Image 01 Image 03

It’s not about Newt

It’s not about Newt

Michael Reagan, in this interview with Mark Levin, shoots down the smears spread by the Romney campaign and its supporters regarding Newt and Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Lord has another great piece, Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps (h/t jiminsocal in the Tip Line):

The war between conservatives and the Republican Establishment — and make no mistake, this is a war — is on once more.

The people who brought the GOP losing candidates from Dewey to Dole are at it again.

Last week’s assault on Newt Gingrich — with various Romney supporters seriously and deceptively trying to tell unwitting voters that Gingrich was never really a real Reagan ally– in reality has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich at all.

The attack on Gingrich’s Reagan credentials, by the way, which I discussed here, backfired badly on the Romney forces. They were quickly dropped ….

If Newt Gingrich disappeared from the planet today and in his place stood only Rick Santorum — or Sarah Palin herself or some other conservative — you can be certain the Establishment GOP would have their sights trained on that conservative, running some version of precisely the same multi-gazillion dollar campaign they are running against Newt Gingrich right now. As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008. If by chance Rick Santorum emerges as the sole conservative left in this race — look out Rick….

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment.

Exactly.  When it looked like Santorum might rise, Romney unloaded on Santorum briefly until it was clear Santorum no longer was rising.

It’s not about Newt.  We have a much bigger problem on our hands.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Henry Hawkins | January 31, 2012 at 9:11 am

POLICE: “Mary, are you still there?”

MARY: “Y-yes. I’m scared…”

POLICE: “We’ve traced the killer’s call and.. it’s coming from inside your house!”

I agree with Lord up to a point.

But Newt has managed…often by doing the very things we think were fine to do (like a balanced budget)…to give people a chance to resent him.

I well remember the resentment among the Rockefeller Rs when he and Reagan forced them to step up and leave their happy little ruts.

    Hope Change in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2012 at 11:08 am

    But mon ami, Mr. Ragspierre, you just proved Lord’s point, didn’t you?

    Newt did things that WE, the people, think are fine – the very things we want, like a balanced budget. And that gave the Establishment a reason to resent Newt.

    Which means they don’t want a balanced budget, which we DO want.

    So they’re trying to destroy a candidate because he did what the people want.

    That is exactly Lord’s point, isn’t it? It’s not about Newt.

    They also did this to Reagan. They would do it to anyone who might be effective in changing their corrupt system of getting rich & powerful at the expense of the American people.

    It’s about Newt trying to do what WE THE PEOPLE want that, the Establishment doesn’t want.

    Newt is the only candidate who will win the general elections and then know what to do to allow the American people to restore our country to its constitutional principles and return power back home to the local communities, the state and the individual person.

    I didn’t know this goes all the way back to Dewey. Thank God for Ronald Reagan or we might not realize that all this sub-standard stuff from the politicians is optional. We CAN have a better public life with better public policies.

    Have you seen the piece on Gramsci?

    You know, it’s easy to see how the Left has destroyed the Democrat Party. It’s starting to be clear that something very similar has been done to the Republican Party, through the phenomenon of the consultants.

    The campaign finance laws are also a corrupting influence.

    Newt understands this stuff. With Newt’s leadership, we can clean up the corrupt practices and make our country the best place in the world to do business and to live free.

      CalMark in reply to Hope Change. | January 31, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Actually, I disagree with Mr. Lord that it goes back to Dewey. It goes back to Hoover, who instituted a lot of the same policies that FDR resurrected under different names.

      Before Goldwater, the last truly conservative presidential candidate was Calvin Coolidge. He was overwhelmingly popular (well after he was dead, Republicans campaigned on his name).

      But Coolidge was dim, stupid, incompetent, and insensitive to the needs of poor people. Sound familiar? The Left never changes.

Profesor Jacobson,

I appreciate the anger over Romney getting a leg up by basically going negative first in Iowa, but how much can you complain now? Newt calls Romney a “liar” every day which to me is about as negative and personal as one can get.

Further, negative ads are nothing new. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the election of 1800. Nothing compares to that one. Negative ads are part of the landscape of a political campaign, always has been, always will be.

My last point builds on the second. I have seen you and others claim that the Bain attacks are fair game because Obama will use those same points. Fair enough, but what has Romney said about Newt that will not be said by Obama and the MSM x 10?

I enjoy your work. I come here every day. I like your legal analysis best though you are clearly the best defender Newt has on the web. I don’t really like an of our choices, I will be voting for whoever opposes Obama. Whether it be Newt, Romney or the man in the moon I hope they beat Obama, that’s the real purpose of all this.

    steer in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 9:42 am

    I should have said “always have been”

    Juba Doobai! in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 10:01 am

    You don’t think casting aspersions on Newt’s Conservative creds, laying out an argument that he’s not wrapped too tight psychologically, lying about what he’s said and done are not personal attacks? When a man lies on you and you call him a liar, that is not a personal attack, that is speaking the truth. You’re a Robamneybot who’s using Rush Limbaugh’s rundown of campaign ugliness to bolster your attack on Gingrich in defense of the liar Romney. Nice trick.

      No argument that Romney made unfair personal attacks or that Romney started it, it’s hard to take the high ground though when Newt resorts to the same tactics and reaps the benefits as he did in SC.

        CalMark in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm

        “The same tactics?”

        What lies has Newt pushed for weeks (going on months) on end about Romney? Tell me, please?

        When Romney and the Establishment complained that Newt’s inquiries about Bain and Romney were lies, Newt pulled the ads.

        When Newt proved, over and over, that Romney’s positions (Newt run out as Speaker due to ethics, paid a fine, etc.), Romney not only refused to pull the ad, he doubled down.

        This is unprecedented in its ugliness. In the long run, it won’t end well for Romney or the Establishment. Hopefully, we still have a country.

    raven in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 10:10 am

    “I don’t really like an of our choices, I will be voting for whoever opposes Obama.” Etc. Etc.

    Do you people work off a template?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 10:13 am

    This campaign started positive. Romney poisoned it in Iowa just like in 2008. Whether the Bain attacks were fair or not, they came only after a month of Romney, National Review, Coulter, et al. dumping every smear they had on Newt. There’s a reason why both Huckabee and Newt used the same verbiage in describing how Romney campaigns.

      And yet, Huckabee has been very supportive of Romney this cycle.

        raven in reply to Ryan. | January 31, 2012 at 11:21 am

        That’s a moral statement about Huckabee (and the state of ego and the modern politician) not a measure of the historical truth of 2008.

      No argument that Romney started it. No argument that Newt’s record has been distorted to try and make him out to be less of a Reaganophile than he was in the 80s. It was inevitable though that someone would start running negative ads though. Assuming Romney had stayed positive and lost, Newt would have faced this sort of attack only more intensely when he faced Obama.

      I wouldn’t disqualify Romney as a candidate for going negative either. Don’t we want that in the general election? The Obama people have already admitted their plan is going to be to focus on our candidate because they know they can’t run on their record, it’s abysmal. The best way to defeat Obama is to go negative and attack him for not living up to that Hope & Change crap. It can’t be the only approach but it should be a big p-art of the strategy.

      For the same reasons I agree with you that voting for Santorum is a wasted vote, I don’t believe nominating Newt gives us the best chance to beat Obama. If Romney is elected and backtracks leaving Obamacare intact there will be plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth in my household.

    Ryan in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 10:25 am

    It’s Romney’s fault when Romney goes negative, and it’s Romney’s fault when Newt goes negative, because Romney “started it.” It’s a convenient narrative.

    I too am a long-time fan of LI and will continue to come back, but it’s a difficult time to be here.

      ThomasD in reply to Ryan. | January 31, 2012 at 11:56 am

      Gingrich offered a truce at the last debate, Romney declined.

      Romney has the greater super PAC money and all the establishment henchmen, so why would he.

      Romney’s history of going negative wouldn’t be so bad if he showed nearly as much fire for going after the left much less all forms of statists.

      The only time Romney shows a glint of life in his eyes is when he’s bashing people to his right.

    Hope Change in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Hello steer — It seems to me your comment misses an important point.

    Romney has been criticized by everyone who has had to run against him in 2008 for lying.

    If you do independent research, you find that Romney is lying.

    If you do independent research, especially by watching Newt’s speeches, you find that Newt is consistent.

    And when Newt changes his mind, it’s coherent. He explains his thinking, why he changed his mind, how he cam to these conclusion. Just as we do in our real lives.

    Romney can’t explain his shifts and changes, because Romney is a package of pre-memorized platitudes and blurted-out prevarications. Romney is not really trying to help THE PEOPLE or our country with real solutions.

    You can see that, right? He’s like a parrot. An angry parrot (see the video clip).
    Romney is thin-skinned and doesn’t like to be challenged. ROMNEY LOSES COMPOSURE WITH AP REPORTER 2008

    Newt said in an interview recently that it seems that Governor Romney says whatever seems to answer FOR THE MOMENT without regard to whether it’s true or not and without regard for whether people will immediately know that it’s not true.

    Isn’t that what just happened with his claim that his investments are in a blind trust? Didn’t someone tweet within minutes that it’s not true? John Kerry, anyone? “Integrity, John, integrity.”

    Romney really is an Obama-Lite. Romney is a lot like Obama, and not only because he is really MUCH MORE liberal and pretending to be a moderate, but also in temperament and motivation. Romney is the front man for the money boys, and so is Obama. Even Soros thinks they are alike. Romney has no intention of changing the corrupt practices of the Washington – New York corridor.

    So the idea that there is a moral equivalency will not do.

    Newt, by contrast, knows what we’re up against and Newt has practical solutions. Newt wants to give the American people a chance to clean up this mess.

    If you want to know what Newt is proposing and how we are going to restore our country, watching Newt’s speeches from the past few years is possibly the fastest and easiest way. Here is a list of links to 17 speeches.

    And here is a link to the SPACE POLICY speech, which is so thrilling if you remember the sense of adventure you loved when America was doing big things and was an exciting place to be. “NEWT’S TOWN HALL MEETING ON SPACE POLICY” – January 25, 2012 – Cocoa, Florida – 33:42

      Romney is a flip flopper, I don’t like that and it makes me nervous. I wish there were a credible candidate in whom I could trust. But to say Newt has changed his mind in good faith but Romney is just a liar is not clear eyed analysis. Newt has a lot of baggage and his own record with some questionable decisions.

      We could make a point by point list of flip flops, lies, etc. That wasn’t why I posted. My point was that negative campaigning is inevitable and if you want to justify going negative on Newt by saying Obama will bring up Bain et al then you have to be prepared for Obama to do what Romney is doing to Newt as well. Does anyone think Obama and his minions won’t lie? We already know that to be patently false.

    janitor in reply to steer. | January 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Newt calls Romney a “liar” every day which to me is about as negative and personal as one can get.

    Romney IS a liar.

I am tired of playing defense. It is time to take the game to them and beat them at it.

    NewtCerto in reply to timothy. | January 31, 2012 at 10:37 am

    I agree. I keep thinking about what I would do if I was running and I was being slammed. I would embrace the attacks. If I were Newt. I would openly thank Romney, his superpacs, Santorum, and Paul for their attacks. Because – and I would point this out to the American people, their help in preparing me to what the lib media & the Obama administration will slaughter me with when I’m nominated. I’d also do a “best of Newt attack ads” in a satiric mock of them.

    At this point, Newt then can move on to what he does best – speak of conservatism & his solutions to save America.

    I will forward this to their campaign.

    raven in reply to timothy. | January 31, 2012 at 11:28 am

    “I am tired of playing defense.”

    This sentiment echoes across the conservative landscape. I thought Newt got it. Now I wonder.

      CalMark in reply to raven. | January 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      Newt has been disoriented. He’s getting his legs back under him. Maybe it’s too late. He would expect such treatment from Democrats, not “fellow” Republicans. Many of us are stunned, disbelieving, and angry. Imagine how the target of it feels.

      It’s impossible to imagine if you haven’t been through it, how difficult it is to function when people from whom you expect some degree of honor show absolutely none. They keep throwing lies at you, then revile YOU as the liar when you present cold, hard facts to refute them.

      Romney keeps gleefully repeating lies during debates, wearing that contemptible smirk. Then, allegedly honorable Republicans not only refuse to back you up, they condemn YOU. (Rick Santorum, call your office.)

      There is a reason why Satan was once called “The Father of Lies.” Mitt Romney is his eager servant.

Have to agree that it seems like it isn’t really Newt – it’s what he represents – the guys who aren’t there now. I can agree that he’s not a perfect candidate but neither is Mitt. What has driven me more toward him is the absolute disdain the insiders display toward him – it’s the same thing they did to Palin. “how dare someone they deem unworthy, unPresidential think they are entitled to run for office without the approval of the “smart” people?”

You almost would think that the TP effort never happened or that the GOP supposed intelligentsia learned nothing from it. They appear to believe that the TP has become a paper tiger – see Laura Ingraham’s comments. Either the conservatives in the TP have to stick to their positions or accept that they will always be just grunts in the GOP.

In other words; this battle is between the Republican Party of Richard Nixon and the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan.

We have a much bigger problem on our hands

Precisely. I’ve been ranting this all along.

Equally, Obama is not the problem. There are hundreds of thousands of Obamas out there.

We have an American culture problem.

Please give me an example of the “Republican Establishment” attacking Palin.

She was certainly attacked by the MSM and the liberals. Google “republicans defend Palin 2008”, and you will find numerous occasions when the GOP came to her defense.

Frankly, I’m tired of this victim mentality. The overlord establishment is a myth. We the People have the power, and we are the establishment.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 10:02 am

    “We the People have the power …
    we are the establishment”

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.

    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
    George Orwell

    Sorry .. that just sounded a little Orwellian 🙂

    Juba Doobai! in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Stop spouting BS and go do your own danged research. The record is out there. Go find it. Google is a girl’s best friend. I’m a true Conservative so I don’t spoon feed morons.

    creeper in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Of course, you could’ve googled it yourself but that would have taken too much time away from your trolling.

    katiejane in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Please – you really want to pretend that people like Rove, Will, Krauthammer didn’t do the GOP’s work for them. You know it isn’t playing the victim when you are being bashed – it’s being a realist. And if you think “We the People have the power, and we are the establishment” you are naive.

    DINORightMarie in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Go and watch the documentary The Undefeated. Re-read the columns in the editorial pages, re-watch the Republican elite/moderate pundits tear into Palin (e.g. Karl Rove). Homework is your friend.

    Then your questions will not be posed out of ignorance.

      MerryCarol in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 31, 2012 at 10:26 am

      Please prove the point with a concrete example, and then I will be more informed.

      Pretty please.

      NewtCerto in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 31, 2012 at 10:49 am

      As a former blogger – I had a golden rule – never to debate a lib because it is a WASTE of time. As a former lib/socialist – you can’t save them nor reason with them. I had to come to terms & escape from lib prison on my own.

      You’ll never convert them.

      All that matters is that you are on the right side of things.

      I find in highly improbable that her position is one made from ignorance.

      Willful indifference to the truth would be the most charitable assessment I could agree upon.

    Jack Long in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Please give me an example of the “Republican Establishment” attacking Palin.

    Short and sweet:

    Took a second or so.

    It’s hard for me to believe that someone who follows political blogs can’t remember Barbara Bush saying that Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska. That was the dead giveaway of the “bluebloods” position re: Sarah Palin.

    Hope Change in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    MerryCarol – hard to know where to start.

    If you want to get up to speed, if you are not a troll, if you are sincere, then an excellent place to start is this article from 2010 by Angelo Codevilla.

    Angelo Codevilla from July, 2010
    “America’s Ruling Class”

    You may have noticed that WE THE PEOPLE elect what we think are conservatives and then they raise taxes and pass campaign finance laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutionally taking away our right to POLITICAL SPEECH, and they get subsumed into the MATRIX of the POWER STRUCTURE in the Washington – New York corridor. And we sit in our towns and cities and farms and we rage, rage against the machine. And we feel impotent and helpless. And we just HATE that feeling.

    Newt explained what’s going on in one of his speeches from a year or more ago. We must defeat AND REPLACE the Left.

    Because conservative win elections, but the Left outnumbers them in our institutions.

    The march of the Left through our institutions — judiciary. schools, universities, media, non-profits, unions — continues unabated, no matter that we elected Reagan.

    Do you understand that one of the reasons we didn’t end up with Hillarycare is Newt? He’s one of the only ones the Left has not been able to Turn.

    Because the Left has targeted our institutions. The Left is not relying on elections to destroy our freedoms and effectiveness in the world.

    Also, search Cloward-Piven, Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals.” Watch these videos YOUTUBE VIDEO OF ex-KGB officer YURI BEZMENOV

    If you are a troll, you may know these things already. If you are sincere, you clearly do not know these things, or you would not say things like WE THE PEOPLE have the power.

    I mean, in a way, you are right, of course: Ultimately, WE THE PEOPLE have the power, and in the United States, are MEANT to have the power.

    But, my dear MerryCarol, this is under subversive assault. And that is the whole point of why we are teaming up to elect Newt. Because this has to be stopped. By someone who understands. And Newt understands. And if you do your research, you will understand, too.

    If you really want to know, it is up to you to do the research. The most powerful search capabilities in the history of our time on earth is at your fingertips. Use it.

    It is ridiculous to come here and demand that the Professor or anyone else do your work for you.

    And if you don’t know it, that is a technique used by trolls to try to get people with whom they do not agree to spend a lot of time and energy doing some else’s work — essentially, wasting their time and chasing their tail, because the troll never can be persuaded, because the troll is on the other side. Hence, the term “troll.”

    So I hope this sets you on your path to discovery of what we’re up against.

    If you are a sincere seeker, I wish you godspeed.

    And if you really want to know, here are some of Newt’s speeches. They may change your life if you listen to them. They did mine.

      MerryCarol in reply to Hope Change. | January 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm

      Re: “…if you are not a troll, if you are sincere…”

      I am so sincere that I removed my children from the liberal indoctrination in the public schools and then spent 20 years of my life homeschooling them.

      I refuse to succumb to the victim mentality.

      Resist the Dark Side, Hope. 🙂

        Peggy Noonan swearing at Palin as the VP pick when she thought her mike was turned off.

        Kathleen Parker telling Palin to drop out of the race.

        People WITHIN the McCain campaign leaking to the press that Palin had “gone rogue” because she didn’t want to stop fighting in Michigan.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Hope Change. | January 31, 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Hope, you’re being manipulated for fun by a concern troll.

        MerryCarol in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm

        You know, HankHawk, sometimes you’re kinda cute and funny.

        And other times, like this, you’re just downright disrepectful and despicable.

        All I can say is, I’m sure glad you’re not MY TeaParty chairman.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 6:03 pm

          Yes, you’re all Tea Party. The vibe oozes off of you. And a great lover of Newt Gingrich, you’ve mentioned it often. But, I know precisely what you are. Better, even, than you.

    gabilange in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Time to read (or re-read this 2008 tidbit:

    Trolls and other Internet Vermin.

More shilling for Romney by Drudge. His lead story is an NBC hit piece that quotes an “unnamed” source that says the “pass the torch” comment of Nancy Reagan was taken out of contents. The article doesn’t quote Nancy Reagan more fully, trying to demonstrate the contents. That’s what a responsible journalist does.

It also quotes someone who makes the ridiculous claim that “not even sure Reagan knew who Gingrich was.” Do these people have brains?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Con Ed. | January 31, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Yes, they have brains like shrimp do.

    spartan in reply to Con Ed. | January 31, 2012 at 10:15 am

    The “not even sure Reagan knew who Gingrich was” claim is not merely a put-down of Newt but a slam on Reagan. The Left loves to discount Reagan by alluding to his battle with Alzheimer’s. A veritible two-fer.
    The true Reagan people remember Newt quite fondly. The phony ones seem to see Reagan in Romney.

    ThomasD in reply to Con Ed. | January 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Maybe someone could ask Drudge to clarify precisely what ‘Reagan sources’ are? Because it does not appear to be an actual Reagan.

    He’s not doing himself any favors playing that game.

    If he thinks he can position himself as an MSM variant – playing their same games of unnamed sources and innuendo, just for the RINO establishment instead of the left – he’s going to be sorely disappointed. Drudge is internet only and so, once his credibility with the base is shot, can be disintermediated with one click of the mouse.

Midwest Rhino | January 31, 2012 at 9:50 am

So a third party could be the conservatives. Then there would be two liberal elite parties, and one conservative. But we’d need some billionaires maybe.

Or there would be the Marxist liberals, the Republican liberals, and the classic liberals.

    Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 31, 2012 at 10:14 am

    One problem with a third party that people never seem to consider…

    Classically, one very effective way to counter a movement is to simply co-opt it.

    You can see that at work right now, and you could PLAN on it being a constant assault.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2012 at 10:27 am

      you probably have more experience in this than I do … how does the far left co-opt the Democrat party (as I see it), but the huge wave that wants less government and lower taxes always gets co-opted by Romney types? I think it just comes down to buying votes with various entitlement promises.

      The Tea party (not some evangelical wing of it) should co-opt the Republican party … but it seems to me, the establishment Republicans instead marginalized the Tea party with Pelosi like rhetoric.

      For now at least, billionaires want their men in Washington, and get to call the shots, and most of “we the people” are bamboozled. Maybe the Republic not Romney supporters like Palin/Levin/Reagan/West need to organize?

      of course I think Ronald Reagan actually did have a little voodoo in his economics … the deficit spending path sustained the “Great Society” thinking. It will take a revolutionary party to change course … or a funding crisis.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 31, 2012 at 10:46 am

        “The Tea party (not some evangelical wing of it) should co-opt the Republican party … but it seems to me, the establishment Republicans instead marginalized the Tea party with Pelosi like rhetoric.”

        Part of the proof of my point. That was a hammer, but they use much more subtle tools, as well.

        This is how power works. Remember your Machiavelli…

        We threaten power concentrations, and they will not “go gently into that good night”. Everything we do is swimming against the current of history and the darker aspects of human nature, as did the Founders.

“As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008.”
It was shocking to me to see no one from the Republican party step in and stop the attacks on Gov. Palin. Especially when the left went after her baby. I could not believe McCain did not go after his vice president nominee’s detractors. He let it go on and on.

This opened my eyes to what Republican party really is. If the MSM goes after a Republican, the Republican party steps out of the way and does not defend their people. The tea party people have done more to defend republicans then the party establishment. And the establishment seems to hate the tea party people for that…

They did the same thing to Newt back in the 1990’s and they are going completely off the deep end on Newt now. However, we have the internet and we can see the actions, the game, and what the establishment is doing. I don’t know how this ends, but I am disgusted with Romney and his establishment buddies very vicious and very personal attacks on Newt.

What will happen to vicious Romney when the MSM and the democrats turn their attack machine on him? Will the Republican establishments stand up for him? Or will they stand back and let him go down too? Will Romney bow to the MSM and the democrats and sell us out?

I wanted a fighter to turn this country around. I wanted someone who has a plan of reducing regulations, drilling our own oil, and reworking or get rid of the EPA, Dept. of Ed., etc. Everyone of the fighters is being taken out by the establishment. Newt is the last guy standing. If they are successful in destroying Newt as well, I will not forget when they come crying for my vote.

I am getting more and more of the mindset that a second Obama term might not be completely bad. It would be very damaging, we could suffer long term set backs. But it is apparent to me that our culture, at least nearly a majority, wants to pursue more and more socialist policy. Maybe we should rush off head first at top speed in order to get to the end result failure all that much sooner? People can discern the right answer more easily when the choices a the most distinct. Or, maybe not, we elected Roosevelt 4 times…. Ok, now I am just getting cynical…

We don’t have a problem, the GOPE do. When we pull out and go third party, they’ll be the one stuck as the minority party in perpetuity. It would be neat watching them try to win by dissing their base then.

Look, when you visit someone’s house and they show you that you’re not wanted, you take your leave and either go to your own house or go someplace else where you’re wanted. Well, there’s no oth place that wants Conservatives, so we have to go to our own house. We just have to decide, do we call ourselves the Conservative Party or the Tea Party. I like the second. Let the name be a reminder of our national heritage.

    I’m not nearly so sanguine about such prospects.

    There are a significant number of people in the Republican party establishment that are there simply because they wanted to be in politics and happened to choose team R. They would have no compunction about saddling up with team D in the event a large portion of the base departed. Or ESPECIALLY IF they saw their own personal prospects/perks/prerogatives being substantially diminished.

    Also do not overlook the fact that most of those in the neo-con ranks were once leftists, and many ONLY came to be considered conservative in light of their opposition to Stalinist totalitarianism. The end of that empire puts their principles and loyalties back in play.

    Many of these people are the same ones repeatedly going to bat for Romney.

    And if you think the Democrats wouldn’t take most of them in (slight demotions of course – but nothing too punitive) then you are sorely mistaken. They would see it as an opportunity to cement a governing majority for decades to come.

    This is going to require our own long march – one to retake the party and gradually force these people out. It is only if and when that effort proves futile does schism become a viable option (and I don’t think we have reached that juncture yet.) The process we are engaged in is dual in nature – to retake a functional party and save the Republic from creeping statism/progressivism.

RexGrossmanSpiral | January 31, 2012 at 10:16 am

I just saw the video of Romney at McDonald’s. As disgusted as I am with his campaign and as much as I love Newt, I am beginning to find Mitt Romney’s awkwardness endearing for whatever reason. Probably too squishy to be president tho.

I’ve been on a search for a silver lining to all of the “mush.”

It boils down to the myth that Romney won’t take on Obama in the general election. Clearly, these campaign tactics used against Santorum and Gingrich have been quite effective, and I think any notion that Romney will sit back in a general election have been put to bed. What we don’t know is if the media will “play along” in the general.

That aside, we now have to ask yourselves if we really want Romney’s policies ?

    Ragspierre in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2012 at 10:24 am

    One of your few silly posts, Neo.

    McAnus had no problem with scorched earth against all comers, but played patty-fingers with Obama in the general.


      katiejane in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2012 at 10:31 am

      IMO Mitt will refrain from attacking Obama for fear of being called a racist and having his religion attacked. It’s hard to whine about anti-Mormon insults when the other guy will hit you with the race card.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Romney is liberal, so has to use deceit and destruction against his political enemies to his right. And he now has a money advantage and both conservative and liberal media support.

    In the general, he’ll be trying to woo those that still might like Obama enough to vote for him. Attacks against Obama score the most points with conservatives, so I don’t expect Mitt to get any MORE aggressive in the general … maybe less.

    One local Democrat blogger in my town was an old friend of Clinton, and was standing next to Obama when he came to town. He said for the first time in 44 years he is taking a break, and not going to be part of a presidential campaign.

    There may be a lot of Democrats like that, and Romney or Newt would try to win them over, perhaps by being more friendly than aggressive. But he will be pointed about the destruction Obama has wrought. I don’t know what independents will respond to … but they may need more hand holding than harsh rhetoric.

    Whatever works … I think Mitt or Newt could win, so I’d prefer Newt. But would he get enough money?

    raven in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    “I think any notion that Romney will sit back in a general election have been put to bed.”

    Not only disagree, but would contend than a fundamental “inverse principle” of modern political Republican decadence will play out here: that is, that Romney will actually over-compensate so as consciously NOT to attack Obama in the way he attacked Gingrich.

    janitor in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    It’s not “mush”. As in: soft or squishy.

    It’s “oil”. As in: slippery, slick, slimy, and sloppy.

The corrupt Republican establishment is in bed with their totalitarian brethren on the other side of the aisle to crush the spirit of freedom and liberty in the citizenry. Anyone with any charisma who rises up will be savagely smeared with the scorched earth politics of personal destruction. Willard-bama has fractured the base beyond repair.
I previously had no dog in this race once Sarah Palin dropped out. However, today in protest I will cast my vote for Newt in Florida. If corrupt Willard-bama should win the Republican nomination I will cast my vote for Obama in November. Why should I vote for Willard-bama when I can have the real thing, Obama.
The Willard-bamabots are just as much obnoxious as Axelrods’s Obamabots were in 2008. They took a page out of the Alyinsky playbook. Sniveling cries of “quitter, quitter” just appear to be the latest accusation of the spoiled brat frat boys who run the party.
I will never vote for Willard-bama or any other corrupt establishment Republican again. The long arm of despotic tyranny we experienced in Florida 22 has been beyond the pale.
We got a good taste in Florida with sellouts like Pam Bondi slapping Tea Party patriots in the face trying to sell us Romney’s socialized medicine and jumping in bed with Team Romney. To add insult to injury we have Marco Rubio who the establishment didn’t support also jumping on board.
My enemy is NOT Obama. It is the corrupt Republican machine who wants to be so much like Obama. You want Obama, you’ve got him!
The sooner this party blows up the better. The sooner like a phoenix conservatism will rise from the ashes.
It’s called tough love and giving the establishment enough rope to hang themselves.
Insanity is having the same behavior and expecting a different outcome. I will no longer tolerate their chicken little routine, “The sky is falling. You have to vote for our Obama-lite or Obama will win” act. Good, let him win.

Long live the Reagan revolution.

The telling comment in Lord’s piece on American Spectator was the quote from Gerald Ford about Ronald Reagan. From the article, quoting Ford’s biographer:

Writes DeFrank of what [Gerald] Ford really thought:
Translation: The thought of Ronald Reagan becoming my party’s nominee makes me want to puke.

THIS, OF COURSE, IS PRECISELY the kind of stuff now being said of Newt Gingrich by Mitt Romney’s Establishment supporters right this minute.

Henry Hawkins | January 31, 2012 at 1:22 pm

The GOP general election plan was written five years ago.
Mitt will go soft on Obama because that’s the GOP moderate/establishment playbook, last deployed to a major loss by McCain in 2008, and is blamed on McCain as an uninspiring candidate and on a wild card opponent in Obama – they were planning on Hilary. They use the soft approach so as not to alienate the cherished independent bloc, while the conservative base is taken for granted. Mitt has already shown that soft-hand plan: “Obama’s an OK guy, he’s just in over his head…”, and other such limp utterances.

Romney’s hardness (cowardice) in using massive $$$ via super PACs and surrogates will not work in the general. Anyone who can match it or exceed it will nullify this – and Obama can and will. Romney’s only ‘strength’, well-financed negative ads, will be obviated. No one can come close to it in the GOP primaries, so it works there.

This is why I persist with my same prediction. The same GOP game plan will produce the same results. Obama loses the ‘wild card/didn’t see him coming’ advantage, but gains the incumbency/bully pulpit advantage. Even up.

Obama is vulnerable on Obamacare and bailouts, but Romney cannot attack on those due to Romneycare and his support of bailouts. Even up.

Obama cannot run on his record, and is making economic ‘fairness’ – class warfare, 1%/99% – the focus, with the full support of 90% of the media. Romney is a 1-percenter, which resonates outside of conservative circles in a society with +10% unemployment. An Obama vulnerability neutralized. Even up.

Wherever Obama is vulnerable something about Romney negates it as an attack vector, most of all due to the overall ‘go soft/pander to indies’ GOP game plan. Even up.

It’ll come down to one long ugly nasty campaign of dueling attack ads full of lies, race-mongering, religion-bashing, etc., etc., all of it pitching right into Obama’s wheelhouse because: (1) It keeps us from addressing the real issues, none of which favor Obama, and (2) Obama will outspend Romney 2:1 or more.

Obama 52% / Romney 48%. Bank on it.

Why some of us read Dan everyday as well. Come on Dan…tell us how you really feel…dont hold back.