks/Hispanics are more likely to check Newt then Mitt, as no one, on any side of the aisle, really likes or trusts Romney. That is why Dems have been telling us since day one Romney should/will be our nominee.

          Plus, Obama has been running against Romney since he took office – his entire game plan is designed to take Mitt down. A Gingrich or Santorum win would undercut 3 years of political positioning.

    Maybe because up until yesterday they thought Mitt was the sure Republican nominee after “wins” in Iowa and NH and polls showing him up by double digits in SC?

    JEBurke in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    More food for thought: Debbie Wasserman Schutz “welcomed” the GOP candidates to FL by training all her fire on Romney:

    Why would she do that, sorta like AFSCME putting up $1 million in FL to attack Romney DURING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY?

    Oh, Dems are all slow witted, eh? They have not yet figured out that they need to fear Newt most.

      Darkstar58 in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm

      what you are saying is flat out delusional. Seriously, follow your argument through:

      AFSCME is coordinating their attack with Obama (who has also started running Anti-Romney ads) by purchasing ads against the “inevitable candidate”, “running the table” (at the time) because they want to try to resurrect a (at the time) “finished”, “done”, “about to withdraw” candidate instead. You honestly believe that?

      Dems are scared to death of Newt, they have no game plan against him. Sure, they will try to bring up ancient history – but each time anyone does, it hardly affects Newt at all. In fact, his surges have corresponded with people attacking him over his past.

      So what do they have then? “Crazy” and “Racist” and “Loose Cannon”, etc – you know, the same vague attacks they throw at the Tea Party because they don’t know how to attack them otherwise either…

      Even the Liberal panel on Mahers show recognizes that Newt has a chance to steal votes away from a disenfranchised Democrat party, and the new Conservative Movement (Tea Party) supported Newt in a big way last night. That’s a major issue for the Dems, where Mitt is the “rich”, “Wall-street”, “slick politicization” that even Republicans don’t want who Obama and the Dems have been slandering for the last 3 years in anticipation for a Romney v. Obama election…

    JEBurke in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    This just in. The diabolically clever elite establishment has recruited one of the Democratic Party’s top national consultants to pretend to be happy abouf Newt’s surge,writing that Obama should take a moment to appreciate the “train wreck” as GOP voters move to back their “most beatable candidate.”

    How can he say that? Gotta be a head fake!

[…] pet store, got a small animal, and killed it with my bare hands in frustration.”Update II: Legal Insurrection:the hyperbole being expressed by Romney supporters in the media and inside the party has crossed […]

In his Examiner piece Byron York flatly admits that Romney has ‘purchased half of Washington DC.’

AS IF the evidence was not already plain enough.

This is the type of after-the-fact admission that passes for honesty among the beltway media types.

But can you really blame them? It is their last gasp attempt to hang on to power. If they succeed they will pay no cost for their brazenness, and if they lose they will face nothing worse than defeat might otherwise bring.

This is the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth and Romney’s (figurative) head on pike at the entrance to the convention is what it is going to take if we are to even START to win this country back from the ruling class.

One minor point has been confirmed: Mitt’s going negative on Newt.

However, who is Mitt? What does Mitt stand for, has anyone heard what that is? How does Mitt propose to counter Obama’s mean machine? What is Mitt’s foreign policy, his domestic policies? his policies on spending, on the national debt, on everything else that concerns us little people, you know, the ones who do vote for a candidate

Just asking, because Mitt’s answers might persuade me to support him versus Newt. So far, for me, it’s Newt by at least 10-lengths.

Oh, one other minor point: Newt needs to stay on his positive message platform and not go back to his terrible negative messages. Newt does so much better when he’s telling us what he wants to accomplish.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Doug Wright. | January 22, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    I agree, but given Newt’s two-time return from the political grave in the last six months, another part of me says let him do whatever he sees fit, even if it means wading naked through the fountain in downtown Tallahassee, lol.

Henry Hawkins | January 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Oh dear, the Democrats say Gingrih is the weakest candidate. Better drop his ass and sit and wait for the Dems to call and tell who they really fear and nominate him instead. What a moronic train of thought, lol.

Who gives a rip what the Democrats think? The Dems thought the American people would fall in love with Obamacare once it was passed and they had more time to explain its wonderful benefits. The Dems were so certain Porkulus would work they thought unemployment wouldn’t go higher than 8% and offered recorded promises. Obama said in 2009 if he hadn’t turned the economy around by… well, by now… he’d be a one term president. He’s correct, but he clearly thought he’d turn it around. I could go on for 100 pages. Great thinkers, these Democrats, lol. Look at what they’re best thinking has done for America! “The Dems think….” LOL. Moronic.

[…] Insurrection is all over this topic in this post. Be sure to read it because it exposes the […]

I don’t like your premise that everyone who is anti-newt is in the Romney camp.

Disclaimer: I am in the Romney camp. (because it’s the best camp available, not because it’s the best camp imaginable.. rubio, ryan, obvious others)

however, I am much more anti Newt than I am pro-Romney and I agree with most of the voices you’re denouncing, save for some of the hyperbole.

Newt’s history as a lobbyist making tens of millions of dollars working for the likes of freddie and fannie and the health companies precludes him from serious consideration for 2012 in my opinion.

He is a career political turned lobbyist and totally represents the “old school” of big government, backroom deals, slimy dirty washington politics.

remember how in 2010, we elected a whole slew of new faces with the express goal of pushing the country in the right direction? accepting that both sides of the political spectrum had been engaged in the same BS for far too long and which has gotten us where we are now.

so tell me: why then is it a good idea to elect a guy who has been a part of that same, inefficient machine for the last 30 years?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to asdf. | January 23, 2012 at 1:08 am

    Romney’s camp has the best snacks, huh? Cool. You know, your description of Newt sounds awfully like a very good description of Romney and his campaign.

      Career politician? no.
      Big money lobbyist? no.

      Which part exactly sounds like Romney?

        Weirddave in reply to asdf. | January 23, 2012 at 8:39 am

        No, not a career politician, he seems unable to win any elections save one.

        The part that sounds like Mitt is that minor matter of Romneycare. In the one and only term that Mitt has managed to win, he IMPOSED all of those evils you’re castigating Newt for consulting about.

        That right there, that’s the crucible of Mitt. Conservative principles? At least Newt got some of them passed in his 4 years as Speaker. What has Mitt done that’s conservative by any standards outside Mass?

    davod in reply to asdf. | January 23, 2012 at 4:32 am

    “so tell me: why then is it a good idea to elect a guy who has been a part of that same, inefficient machine for the last 30 years?”

    Gingrich distinguishes himself from Romney by being part of the Republican Congress who forced a liberal Democratic President to adopt wide ranging changes to the budget, especially the role social welfare benefits. Romney set the stage for Obamacare with Romnycare.