Image 01 Image 03

Not hoax

Not hoax

Hopefully these are more reliable than the last one (now taken down):


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Henry Hawkins | January 22, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Where are all those Mittsers who cry about Newt’s unfavorables when you need them…….

    Newt, you know, is so unelectable. /s

    Perhaps the Republican Establishment and the Mitt surrogates are missing some historical analysis:

    So, the current Republican leadership fears the man who helped the GOP recapture the House for the first time in 40 years?

    So, the current Republican leadership fears that the man, and his allies in the Tea Party who helped recapture the House in 2010, will cause the GOP to lose in November?

    Mitt Romney has won only one campaign in his whole life. He barely won his Governor race, with less than 50% of the vote. And then he left office with a 30-something approval rating.

    What has Mitt ever done for the GOP except leave the Republican party in disarray in Massachusetts? 😉

NC Mountain Girl | January 22, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Steyn was a great read.

Since Mitt likes to fire people who underperform he should start with his entire campaign staff. That would give him an immediate boost. He’d be free from their poor advice and as a rule the grassroots loathes the DC based consultant class. They see them as a main cause of lackluster campaigns by Bush 41, Dole and McCain.

There is a precedent. After a horrible showing in Iowa in 1980 Reagan ditched his DC based campaign manager. The pundit class said he had made a terrible mistake but his campaign was immediately re-energized.

    Mitt Romney’s problem is that he’s a phony. He’s nothing more than a carefully created image. That’s why he has no core.

    Baystater’s learned this long ago:

    James Martin, and James E. Samels. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 29 June 2003: B.10.

    “The governor should engage Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and former Massachusetts Port Authority CEO Stephen Tocco in an extended conversation about creative ways to do more with less and, in the process, get out from behind the administration public relations staff who are busy building a public image that is attractive but essentially hollow for many voters.”

This day has been coming for years, and certainly from the 2010 midterms when the Establishment reaped the spoils of tea party efforts and then spit in our eyes.

The paradigm is shifting and their world shaking faster than their poor reactionary, royalist wits and reflexes can handle. Good.

Let’s have this fight, and in the open at last. Already we’re laying bare their snarling malice, a revelation only possible through Newt’s SC victory. It’s good to be clear about it: they hate us and want nothing to do with us; they profoundly resent the grassroots’ upstart repudiation of their establishment power and prerogatives.

Kick them to the curb, where they belong. We can do it. They’re shrill and have plenty of megaphones but no message, no inspiration, no solutions, nothing but worn-out ploys of fear. And they’re fat and spoiled. The sounds of their cries will seem the most deafening just before they gag and go out.

Obama’s strategy is to win in all 57 states. He will swamp the silly Republican who will only campaign in 50 states…

yet, according to our establishment overlords, Newt is completely unelectable while Mr.Mittens apparently walks on water…

This is so disastrous to Obama though. These during-primary head to heads pulled from the entire country should be showing a fairly large lead for an incumbent if they have any shot of actually winning. And since he has spent nearly his entire presidency setting himself up to run against Mitt, the idea of going back to square one against Newt must be terrifying.

So, expect plenty of attacks like those constantly thrown at the TeaParty for a while – you know, “extreme”, “crazy”, “racist”, “glad they are around because they turn people off”, “will only help the Democrat party”, etc – while the Democrats figure out what in the world they can do now.

I doubt the party “insiders” will ever figure out…until the convention that choosing Mitt was never in the cards for the base…since he’s literally flipped or flopped on pretty much every tenet of the Republican Party…

I just wish the bastards would stop trying to ram him down our throats. We, the base, have shown time and again, that we don’t want Mitt. He doesn’t poll well outside of New England. He doesn’t get above 25% within the party…and pretty much 60% of the party is voting NOT ROMNEY!!!

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland

Now people are asking that question? After the entire Republican establishment cleared the field and vested their hopes and dreams in him?

I really don’t get this widespread belief the Republican establishment cleared the fied or is cramming Romney down our throats. Conservatives in leadership who refused to run to protect Romney have a funny way of showing their commitment to conservatives or the cause – if that is what they did. I also seem to remember a lot of the so-called establishment begging Mitch Daniels to run. I don’t know – was that their way of clearing the field for Romney?

They also seem to have a funny way of cramming Romney down our throats while plotting a path to a brokered convention.

This is a terrible field, whatever compromises people are willing to make to get behind a candidate are difficult ones. I am just going to say, I watched the repercussions of Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy next door in DE weigh down Pat Toomey’s election prospects. He ultimately won but she hurt. I live in swing district central, I heard the incredulity every day that she was the nominee. I hear the same about a potential Gingrich candidacy. My 86 year-old mother remembers him well and thinks he is a disaster. His unfavorables have been low over a long time span. I don’t see him selling to independents who don’t share conservatives’ outrage over media bias or “the establishment.”

That said, Romney is going to have to show he can sharpen his message and his campaign. I believe Palin was correct to urge voters to slow this process down. I am sure I would have considered it seriously if I had been a voter in South Carolina yesterday. If this plays out as “the establishment” planned it, Palin was doing them a favor. Ultimately voters will choose among those who had the courage to run and subject themselves to this process. No one is cramming anyone (including Gingrich) down my throat.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Mary Sue. | January 23, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Romney has already spent 7 million in Fla.

    The other 3 candidates combined have spent… wait for it… zip, zilch, nothing!

    If you need someone to point out how the Establishment is pushing Romney down our throats, just read that again – it says it all. One candidate has money to burn, unlimited insider resources to get out the vote and superpac after superpac to do his dirty work for him. The other three candidates have next to nothing. Its about as stacked as a deck can possibly get

      Mary Sue in reply to Darkstar58. | January 23, 2012 at 3:14 am

      Come on, some of his money advantage comes from spending years lining up his ducks getting ready to run. Was there something preventing conservative candidates from doing the same? I seem to recall Perry got in and lined up a lot of cash quickly.

      If you had money to send early in the process would you send it to the one who was busy laying the groundwork for success or the one on the Greek cruise? Newt got money when people started taking him seriously. They started taking him seriously when he showed he was serious about winning.

      For the record, I always thought Newt was a welcome addition to the process. I think he is brilliant and I cheer along with everyone when he calls out the media. I am not dissing the guy. I am not sold he is best or only choice though. I sure don’t believe he is the one Dems are dreading while they secretly are begging for Romney. I don’t buy the whole defeat-Romney-at-all-costs meme; I want to beat Obama.

If our overlands want to dictate who our nominee is, they should care to put forward someone we deem acceptable.

Gingrich and Romney neck and neck in new Florida PPP poll releasing tomorrow!!/ppppolls/status/161265470224351234

    huskers-for-palin in reply to heimdall. | January 22, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    According to the Victory Sessions, Steven Bannon said that the difference between Romney and Gingrich (PPP poll) was two votes. Not two percent…TWO VOTES!!!

    Dear Romney: All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Mitt’s mojo back together again.

huskers-for-palin | January 22, 2012 at 10:02 pm

One only needs to see who’s shilling for Romney to get an idea on who’s “cramming what down our throats”. The relative velvet glove approach on Romney by the talking-head pundits/MSM, the moving up of the early primaries, the treatment of both the Tea Party and Sarah Palin by the establishment (who was basically kicked to the curb and left for dead after the bogus ethics complaints and Giffords shooting) are blatant indicators of what’s going behind the scenes. And it sucks.

Look where the money is going towards and that will tell you everything.

Two more points. Don’t dump on COD. Castle was worse and no GOP candidate was ever gonna win Delaware circa 2012. If Castle couldn’t beat COD in the primary, he wasn’t gonna beat Coons in the general. Second, don’t give my any stuff about “winning the indies”. The GOP went that way in 1996/2008 and it was a disaster. Reagan didn’t go soft on “winning the indie” route but articulated and rallied on conservative values/ideas and DIDN’T APOLOGIZE FOR IT.

Newt’s ethic violations: He taught a history course that the IRS might be too political but then it ruled…it wasn’t too political.

The Romneybots (Christie and now Pawlenty?) will have to try harder.

My 86 year-old mother remembers him well and thinks he is a disaster. His unfavorables have been low over a long time span. I don’t see him selling to independents who don’t share conservatives’ outrage

They remember something vague in the headlines that was never true.

I’m hearing a lot of independents for Gingrich. They do NOT want a social conservative or a corporate raider. They are remembering the balanced budget and apparent fiscal sense of Clinton years, and they want it back.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to janitor. | January 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    That’s an interesting point … moderates that liked Clinton might correlate that era with Newt, despite the disagreements and impeachment. Democrats that hate Bush often told me things were better in Clinton days … so why not Newt?

    Mary Sue in reply to janitor. | January 22, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    What was in the headlines that wasn’t true?

    I will admit what I hear is anecdotal just as what you hear is as well. I will also admit what I hear influences my belief Gingrich is not as “electable” as conservatives seem willing to believe. It is quite possible Obama is so vulnerable either would win just as it is possible both are so weak neither would win. I am going to watch it play out.

    My real outrage is over those who didn’t run given the fact this is a beatable incumbent who deserves to go. We shouldn’t have to make these compromises knowing full well we might have elected someone much stronger had they had the foresight and conviction to get in the race. All this establishment blaming seems to me to be missing the point.

      heimdall in reply to Mary Sue. | January 22, 2012 at 11:45 pm

      Gingrich completely blew out Romney in South Carolina. He got support from pretty much everyone in the state. McCain, who we were told was the electable candidate, only got 33% in 2008. NOBODY though the upstart Barack Obama had a chance against Hillary until he started winning against her.

      Gallup is now showing that Gingrich and Romney BOTH have equal chances at taking out Obama and Gingrich is up or tied with Romney in the early polling data after the vote in South Carolina yesterday.

      Of the two, I do not think that Romney would change the narrative and challenge the press and their biased questions like Gingrich will. We need a fighter, not a wishy-washy candidate who cannot even answer an entirely predictable question on his tax returns in the debates. I agree with your outrage at the other candidates who did not get in (I really wanted Mike Pence!), but you go to war with the army that you have.

After the fonz jumped the shark, Happy Days went on for a couple of more seasons. Similarly, after Coulter droned on and on about the northeastern more RINO than not, Christie, she drones on about the her new man crush, the northeastern more RINO than not, Romney.

Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head. Mitt Romney doesn’t have the fight inside to be able to thwart Obama and the Democrats.

I look forward to Chris Matthews’ head exploding when an old, fat, disgraced, white, serial adulterer that 60% of Americans don’t like, gets elected over our leg-tingle inducing President.

I’ve only really been following Republican primaries since 1980, but I don’t really remember the total scorched-earth, red on red, campaign style before Mitt Romney came on the scene. It could be that I’m just not remembering clearly, but it seems to me like Romney is the one who brought the Carville-style attacks on Republicans into the primaries. I know the attack on McCain alleged to have come from Bush in SC was pretty slimy, but beyond that I don’t recall one campaign generating so much general election fodder for the Democrats as Romney has for the last two elections.

    Darkstar58 in reply to OCBill. | January 23, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Each of the Candidates had nothing but horror stories based off their treatment from Mitt in 2008 as well.

    In fact, Romney’s 2008 campaign team was so nasty and underhanded that there was quite a bit of speculation that it was probably Mitt’s team behind the deplorable Cain smearing.

Did that really say Pawlenty is going to lead the anti-Newt attack? The guy who got chased out of the primaries by Michelle Bachmann is going after Newt? Why?

“Now people are asking that question? After the entire Republican establishment cleared the field and vested their hopes and dreams in him?”

yeah … wow. Did they think if they chanted presidential praises around 2012 Mitt, that he would take on a new form, different from the 2008 Mitt?

Will the blind prognosticators be humbled, having been so wrong? Would a Newt landslide victory in the general cause the cocktail party to swear off the egomaniac sauce? After leading the little people into the ditch, they finally turned around to find out most conservatives were on a different path … and laughing at them. 🙂 What a bunch of spoiled bad losers these friends of Mitt are. Do they realize that they are hurting Mitt too? And any Tea Party member who buys another Ann Coulter book is nuts. How about recognizing Mitt lost, not due to Newt, but due to Mitt?

    heimdall in reply to EBL. | January 23, 2012 at 12:08 am

    Not to mention hypocrites, especially Ann Coulter. In her speech to CPAC last year she stated unequivocally that if Romney’s the nominee, we’ll lose. She has lost all credibility flip flopping to support Romney not even a year later and then attacks the tea party and anyone who doesn’t think that Mitt Romney can win.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to EBL. | January 23, 2012 at 11:46 am

    [Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let them continue their failing, flailing plan]

    katiejane in reply to EBL. | January 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Ann and the other “Mitt is the only electible choice” and “you Newt supporters are going to ruin our chance of winning” do believe that the base who don’t support Mitt WILL fall in line once he’s nominated. Unfortunately they don’t project the feeling that they would support Newt if he ends up the GOP candidate.

    If Mitt is the nominee and loses, that loss will be the fault of the TP, soc cons, right fringe because we didn’t support him properly. If Newt is the nominee and loses, it will be proof that us dumb clucks in the base should have listened to our betters and not picked a loser candidate.

The Powerline guys are obviously anti-Newt. Over time they have rebelled against the changing nature of political campaigning, so the old fashioned big organization, big-money-backed establishment candidate makes them more comfortable. So who will have earned a place as the their next-in line candidate in 2016?

Just wait, by the end of the week all the establishment mouthpieces will have fully displayed the depths of their desperation.

They’ll be trying to explain how Romney came to be losing to Newt – talking about how he’s the one playing three dimensional chess, etc. and whatever other inanities seem capable of hiding their in-the-tank-blindness to the emptiness of Candidate Romney.

Romney going after the ethics investigation. Isn’t that a tactic of the left?

    Darkstar58 in reply to javau. | January 23, 2012 at 1:27 am

    So were the attacks over Fannie Mae – but when its done in favor of the new Establishment Darling, it’s nothing more then “politics” where you “need thick skin” going in, yada yada yada…

notquiteunBuckley | January 23, 2012 at 1:14 am

As long as A. Coulter and the admissions officials of Harvard and Yale agree, us submitting to their authority only makes sense.

You bigoted bastard you that do not agree forcefully.

Pardon the local vernacular, but LOOKEE HERE DANG IT! A lot of people are POed at what has been happening to our country and we want our standard bearer to be POed too. We want to see it; we want to hear it; we don’t want any apologies for it. Mr Newt recognized that little fact and has been leading with it. Mr Newt knows that the MSM/LSM (LSMFT?) is simply the face of the lefty slime that is today’s Democratic party.

I will consider any of the remaining 4 only if he chooses to carry the message as load an clear as Mr Newt.

So, did Gallup straighten-out all these idiots who don’t know Newt’s unelectable?

Must be mass delusion

Henry Hawkins | January 23, 2012 at 9:42 am

For a surrogate attack dog to set against Gingrich, Romney selects Tim Pawlenty, who was summarily dismissed from the race due to his inability to attack.

Who Shot Liberty Valance Newt Gingrich

They keep saying Newt keeps shooting himself in the foot. But who is really pulling the trigger on the infidelity charges and the ethics violations and the “lobbyist” for Freddie complaints? Not to mention complaints that “He hates capitalism and argues like a liberal”.

When separated from his wives, he found another woman. That seems a lot different than other leaders that cheat while staying married. The infidelity label is established for Newt, but voters no longer seem to care. Bill Clinton not only cheated, but attacked .. yet he is pretty much the Democrat chief figurehead.

The ethics charges were all cleared but one, which the IRS later cleared. So the 84 charges were an unfair attack. Something like that was used against Palin.

Romney told his crowd that Gingrich resigned in “disgrace”. That doesn’t seem to be quite right. He was under attack but not in disgrace, from what I can tell. “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”

Romney also claimed Gingrich was paid $1.7 million by Freddie Mac, but CEO Romney must know that all money that goes to a business does not go to the individual, so that is not very honest. Newt said he got about $35K per year. Seeing as Newt got $80,000 per speech, that doesn’t seem too unreasonable. But as Romney demands, it would be nice to know just what “product” was delivered.

Others are shooting at Newt … but if he is shooting himself in the foot, maybe Romney should try it. Rasmussen now shows Newt up big in Florida.

Sung to the tune of “Ya Got Trouble” from The Music Man

“Voters of the Republican Party
Heed this warning before it is too late.
Watch for the telltale signs of destruction:
The minute our Newt leaves the stage
Does he restart his Progressivism in the dark?
Is there a Tiffany ring on his index finger?
Another historical novel at the printer?
Is he starting to memorize new adverbs
From Billy Clinton’s Whizbang?
Are certain words creeping into his conversation?
Words like . . . frankly?
And. . . fundamentally?

Well if so my friends. . .

Ya got trouble.”

Davos elites to seek reforms of ‘outdated’ capitalism

“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.
“Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole.

I had to read this a couple of times to absorb what he actually said. Obviously, not all “capitalism” is equal.

“we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence” … All of these are true. More so in those states that tried the “European” model, like what “The Won” has been pitching.

“we are over-leveraged” .. yes, virtually all of the EU’s problem with the Euro start here, the US has been temporarily saved the pain since we can print money.
“we have neglected to invest in the future” .. this varies from country to country. Investments based on faux problems like Climate Change, which lead us to junk like Solyndra, don’t help either.
“we have undermined social coherence” .. the search for “diversity,” “multiculturalism” and “moral relativism” has only made this worse.

[…] electable is not really about Bain.  It is about the candidate himself. Newt is now seen as electable as […]