Image 01 Image 03

Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war

Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war

If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said “Yes.”

I’m not so sure anymore.  After the South Carolina primary the Republican establishment, and media supporters like Matt Drudge, launched Scorched Earth II on Newt, while pro-Romney pundits like Ann Coulter heaped scorn on the conservative and Tea Party voters who sided with Newt.

It may just be “not-beanbag” to the Romney campaign and its supporters, but people hear them loud and clear.

Two lines of attack have exposed a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots which will not easily heal:  The attempt to rewrite the history of the Reagan revolution and the embrace of Nancy Pelosi’s partisan ethics attack and blackmail.

As to Reagan, I have documented many times here how the story line espoused by the Romney campaign and its supporters was false.  Newt was an important part of the Reagan revolution, and was not anti-Reagan as various pro-Romney pundits claimed.

This line of attack on Newt was pushed by Drudge even as the individual charges highlighted at the top of Drudge were disproved one by one.

There was a backlash on Thursday and Friday among talk radio hosts and a variety of people who were in a first hand position to observe Newt’s interaction with Reagan, culminating in Sarah Palin’s Facebook post on Friday afternoon denouncing the neo-Stalinist attempt to rewrite history.

That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media.

Romney’s attacks on Newt’s late 1990s ethics charge also were distinctly from the left, echoing the talking points of anti-conservative Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.  It took people like Byron York and Mark Levin to expose the truth that the charges were part of a Democratic Party vendetta, and that substantively Newt did nothing wrong and was vindicated.

But mostly, the Republican establishment and conservative media who howled with outrage when Newt and Rick Perry were seen (wrongly in my view ) as attacking Romney “from the left” were silent, even as the Romney camp openly embraced Nancy Pelosi’s blackmail and ran ads featuring Pelosi threatening to reveal secret information about Newt after Pelosi already had backed away from the threat.

The embrace of Nancy Pelosi by the Romney campaign should have met with an avalanche of criticism from the Republican establishment, but almost nothing was said.

Romney is back at it in Florida, with a last minute and massive ad buy running a clip of Tom Brokaw from 1997 about Newt’s plea to a single ethics charge.  Romney not only attacked Newt again from the left in the spirit of Pelosi, but did so using a mainstream news media figure from a network notoriously hostile to conservatives.  Yet again, near silence from the Republican establishment and conservative media.

As Palin pointed out, this no longer is about Romney and Newt.  It’s a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots, with the have nots furious at the double standard applied to their candidate by the political haves.

The schism need not have occurred.  It entirely is an outgrowth of the way in which the Romney campaign and Republican political and media establishments have conducted themselves.

Newt rose in the polls in the fall on a positive message of not attacking fellow Republicans.  Newt’s great moments in fall debates were refusing to engage when debate moderators sought to pit candidate against candidate.  The message of a united front against Obama and a bright conservative future resonated with the Republican electorate like nothing else.

Romney had no positive message to sell or at least was not good at selling it, so in Iowa Romney, his SuperPAC, and the Republican political and media establishment launched Scorched Earth I on Newt, what David Limbaugh appropriately called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery.”

The attacks on Newt were highly personal and deliberately demeaning, eiptomized by National Review’s notorious “Marvin the Martian” issue.

Even then, Newt tried to stay positive in Iowa until the last few days, and Newt paid the electoral price.

Ever since then, it has been downhill, with Newt launching negative ads in South Carolina and Florida and Romney unloading with far greater resources.  Some of the ads run by or for Newt have been as negative as those run by or for Romney, if only in smaller doses.  The rhetoric has escalated on both sides.

But make no mistake about it, the reason the Republican campaign has turned so nasty and so divisive is because the Romney campaign and its supporters decided in Iowa to win at any price, a theme which continues to this day even if it means embracing Nancy Pelosi and distorting the history of the Reagan revolution.

This will not be put back together easily.  The smugness and condescension are salt on open wounds.

Romney may win his battles in Florida and beyond, a shallow vindication of his negative political strategy, but it has weakened the fall campaign against Obama.  Time heals all wounds, supposedly, but not necessarily in a matter of a few months.

In pulling apart fault lines which are not easily put back together because they embody an emotional fissure in the Republican Party, Romney may win his battles, but he is losing our war.

Update:  The NY Times just published a very revealing article regarding Romney’s Florida strategy, The Calculations That Led Romney to the Warpath.  (added)  The Times confirms what everyone suspected, the Romney campaign fed material (which we now know to have false and misleading) to Drudge in a plan to attack  Newt which was approved by Romney:

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.” ….

Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”

And, Jennifer Rubin is a WaPo blogger closely associated with the Romney campaign (they even quote her calling Newt a “well of sleaze” in a mailer).  Here is her tweet tonight upon hearing that Herman Cain was endorsing Newt, exuding the type of demeaning attitude which unfortunately typifies so much of the pro-Romney punditry.  That the Romney campaign embraces such people is one of the reasons a large segment of the Republican electorate is moving to a position they never thought possible:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is an example of the dying wing of the Republican party, which foisted the Bushes, Bob Dole and McCain on the Republican electorate doing what it takes to win. This isn’t Nancy Pelosi ethics this is Lyndon Johnson ethics with his attacks on Goldwater and trying to convince people Republicans were nuts. The Tea Party is the one group that represents actual people rather than Swiss bank account Republicans like Romney, irritating them will not only affect Romney’s chance to win but could lead this country to destruction and bankruptcy if Obama slipped in for a second term. Romney better stop it and fast.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Smedley. | January 29, 2012 at 12:18 am

    War? Please. Do come off of it, it’s getting a little thick. Romney may very well be winning his battles, but he is certainly not losing “our” war. He is losing “your” war, or, more directly, you (and yours, us and ours) are losing “your” war by making it a war at all. This is what a primary is and always has been. To make it any more is irresponsible and unconscionable.

    Let’s be candid. Many of “us” have never given Romney a first look, let alone the second or third. “We” never liked him; whether it be because he is/was a RINO, a moderate or a Mormon… There was never any moment when we/us/ours ever considered him as a viable candidate and, as such, have spent many months (years?) trying to convince ourselves and others that there was just no way this man could ever succeed. We told ourselves he would never get to where he is, yet, here he stands.

    In spite of all of our deepest wisdoms and most profound pronouncements, in spite of the fact that, based on the collective might of all of our best guesses, here the man stands, successful.

    Smedley, we did not lose in 2008 because McCain was a moderate but, rather, because Palin turned too many of the independents and moderates off, and away. We all admire her, I certainly do, but let’s be honest with one another and not sabotage the entire process simply because we want to be right and are willing to rewrite history to do so.

    I deeply admire the good Professor but the man has overstepped his bounds, and I believe he knows it. The one thing “we” have all feared in the last few years is a very near reality, if, and only if, we continue to listen to those who swear one part of ourselves is trying to throw the other part of ourselves off of a cliff. WE are not. THEY are not. There is no conservative, “civil war,” no “Establishment,” and certainly no “Grassroots.” We all know the TEA party does not exist as much as there are many, disparate, headless TEA PARTIES. The one is no more (or no less) organized/organized/equipped than the other and to artificially create either or suggest otherwise is low and illogical. Seriously, when we get to a point where today’s values (for a smaller government/lower taxes/more honest and ethical elected officials/higher accountability from our government etc.) are teleologically applied on those who served us well in the past, to those who fought well and won handily, the revisionist historians have gone too far. Where were your/our collective pronouncements against Bush I in the 90’s? Most of “us” just switched on to the political process within the last few years, we are very new to the process, are rightly indignant and absolutely correct that things must change. Let’s not overlay today’s values on yesterday’s victories. It sullies us more than it sullies them.

    Rather than gear up for a war that will surely do us and ours more harm than the other ever could, why don’t we let the contestants, who BOTH have their own respective flaws, duel with one another?

Mitt Romney is antithetical to the conservative philosophy of the Modern Republican Party.

Can the Republican party survive Mitt Romney as its nominee for President given that the titular head of the party would be the man who opposed the election of its patron saint and conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, and opposed the party’s conservative governing philosophy for most of his political career?

How can a party that is passionately opposed to socialist healthcare, (Obamacare) support a nominee (Romney) who has been passionate in his support of his own socialist healthcare plan (Romneycare)?

    Smedley in reply to JonB. | January 28, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    The Republican establishment hated Reagan until he won his second landslide. They insulted him as a doddering old actor who was out of touch with America. Voodoo economics and blue smoke and mirrors, David Stockman’s sniveling, Bob Dole trying to cut Social Security in 1985 leading to the loss of the Senate, George Bush ignoring the old man when he was president. Now suddenly they want to connect to him. Gingrich was on the front lines fighting in the House, he even so irritated Tip O’Neill he became the first speaker to have his words taken down for insulting another member, forced the fat old fraud to sit silently for an entire day. Mitt Romney was navel gazing, trying to figure out whether he would vote Democrat or Republican, whether there were some more steelworkers he could throw into the snow and ensuring his Swiss bank account wasn’t discovered. Maybe it is time for a third party.

      Hope Change in reply to Smedley. | January 28, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Hello, let’s see if we can get Newt the nomination and clean house? A third party means more chaos.

      I can say with more and more certainty that Romney will lose to Obama, and I’m starting to wonder if some Establishment Republicans would prefer that. They seem extremely comfortable.

      But this is exactly the time not to be using your energy on a third party.

      How about a Republican party that is for ALL AMERICANS. That’s what Newt is talking about.

      And oh, I would love that.

      The OWS energy is actually very similar to the TEA Party energy.

      Not the ideology …. perhaps ….

      But the ENERGY.

      My friends, those of us who do not like communism have WAY more in common than we may realize right now. OWS -ers who love freedom and TEA Party -ers who love freedom, we can cooperate. We can help each other to make our country better. IMHO.

      Problems cannot be solved on the level upon which they are occurring.

      Let’s transcend.

        The OWS energy is actually very similar to the TEA Party energy.

        Not the ideology …. perhaps ….

        But the ENERGY.

        I don’t agree. OWS is about establishing the right to permanently mooch off of society while settling scores with those whom they hate (which is pretty much everybody). When not performing tricks for the TV cameras and packs of journalists, OWSers amuse themselves with drugs, violence, rape and murder. They are brownshirts in search of a Führer.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to rec_lutheran. | January 29, 2012 at 3:52 am

          They already have a Führer, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Sieg heil! They are onstage by his order and will become increasingly violent as the election approaches. It’s Alinsky-Cloward-Piven strategy to ensure America the Enslaved. If you thought the Black Panthers intimidating people at the polls were outrageous, be prepared to defend yourself in November and hope there is no law against concealed carry at the voting booth.

Great article, sums it up nicely. It also makes one consider what the political haves, have: money, media presence, money, establishment endorsements, and money. What the political haves don’t have is truth, history of fighting and winning conservative battles, and principles.

I am so disgusted with the political haves in this process and the prof is right: this schism will not heal. Many of us suspected them but now they’ve become so desperate they openly show what they think of all those who have entrusted them with power — the same contempt for us that the left has. So much contempt that they’ve adopted the left’s tactics: McCain accused those who didn’t vote for Romney in SC as being anti-Mormon bigots. Sounds familiar?

    Hope Change in reply to javau. | January 28, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Hi javau, I think you are probably right that the schism between the TEA Party and the Establishment might not heal. But the Establishment is rendering itself irrelevant with its ridiculous lies and distortions.

    AND yet, is this so important? Something so exciting is happening. Something new is being offered by Newt.

    I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I’ve been wondering why Rush attacked Newt for criticizing BAIN.

    It’s obvious that to criticize BAIN is not the same as criticizing free-market capitalism. That’s silly, and it’s not like Rush, IMO, to be silly. Bone-headed about women and some other things, maybe, but Rush usually is, at the very least, logical.

    Is it that Rush actually believes that capitalism can’t ever be criticized? That seems like an insane point of view. It’s hard for me to imagine that that is what Rush thinks.

    But Rush is constantly saying that Newt has non-conservative ideas, and once said, like Eisenhower did? Wha? ? ? What does it mean, dear heavens, what does it mean?

    But it occurred to me it DOESN’T MATTER WHAT RUSH’S PROBLEM IS.


    AND MAYBE RUSH IS PLACING HIMSELF ON THE WRONG SIDE, for which I will be very sorry, if he does.

    So what do you think about this. Newt is talking about something quite new with the Lean Six Sigma feedback loops. Newt is saying we are going to reach out to ALL AMERICANS FROM EVERY BACKGROUND AND NEIGHBORHOOD.

    Won’t that be successful if we have real solutions and we are sincere? Won’t that be exciting, and a new American revolution, based on our first principles and the Constitution?

    Why can’t we team up? OWS people — except for the Alinsky-communist -professional agitator-types — will LIKE these ideas once they find out about them.

    So there are some new alliances possible with what Newt has in mind. These alliances can all happen in the revitalized Republican party, in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln of vision for our country.

    The problem right now is, the line has supposedly been drawn between “right” and “left” — but that is not the divide. That’s a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization of what’s going on.

    What’s actually happening is quicker, better, faster, smarter. It’s Newt’s formulation of the world that works versus the world that doesn’t work. It’s Reagan’s formulation that it’s either UP, to MORE FREEDOM, or DOWN, to LESS FREEDOM.

    Let’s think about this. How can we reach out to each other, to help each other understand that we all want pretty much the same things. FREEDOM. PROSPERITY. SAFETY. PEACE IN THE WORLD. FAIR PLAY. A CHANCE IN LIFE. SELF-EXPRESSION. CREATIVITY. LOVE WITH THOSE WE LOVE BEST. THE CHANCE TO HELP OUR FAMILIES. THE CHANCE TO DO RIGHT BY OUR CHILDREN AND PARENTS.

    We have all that in common. I think we can learn to talk to each other and really improve things. Namaste, fellow conservative-libertarian-transcendent Americans!

It’s obvious that if Romney doesn’t end up as the GOP candidate and the POTUS that failure is going to be placedfirmly on the backs of the TP by the GOP rallying around Mitt.

Unfortunately they have not considered that the ABO mantra might not give them free range to attack/trash others without facing negative consequences. We’re already hearing the threats that those who don’t line up behind Mitt will be to blame for losing – but the Mitt supporters don’t seems that ready to line up behind Newt if he’s the candidate. JMO

    You are very right, katiejane — I seriously doubt that many Romney supporters would follow the Lombardi rule and get behind any other Republican candidate.

    gabilange in reply to katiejane. | January 28, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    So after being insulted, those who do not support Romney, even loathing him, are supposed to all join hands and support Romney, if he is the nominee. And, oh well, just tell the cabbage-headed, anklebiting rubes that they are to blame if they didn’t join in lock step if the Republicans lose. I thought a political party meant that there were agreed upon ideals, some consensus, and in this equation that all voices have been considered and regarded and at least treated as worthy beings. What’s an anklebiting rube bitterclinger to do? The ones I know don’t cave and fawn.

      WoodnWorld in reply to gabilange. | January 29, 2012 at 3:12 am

      Gabilange, a successful political party is, and historically always has been, a loose alliance/coalition of somewhat tangentially related opinions and sentiments. The larger the party, the more successful the party, the wider and looser the ideas have been. No one is insulting you.

      Two politicians are doing what politicians have always done. Each, in their own respective way, is tearing one another apart and pandering to the people in the manner they see most fitting for achieving their aims. It stinks, but it’s the way things are done. I admire Newt but he has never been the anti-establishment guy. He is getting some traction out of casting himself as such now, and I commend him for somewhat successfully employing the tactic, but let’s not conflate their attacks on one another as personal attacks on us.

    WoodnWorld in reply to katiejane. | January 29, 2012 at 3:03 am

    Yes, your are right. If anyone, for any reason, does not vote for whomever the Republican nominee ends up being, they, and everyone like them, will ab-so-lute-ly be responsible for any prospective defeat we all suffer as a result. Make no mistake, respect the process. If you do not like the process, or do not like the results of that process, work from a position of strength to change it.

    You want to change the course of the country? I do too. It will not be done in a single, or even a couple, election cycles. It took us time to get into this mess; it will take us time to get out of it. “We” have made some serious gains in the last few years, we will continue to do so if are patient, take the long view and play for keeps.

    IF Romney, or anyone else you do not like is actually nominated, do your part for the larger fight, vote for them and then do everything in your power to elect others you do approve of further down the ticket so that you, and they, can hold the man accountable. It will take time to turn the ship around, but it can and will be done if we hold together.

You know, I find something interesting when I read a lot of the comments about Romney, saying he isn’t a good candidate because he raised taxes as a governer, governed a mostly blue state, when he left that state, the Republican party lost the next gubernatorial election, and has already lost a run for the presidential nomination of the party.

There’s someone else who all of those things describe, he was a pretty prominent Republican, I think even president for a term or two in the 80s, I just can’t remember his name, can anyone help me?.

    javau in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Wow! Man, you got everyone there.

    Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    I consider this a win. Eleven down votes, no up votes, and the best response anyone can muster is a substance-less (presumably) sarcastic remark.

    Cognitive dissonance is a pain, isn’t it?

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm

      “I consider this a win.”

      Awwww.. c’mon Awing1… some of us just got here. Looks like TD beat me to it, though. Facts are the darnedest things, aren’t they? Besides, silence isn’t always consent… more often than not everyone else is probably just ignoring you.

      The whole Romney=Reagan thing really doesn’t fly, regardless of how many coincidences you might find between the two men. When it comes to core principles, there really is very little in the way of similarities.

      To paraphrase Sigmund Freud (badly, I admit) – … sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence…

        That would require that my point was Romney was like Reagan, it wasn’t. My point was making claims that those aspects of Romney should disqualify him cannot be made without also attacking Reagan.

          Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 10:51 pm

          “That would require that my point was Romney was like Reagan, it wasn’t.”

          I won’t question your intent, however I must question your method. Your illustrations were clearly drawn to show a direct comparison with two specific political figures that would, by progression of your language, led a reader to conclude who you obviously were equating via the stated inference.

          Lets just say it wasn’t exactly subtle.

          “My point was making claims that those aspects of Romney should disqualify him cannot be made without also attacking Reagan.”

          And you failed to clarify your point. In fact, you did not even attempt to clarify your point. Instead you were quite happy to leave the impression that Romney equates Reagan.

    Actually Reagan won his second term as governor of a blue state. Won it handily when Republicans were going down big in the rest of the country. Also, Reagan didn’t introduce a major new entitlement program like Romneycare. Gov. Romney, unfortunately, didn’t live up to that part of the Reagan legacy.

    Facts can be juggled, but they are pesky things.

      Awing1 in reply to T D. | January 28, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      Making a net gain of two seats in the Senate (and, granted, a loss of twelve in the House) counts as “going down big” in your book? So what does the 2006 election, where Republicans lost 6 seats in the Senate and 30 in the House, count as? You know, the one you begrudge Romney for not running in?

        Awing1, do you read anything besides Google searches?

        “Reagan coasted to re-election with a half-million vote margin . . . . Republicans lost the California Senate seat of Reagan’s pal George Murphy, as well as their slim majority in the state legislature. . . . Despite Nixon’s determined effort to capture Congress (he traveled more than 17,000 miles in 22 states campaigning on behalf of Republicans in the fall of 1970), the deteriorating economy dashed hopes that Republicans could build on their gains of 1968. Reagan’s win in California was one of the few bright spots for the GOP on election night. The GOP lost 11 governorships elsewhere, and nine seats in the House of Representatives. . . . Republicans did gain two seats in the U.S. Senate, but had hoped for many more.”
        Steven F. Hayward, The Age of Reagan: 1964-1980

          Awing1 in reply to T D. | January 28, 2012 at 9:07 pm

          See, the difference between what I stated and what you stated, is I stated straight fact, (Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and lost twelve in the house), and you state narration without factual context. I don’t think failing to build on gains counts as “going down big”.

          A1, always better to stop digging when you’re in a hole.

          Hayward not only notes the two facts you gave about the 1968 election, but goes on to tell how many governorships were lost (11) and how much Reagan won by (500,000 votes) and that the California legislature changed hands. But, Hayward is “narration without factual context”, and you are the fact guy?

          If you want more facts, one could argue that Reagan took the governorship away from a two term Democrat, and Romney followed 12 years of Republican governors. But why? The argument of likeness on this sort of small ball fact basis is incoherent. I recommend reading a good history like Hayward’s to get a real sense of who Ronald Reagan was rather than googling facts about his elections.

    emgbane in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    Reagan won two terms in Califorina. Romney could not have won re-election in Massachusetts. Reagan passed/supported proposition 13 which limited property taxes in California. That was huge tax relieve.

    There is no comparison between Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney. No one with access to a computer should be that clueless.

      Awing1 in reply to emgbane. | January 28, 2012 at 8:52 pm

      See above for the first statement, for the second, Reagan wasn’t governor when Prop 13 passed.

        emgbane in reply to Awing1. | January 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm

        Passed/supported. I did not write that he was Governor when it passed. His measure was defeated in 1973, but voters passed the amendment in 1978.

        Unlike Romney who was not trying to relieve anyone’s taxes, and greatly burden his state with RomneyCare.

Professor Jacobson,

Thank you for writing this column! The schism is widening. I doubt that the party will survive it.

The nomination of Mitt Romney, after the Tea Party successes of 2010, is a repudiation of everything that the grassroots support.

Professor, I could not say it any better. I have called Romney “Obama-lite” for some time. When I read your piece I thought I had seen this before. Oh yeah, Obama’s 2008 campaign.

The problem with the GOP Haves is they have sold their soul to accommodation and expediency. They know if a Rick Perry and/or a Newt Gingrich attains the Presidency, their game is over. If Romney doesn’t win, they can still play ball with Obama. Do you remember how many “conservatives” (especially the GOP Haves) endorsed Obama in 2008?

Yes, Ann Coulter, you too can become the Ambassador of Malta. That seems the price to pay for being treacherously stylish.

For years it has been clear that the establishment GOP holds the TEA Party and conservatives in utter disdain and loathes us.

None of this hatred displayed by Romeny and other establishment types surprises me in the least.

Get used to it. They hate us and they don’t care if we know it…

Romney had no positive message to sell or at least was not good at selling it…

This is the crux of the problem. I am disheartened by the blatant, repeated, outright lying as well from the Romney camp. “Fraud” is not “spin”, or evidence of being tough. I consider what he is doing to be fraud.

Is our government for sale? If we give in out of fear of “it could be worse”, it can only get worse. Until recently, I was ABO, notwithstanding the negatives I knew about Romney, some first-hand. But not now. Not after Iowa, and actually paying more attention to him and his background (he was never a serious candidate before). I just cannot and will not ever vote for this man.

    A friend of mine said she couldn’t vote for Romney because, while Obama will drive our country over a cliff at 100 mph, Romney will go only 80 mph. I don’t care what Rush thinks of the Romney, it’s difficult to disagree with my friend.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Kitty. | January 28, 2012 at 7:23 pm

      I made this same argument in 2008 about McCain and Obama. The same is true of Romney. How fast we get to socialism is the only point in question…

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Kitty. | January 28, 2012 at 8:25 pm

      Agreed! I don’t want someone who is just going to let up on the gas a little… I want someone who’s going to grab the damn wheel and veer us away from the cliff.

      Genie123 in reply to Kitty. | January 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      A house divided. My mother and brother would never vote for Newt and I will never vote for Romney. If our n of 3 is representative at all of the general electorate then Obama has way to much of a chance to win this November even as incompetent as he is.

      I am not sure how we come out on the other side of this scorched earth campaign in a better position. There is no Lincoln in our midst to sooth the rift. But the establishment is making a monumental miscalculation if they think that they can still hold on to some modicum of power even if Obama is reelected. I suspect they, the establishment, will all be serially eliminated by the Republican anti-establishment wing of voters. I voted for Dole and McCain even though I didn’t like them. Here on out I will no longer be taken for granted and agree to wishy washy establishment candidates.

Jeff Goldstein notes (emphasis added):

This has become an interesting topic — especially now that I see support among many of our conservative opinion leaders moving toward Romney — even as many of these same opinion leaders took Santorum’s side during the Schiavo debate. Suddenly, however, they seem to fear Santorum as a religious social engineer, so much so that they’re beginning to throw their weight behind a candidate who is both the architect of ObamaCare (and frankly, is unlikely to repeal it) and has ties to the Wall Street culture the left (and even some TEA Party types concerned with cronyism) has set-up as a caricature they will play a role in the 2012 elections. I am not a social conservative — as Rachel herself seems to know. I am no less a classical liberal now than I’ve been all along. But from what I can tell, and I’ve been arguing this for a very long time now, dating back to my open disdain for the Trent Lotts of the GOP, the biggest danger to our foundational principles, outside of direct assault from the left, is a right that comes to power as the putative corrective, and then simply reinforces the ways of the establishment.

Well said .
Two months ago my web hits were at free republic, national review, drudge, hot air, American spectator, town hall and some others

free republic remains but thank you legal I, gateway pundit, riehl world, and right scoop

How Establishment Republicans behaved against Newt is going to be my litmus test for who I will support and work for and who I will oppose in the future. As the Reverend Wright would say, “they were riding dirty”.
Their outright lies and distortions with the aim to not only beat Newt but to destroy him have made them repugnant to me.

Gingrich will win this race only with through “time”. Romney will win this race only by shortening the “time”. If you don’t have money, you need time to win. So, it’s good to see Gingrich saying he’s going until the convention. That’s what he needs to do.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to CWLsun. | January 28, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    Yep. A long primary only hurts Romney. He has no real record to fall back on and the longer he’s out there, the more he’s exposed as a weak candidate.

WE CITIZENS HAVE A MIGHTY STING. You know, I could be A-OK with a brokered convention. JAN BREWER FOR PRESIDENT, 2012.

I really don’t think, and haven’t thought, that Romney and the Republican Establishment are fighting on our side in this war. They are as much a part of the “big government” Washington Establishment as are the donkeys. They just change from a blue uniform to a red uniform while continuing the same policies and tactics. As Sarah said in Iowa:

So, this is why we must remember that the challenge is not simply to replace Obama in 2012. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country.

The Establishment (elephant as well as donkey) fought Reagan in 1980 (actually throughout the ’70s and ’80s), fought Gingrich in the 1990s, fought Sarah in Alaska, and then nationwide in 2008, and showed us their true colors in 2009 in NY-23 when they and their candidate DeDe Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat rather than support a conservative.

If the Establishment continues to get their way, the Republican Party will become irrelevant this year. Hopefully we can change that direction.

Professor, not only is this damaging to the Republican party, but to the conservative media. To adapt Mark Steyn in 2008:

Alas, while setting their own pants on fire, the Romney campaign also managed to spill the lighter fluid all over GOPE and conservative media’s victory robes.

Interestingly in the same post Steyn mentions Looney Tunes and Marvin the Martian.

“When Howie [Kurtz] claims he’s getting really really mad, I wonder if he realizes he sounds like Elmer Fudd warning Bugs Bunny “You’re making me vewy vewy angwy”* right after he’s shot his own butt off.”
. . .
“[*UPDATE: I was being too kind to Howie. Steven den Beste emails to say, Loony Tunes-wise, the media are more like Marvin the Martian when he’s angry. As an image for the media establishment, an effete space alien is hard to beat.]”

Thank you professor, for your reporting and analysis during this asinine assault by the establishment. As others have said, many of the websites I used to frequently visit are now viewed with a wary eye. But here and a few other places I can still find honest dialogue and legitimate reporting, even in the comments.

It will be VERY interesting to see if certain sites and the gop establishment battle Obama with the same intensity come November.

This is no longer about quarrels between candidates or wounds being inflicted or “healing over time,” it’s about existential differences of political and national identity, and about generations of GOP betrayals which have brought us to this point and which will no longer be denied, ignored, forgotten or forgiven. “Critical mass” has arrived.

Romney is just a representation (if not him, someone else like him) — of power and a presumption to power whose purpose is only in the gaining and keeping of power. This “power” has allowed our collective ship to drift outside the currents of the Constitution, and it clutches the rudder with a death grip.

I don’t know what will happen in Florida, but what Romney has done in the past few months (truly the only “inevitable” thing about Romney was that he would do this) has set in motion something historic. Nothing will be the same. The GOP chose Romney and he’s their destiny.

Joan Of Argghh | January 28, 2012 at 7:43 pm

NPR was reporting last week that Mitt had to hire a debate coach to help him before the FL debates.

I can almost (but not quite) sympathize with Romney. After a half decade of running for president, this sleazy has-been Newt, who has no money and whose campaign started off as a joke (when his staff quit – for good reason) shows signs of being able to take the nomination away from him.

Of course Romney takes it personally. Of course he fights to keep what he believes he has earned. I’m sure he doesn’t even understand that it’s that perception – that he thinks the nomination is his by right – as much as anything else that is keeping Newt in the running.

Romney has gone from being seen as the king of bland, to just plain mean.

Romney has so pissed me off I am seriously thinking of sitting this one out and if obama wins …* SHRUG * … be it

Excellent analysis. Romney is single-handedly trying to destroy the conservative (wing?) of the Republican party. Does he work for Obama? Wait, here’s an idea maybe he could run as Obama’s Vice President. The Republicans are dead after this election. Is it really too late to start a third party? Well probably because if Obama is re-elected, with Marxism there is only one party. God help us. We really don’t have someone with cajones and character to take Obama on.

    Sarah does! (The Republicans need a few good men like Sarah.)

    StrangernFiction in reply to AgentRose. | January 28, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    You reminded me. Didn’t McCain seriously consider running with Joe Lieberman? Lieberman has a lifetime ACU rating of 16.

    What is happening right now is hardly surprising.

    emgbane in reply to AgentRose. | January 28, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    I don’t think he has destroyed it; he has exposed it. He showing the fault lines.

    Fake conservatives line up behind Romney; and weak conservatives attack Newt.

Absolutely agree. It’s not that it’s Romney, it’s just that I’m sick of voting for RINOS and weak republicans. I promised myself I would not do it when Dole ran in 1996, but broke that promise in 2008. In the end it did not matter. The US is spending, under a GOP House, the camera that “controls the purse strings”, a trillion and half dollars more than it takes in. Time to enjoy life and forget politics.

“The schism need not have occurred. It entirely is an outgrowth of the way in which the Romney campaign and Republican political and media establishments have conducted themselves”

I think you are wrong there. This schism was inevetable since the establishment wants an entirely different agenda from the main body of the party. It’ not just Romney even though he wants to be president so badly that he is willing to use these tactics to get there, it’s the establisment not willing to give up their “power” and ability to bilk money from the federal coffers. Make no mistake, even out of office the dims run this country. The establishment gives in to the dims on just about every occsion. Oh, they make like they’re getting a bargain but it is always really caving in. An example is the debt ceiling debacle recently. The bureauocracy is run and routinely robbed almost entirely by the dims and the republicans have made no effort to change this. The republican establishment politicians are willing to accept the crumbs that fall from the dims table of outrageous bounty and don’t want to rock the boat or give that up.

If Romney wins, I predict we lose the general. There is just too much anger out there against him for his latest scurrilous and false ads. The establishemnt left Newt alone until he rose in the polls. They will never let an outsider who might change the status quo to win the nomination. Look how they turned their backs on Palin and did not try to defend her in any way. Of course, this is not unusual, they never defend members of their own party.

I don’t know what is going to happen but if Romney wins I would be looking at third party. His “health advisor” was on TV and said Romney wanted obamscare in every state and she would be his “health advisor”. Does this not show how much in the tank Romney is to the left? If third party is not viable during this election so be it but we need to start thinking of third party after this coming November if things don’t change.

The obama off the cliff at 100mph and romney off the cliff at 80 mph is how I have felt for a while.

A couple of my friends did some mighty hard convincing to get me off the cliff of complete anti-mittdom but this last week he has behaved like such a complete jackwad “it’s my nomination, mine, mine, mine, how dare you know nothing peons try to take it from me.” Now those friends have joined me and there is nothing that mitt could do to ever earn my vote.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | January 28, 2012 at 8:10 pm

I will not vote for nor support Willard M. Romney. He is an unprincipled liar who will do or say what ever it takes to win. We have one of those in office right now. I see no difference.

To borrow from Spiro Agnew who or whom will this “effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals”, blame for the Romney loss by double digits?

*Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! I know Mr. Kotter , Newt Gingrich..

*Thank you Horshack.

I really have not been following the ins and outs of the repub primaries I’m in an independent in the ABO camp.

I find it so telling that repubs are williing to throw away an election where Obama is defeatable, yet they have all this in fighting. Is newt more conservative then Romney, yes, is Romney more electable than Newt, I think yes, but others no doubt will say no.

I’m willing to vote for a used Q-tip as the repub nominee against a marxist Obama. But it looks like many repubs will have their temper tantrum if either of their candidates — newt or mittens– doesn’t get the nominee, and stay home.

So, I guess we’re now looking at 4 more years of Obama, a few more lefty supreme ct nominees. I thought in 2008, those millions of repubs who voted for Obama were stupid, looks like in 2012 there may be another wave of repubs who stomp their feet if they don’t get their candidate — either man — and stay home.

It really amazes me, it really does, this is only the third time I’m willing to vote and campaign for a republican, 2008, and then in 2010, but I knew just how awful that idiot in the WH is. Looks like Repubs really are going to let this election go. Good job!

ABO 2012.

    They’re called “principles”, alex, and “Yes”, they are not often seen – more’s the pity. That’s why you didn’t recognize them.

      Then once Obama wins 4 more year, I wonder how many posts will be written about how radical his policies are. And how many conservatives and repubs will be whining and moaning.

      Go ahead, stay home if a candidate of a voter’s choosing doens’t get the nomination. I’m sure Axelrod is just estatic now.

      I’m not giving a cent to the Tea Party anymore. I’m not even saying vote for Mittens or Newt, I’ll support either, what I find so stupid is that if their candidate loses, they are going to stay home. By all means, stay home. I really don’t care anymore. Not giving one cent to the tea party anymore. And I worked overtime to give them money and campaigned for TP candidates.

      go, by all means everyone whose canidate doesn’t win, stay home. and then whine about another 4 year of obama.

        emgbane in reply to alex. | January 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm

        Sure, but better to be united against Obama then divided in support of Romney’s clueless Obamalite policies. Look at the screaming when Obama extended Bush policies. When the grassroots opposed TARP Washington and most of the conservative media shouted us down, but they could get worked up with Obama’s handling of TARP and stimulus, and health care, even as he inacted policies, that they had recommend to Romney.

        Did Bush McCain or the conservative media (not talk radio and the bloggers) opposed cap and trade, before Obama became president? Did they care about spending? How about the foolish democracy in the Middle East? Did they believe in Drill here, drill now before the democrats took over the Congress?

          WoodnWorld in reply to emgbane. | January 29, 2012 at 3:37 am

          That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If it were truly better to be “united against Obama,” you would make his defeat your first priority. Out of your own mouth are you confounded…

      WoodnWorld in reply to 49erDweet. | January 29, 2012 at 3:43 am

      49er, if your anti-Romney and/or anti-Republican “principles” supersede your anti-Obama and/or anti-Democratic “principles” then, perhaps your priorities and/or principles are misplaced? Even if they are NOT, there is no cause, and certainly no need to insult someone else for not seeing things the way you do, simply because they do not see things the way you do. It’s a rather “unprincipled” way of doing things…

Do not forget that George Soros has approved a Romney presidency.
What more information do you need?

I hate to confess…but I’m an Old Guy who remembers both of Eisenhauer’s inaugurations, Kennedy’s, J.F.K.’s inauguration, supporting Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern in ’72.

But the Democrats of today are totally different from those of my youth, though the tradition of demonstrating has been maintained. I now find myself somewhat to the left of Ron Paul, but not by very much (aside from his foreign policy positions).

I am utterly appalled by the attacks against Newt. Those (few) in the “conservative” media and in the Republican establishment seem to have no idea how destructive their behavior is toward the party and victory. I don’t see how I could support Paul, but I, too, believe that the Republican Party will have to collapse if it is not victorious in 2012 and be reconstituted as something else, e.g., the “Tea Party”? thereafter.

Too bad we can’t start calling Mitt the Boomer Generation’s version of Herald Stassen!

The Pink Flamingo

I no longer consider myself a Republican. The fiasco of 2007/2008 and the 2008 campaigns convinced me that the GOP is teetering on the edge of dissolution. Romney’s campaign in 2011/2012 further leads me to conclude that the GOP establishment is quite willing to run conservatives out of the party. They are evidently quite willing to destroy the party to take total control even if it means never holding power again.

    WoodnWorld in reply to WarEagle82. | January 29, 2012 at 2:30 am

    “I no longer consider myself a Republican…the GOP establishment is quite willing to run conservatives out of the party. They are evidently quite willing to destroy the party to take total control even if it means never holding power again.”

    WarEagle, with all due respect, if this is all it took to “drive” you out of the Party, you may need much thicker skin. No one is destroying you. You are destroying yourself. If you really think our (collectively) “holding power again” is dependent on the frustrations of people who (perhaps justifiably, perhaps not) do not like Mitt Romney more than they do not like Barack Obama, you are, politely, WRONG.

    Nothing is happening now that hasn’t happened before. We are all deeply invested in the outcome, and that is both acceptable and commendable. But, at some point, we all need to push the chairs back, take a deep breath and remember what the true focus is here. Victory in November. With whomever the collective will of the people (yes, with all of their “minions” and their “campaigns”), and whatever resources he or he or she leaves us with.

    I have been reading your comments for some time now. You have serious passion. Let’s focus it where it belongs best, and that is where we bring out the best in ours (the collective RIGHT) and the worst in the theirs (the Communists, Socialists, Democrat, Hippies etc).

I am just tuning out. Not dropping out…. yet. Disgust is winning out over interest. If Obama was not such a threat to this country, I would have no problem skipping this election.

Someone is going to make a fortune selling nose clips to voters no matter who is finally selected to run. Maybe Bain should look into that.

All you people saying the “republican establishment” wants to cram Romney on you repubs.
is the RNC cramming Mittens down? Has reine preibus endorsed Romney? (I sure haven’t seen that) Have the RNC leadership openly campaigning for romney? (I sure haven’t seen that either)

Let me let you about establishment! I campaigned for Hillary in 2008, on May 31th 2008, 4 freaking delegate that Hillary earned — each representing thousands of voters — were STOLEN by the DNC and GIVEN to Obama.

and you people are whining and moaning about false ads and dirty politics???!?!!?!?!?

The republincan primaries, as nasty as the professor claims they are, have been much more democratic that the “Democratic” party’s in 2008. I don’t see delegate stealing, I sure don’t see the RNC openly taking delegates from one candidate who earned them to give to another.

Fight hard, and if your candidate doesn’t win, go buy a strong nose clip, put it on and then go vote, not for the repblican candidate, but AGAINST Marxist Barry this November.

ABO 2012.

    Dagnab it, alex. You take all the fun out of being on old codger conservative. Of course you’re right, but it’s still galling…………


      btw, I do consider myself a fiscal conservative, my democrat party has been taken over by marxists and socialists, I found myself aliging with the tea party as an independent. honestly, I want a JFK dem back, or a reagan type repub back, there aren’t any unfortunatetely, so americans are left with the little stale moldy crumbs to select from.

      I’ll take either, Newt, Mittens, used Q-tip.

      If for nothing else, I don’t want to see an american president bowing to a saudi king, and plus being called a racist for any and all reasons.

      ABO 2012. — (including a used Q-tip as a repub candidate) 🙂

    Hope Change in reply to alex. | January 28, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Sorry, Alex. That game is over. Review the history. Reagan. then H.W. claims 1,000 points of Peggy Noonan Light and we are tricked into voting for the “Big Mo” himself. He fritters away the Reagan legacy, raises taxes and breaks his “read my lips” pledge to the American people, and during his 4 years in office, confuses the American people on the issues so much with his dithering incoherence that we end up with Third Party Perot, and Bill Clinton in the White House with — what? 42% of the vote? You have to be a prime fool to be vice president for eight years to Reagan and never learn a thing. Which apparently he did.

    Then Dole. LOST.

    Then McCain. LOST.

    Screw the Republican Establishment. Forget Romney. Period.

    With all due respect.

    Hope Change in reply to alex. | January 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Alex, — it takes treasure, sweat and tears to elect a president. To elect one of these lying weasely (insult to the weasel) Establishment Republicans depletes the conservatives, takes our money, energy, heart and hopes, and demoralizes us, and makes us feel that it is hopeless to elect anyone, because they betray us and Washington, D.C. seems to absorb them like it’s the Matrix.

    It is a huge, huge big deal and it’s been going on since Reagan left office.

    G. W. Bush might have been an exception. But he was so completely SILENT on what it means to be an American, and he allowed himself and conservatives to be TRASHED without explaining or defending the United States, that he opened the door to Obama.

    These clowns take our support, our money, our work, our time, our effort and then they give us Liberal-Lite. They spend like drunken sailors, except that’s not fair, because at least the sailor is spending his (or her) OWN, EARNED, MONEY.

    The Republican Establishment is the reason people say there’s no difference between the parties.

    Romney will destroy the Republican brand. The American people become confused when “the party of small government” grows government and “the party of fiscal conservativism” spends like – well, let’s say like drunken European Socialists.

    For the good of our country, for the futures of our children and grandchildren, we must stop this train before it goes completely over the cliff or off the rails.

    You can’t let Romney drive the train. He is not only clueless, and apparently (to quote Monica Lewinsky, paraphrasing Bill Clinton) “this huge liar,” he is A LIBERAL in his heart. Get a clue. Watch his old speeches. Mister “I’m progressive” himself.

    So Romney’s play book is the same as Clinton’s, is the same as Obama’s. Lie to the American people, tell them you’re conservative, then govern like your fondest hope is to earn the faovr of Lenin, Castro, Mao.

    So you see, Romney is not an ABO. Romney is Obama-Lite. And if the train is going to go off the track because of crypto- quasi- incipient communism, it will be fatal if the person driving is considered a Republican.

    I hope you see what I mean.

    The thing is, Newt solves this.

    Because Newt understands what’s on the horizon. Newt can be president, put together a team in House and Senate, sign the repeal of Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank; get the train back on the prosperity track ASAP; and then we can start unearthing the socialist booby-traps in the federal government, and start enforcing the 10th Amendment, and so much more. You can find all this out for yourself.

    OMG it’s all in Newt’s speeches. If you want to understand, and I hope with all my heart you do, here is a link to 17 of Newt’s speeches, with CONVENIENT links.

    And the space speech and an interview with Greta on Fox News.

    “NEWT’S TOWN HALL MEETING ON SPACE POLICY” – January 25, 2012 – Cocoa, Florida – 33:42

    “AFTER ALL, WE’RE ALL AMERICANS” – Newt with Great Van Susteren – PARTS 1 & 2 – 1/27/2012

    emgbane in reply to alex. | January 28, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    Well the voting just started, but the stealing has begun. Look at Iowa. They robbed Santorum. They found votes on election night to put Romney over the top. Now they actually claimed they cannot get an accurate count because they’ve lost votes.

    They changed the rules in Virgina while petitions were being gathered.

    They are cheating in Florida. Florida jumped ahead, so their delegates should be proportional not winner take all, but they are going to make it winner take all anyway. Hoping to give them to Romney.

    So yes were are seeing cheating and it started in Iowa.

    No cheating in South Carolina, because as Democrats know when it not close you cannot cheat to win.

    The Democrat party’s superdelegates makes cheating easy. Hillary tied or beat Obama in pledged delegates, but he had the superdelegates, the party and the media were against Hillary even if the voters were not against Hillary.

    Normally the Republican party is different; normally the grassroots controls the convention and state parties, but I not sure about this year, because Romney has been spreading money around.

    I know the grassroots lost control of the Republican Party of Virginia. The Governor did not even have a primary opponent, and the current LT. Governor is whining, because he will have a primary opponent when he runs for Governor. He’s like Romney he thinks it’s his turn. He thinks the nomination is decided in a back room, not by primary voters.

    The Virginia Governor is supposed to be a conservative, but he has endorse Romney and he has no use for the grassroots of the Republican Party.

    WoodnWorld in reply to alex. | January 29, 2012 at 2:48 am

    Well said Alex. This is what primaries are. They are never nice and rarely pretty. For as much as we are chewing the scenery and gnashing our teeth over who we might nominate, it could be much, much worse. It HAS been much, much worse in primaries past. I wonder whether we have either very short memories, or no practical, political experience with the primary process at all. ”

    The only thing that matters is defeating Barack Obama in November. Everything else will come in due time, but the first step lies in beating him and tearing his agenda apart. There will be plenty of time for us to turn on one another once we have the reins of power and are operating from a position of strength.

All of the above noted, this is why Operation Counterweight is so important.

I also agree that the RP will never be the same again. In the past week, the elites have brought clarity to the minds of many people. This bell will NEVER be un-rung. The question is…now what?

I think we go with the nominee, whoever it may be and then those of us who are in favor of a representative party simply leave the RP and start a new party. The old RP will never survive and the newly established party will have four to eight years to build a truly conservative political party that is representative of the majority of America.

I have long argued that the GOPE has ceded the WH to Obama with their insistence on Romney at all costs, even to the extent of alienating the base and treating people like idiots.

Therefore, I feel no guilt about not voting for Romney. If we’re going to get socialism anyway, abortion, death panels, endless lies, let’s keep the liar we have, increase the numbers of TP folks in Congress, and impeach Obama in his second term.

Alternatively, since we are going to lose with Romney anyway, let us run a strong third party candidate like Palin. She’s clean, she’s been vetted, she’s a vicious attack dog when they go after her, and she will be quite happy to drop the make nice talk and call it Romney for the socialist lying pos that he is, even as she does the same to Obama … and smiles while she eats them both for lunch.

Whatever, I am not voting for Romney. Moreover, once I get back home, I will no longer be officially affiliated with the GOP.

Middle America needs a party. The Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists and marxists. My beloved Republican party is in danger of being taken over by plutocrats.

Middle America does not need socialist redistribution, or noblesse oblige. We need jobs. We need politicians that do not favor austerity, but favor pro-growth agendas.

I’m tired of hearing about our debt to GDP ratio, as we forget the GDP has been falling and stagnant for years. Newt understands what policies are needed to grow GDP and thereby shrink debt as a percentage of GDP.

Romney is not acceptable. Four more years of fighting Obama is better then 8 years of defending Romney as he destroys Middle America. Its had been over 30 years not 4 since this country built a new refinery. GHW Bush and his son both limit drilling for oil.

Obama might end up more pro-growth then Romney since unions will demand jobs eventually. Under Obama we got two new refineries are underway. Someone was willing to fight regulations to see this type of development.

Romney is not the future I will not support him. The establisment must learn we will not just fallen in line and march to our own destruction. I care about my children future too much.

See, the difference between what I stated and what you stated, is I stated straight fact, (Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and lost twelve in the house), and you state narration without actual facts. I don’t think failing to build on gains counts as “going down big”.

A couple of commenters here touched on it, and got me to really considering what would happen vis-a-vis the Dhim’s in ’16 if mittens wins. What kind of candidate would they run? Would the more moderate wing of the party move back into power and select a more moderate candidate? Nah. Not a chance. The Dhim’s jumped their shark when they decided to protect an unprincipled lecher in the WH who couldn’t keep his pants zipped. That was their breaking point. The GOP’s is occurring this month, even as we speak.

It’s the lying. The kind of lies Mitt Romney uses were offensive coming from my own former party. They don’t look any better coming from him.

Absolutely everybody has betrayed us. Everybody: the entire “conservative” media, including talk radio. One disastrous side effect (the Democrats are probably celebrating) is that whatever happens, the Tea Parties will be the only conservative institution of any size left standing. The rest are destroying themselves in scorched-earth shilling for Romney.

Inquiring about Romney (Bain, Fannie/Freddie stocks, Swiss bank accounts) makes us traitors to capitalism. Forcing Gingrich to answer every vicious, recycled lie, over and over again, as though it were true and a fresh revelation, is simply “vetting.”

The Establishment prefers Obama to Gingrich. They will do everything to defeat Newt, whether now or in the fall. The GOP is in its death throes. If Obama wins the general election, he effectively becomes a dictator.

With most of our infrastructure pulverized and “instant citizenship” amnesty likely on the way, it will be like 1932 again: conservatism overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

We have the Tea Party. Perhaps it will be enough to find a way. If not, conservatism may rise again when we are all very old–if ever.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 28, 2012 at 9:36 pm

I beleieve I have stated this, and the resaons why many times here already, and will do so again.

The liberal Republican RINO Party Establishment, have openly exposed themselves, and as Sarah palin pointed out, has thus openly declared themselves at war with the Tea Party Reagan conservatives, with the most repulsive repugnant and vile Anti-Reagan Conservative RINO scum attacks, in the history of the American politics and the Republican Party.

Their vicious and hostile blatant lies and propagandist smear attacks against Newt, all over the media outlets- TV, newspaper print, internet, etc, only belies their fear and angst against losing their grip and control of power, of and within the Republican Party apparatus, and only exposes them for what they really are all about, fake conservatism, aka, RINOism..

Their attacks on real Reagan Conservative Tea Party politicians like Newt, has been going on since Barry Goldwater in 1960 and 1964, then Ronald Reagan in both 1976, then 1980.. where they, the Rockefeller-Nixon-Ford-Bush Republican Party RINO elitist establishment, has a long history of hypocrisy and permanent political class entrenched arrogant elitism… but is now coming to an apex, as they are determined to destroy Reagan Conservatism, forever.

The entrenched GOP Republican Party establishment elitists are actually in collusional cooperation with liberal Democrats, aka, the status quo, in a mutually beneficial power sharing system between each other, to maintain their self-proclaimed elitist privileged power in Washington DC.. Liberalism, is Liberalism, no matter who practices it..

And to ensure the status quo stays as is, they do this by attacking Constitutional Conservatives like. and more specifically the Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and now Newt Gingrich conservative Republican politicians who seek the U.S. Presidency.

We will not, and we will never capitulate to them, and give up this great Nation to a bunch of low life colluding liberal RINO weekneed spineless weasels, so they can continue to live a life of minority party luxury, in their so called compromised negotiations with the anti-American liberal Obamacrats, every step of the way. !!

These defeatists in the liberal Republican party establishment of weakneed, capitulating, appeasing, spineless RINO ilk, is exactly what is wrong with the GOP today, and yesterday, and tomorrow.. and is why great conservative leaders like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt, lead the way with conservative values and principles.

This is why they hate Newt, because he does fight for the American people as a conservative, who upsets their apple cart of instituted permanent political class lifestyles, with actual conservative ideas and the implementation of those ideas, for which the old time establishment does not like. Well, that’s too bad.
“While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he’s still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.
It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.”

Gingrich, like Goldwater and Reagan, is running as a strongly populist outsider.
Conservative outsiders never trust the GOP insiders. Sometimes they tolerate them – but, right now, they despise them. In cases where this happened before — California in 1964, North Carolina in 1976 and New Hampshire in 1980 — —it became a badge of honor to vote against the GOP establishment.
In each case, history was made, just as it was made once again Saturday in South Carolina.
No one goes around calling themselves a Nixon Republican or a Ford Republican or a Bush Republican. But plenty now proudly call themselves Goldwater Republicans and Reagan Republicans.” – unquote

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm

This is the real Romney and he is not pretty

The more Romney is vetted and investigated, the more he is exposed,  and more is uncovered and discovered, which Romney either destroyed, like with his e-mails as Gov of Mass, or hid,  and when confronted on, uses his standard plausible deniability excuse, to brush them aside..

Here’s are several factual excerpt quotes from several articles-

“Romney’s Bain Controlled Company Linked to Medicare Fraud”
Friday, 27 Jan 2012, by Dave Eberhart –

quote- “Under Romney’s “supervision,” Bain purchased and ran the Damon Corporation, which pled guilty to Federal conspiracy charges — as a result of tens of millions of dollars in systemic Medicare fraud.

When the dust settled after a consuming federal investigation, Damon was fined over $119-million, which was, at the time, the largest criminal healthcare fine in Massachusetts history.

Romney’s participation was characterized in 1996 by Corporate Crime Reporter: “As manager and board member of Damon Corp, Mitt Romney sits at the center of one of the top 15 corporate crimes of the 1990’s.”

While the medical testing company went bankrupt, with thousands losing their jobs, Bain Capital captured a $12 million profit— over $450,000 of that money going to Romney personally.  -unquote

Here’s another factual article excerpt quote-

“Romney Backed by Goldman Sachs, Bailout Banks”
 Friday, 27 Jan 2012 – by Andrew Henry

The top donor to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs, received over $10 billion in emergency lending and bailouts from the Federal Reserve after the 2008 financial meltdown, according to public sources and published reports.

Goldman backed Obama for election in 2008, and the firm, like many Wall Street institutions, is now backing Mitt Romney for president.
Romney has long had a close relationship with Goldman Sachs. In 1999 Romney purchased initial IPO shares in Goldman that netted him $1.1 million in profits when he sold them in 2010. And The New York Times recently reported that “many of the assets in Romney’s blind trust” are
managed by Goldman.

Today, Goldman is Romney’s largest donor. And nine of Romney’s top 20 campaign contributors are big Wall Street Banks like Goldman. But Goldman leads all Romney contributors, having donated $367,200 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And six of those nine top contributors received over $161 billion in taxpayer bailouts, reports ProPublica, the independent, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative organization.

Romney’s ties to Goldman have already become a campaign issue. During Thursday’s CNN debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated that Romney profited from millions he invested in a Goldman Sachs fund that relied heavily on investments in the mortgage-backed securities linked to the 2008 implosion on Wall Street. Romney said he personally didn’t direct the investment, which he said was made through his trust.”  – unquote

But here’s Romney contradicting himself on Blind Trusts, let alone his own Blind Trusts-

“Mitt Romney Contradicts Himself on Blind Trust”
by, 26 Jan. 2012

quote- “Mitt Romney, in 1994, said ‘The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.’ ” [Boston Globe, 10/19/1994] and “‘It’s a conflict of interest pure and simple – and it’s wrong for a U.S. senator,’ said Romney. ‘The fact that it’s a blind trust does not hide it.’ [Boston Herald. 10/19/1994] and “‘A United States senator has an obligation to tell its blind trust what it cannot and can invest in,’ Romney said.” [The Associated Press, October 18, 1994].

But, when confronted in August of 2007 about his investments in embryonic stem cell research and his significant stake in Iranian oil and gas interests, he said, “I did not direct any of my investments nor did I know of those investments,” [Washington Post, 8/15/2007] and “The trustee of the blind trust has said publicly that he will endeavor to make my investments conform to my positions and I have confidence that he will do that well,” [The Associated Press, 8/15/2007].

Romney calls frequently on state pensions to divest from Iran. His personal financial disclosure, however, reveals that he has up to $250,000 invested in Gazprom and $100,000 invested in Sinopec, both of which conduct multi-billion dollar oils deals with Iran.”  -unquote

    /Irony alert/
    How dare you! You must be anti-capitalism! You must be working for Obama!

    How dare you question ANYTHING Romney did! It’s capitalism! That’s right, Capitalism! Nah-nah-nah-I can’t hear you–CAPITALISM, I say!

    Don’t let Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin catch you asking questions about St. Mitt of Bain! They’ll be outraged at your anti-capitalist smears!

    Oh, wait. That already happened. They’re totally objective about this. (Even though their contracts are owned by ClearStation, which is owned by Bain, which is spending a fortune on Romney’s campaign).

    At least Mitt wasn’t (insert favorite long-debunked Newt smear here)!

    Midwest Rhino in reply to TeaPartyPatriot4ever. | January 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Hillary was a good capitalist too … didn’t she make 100 fold on some investment overnight … more or less? Yeah, those with connections are just lucky.

A1, always better to stop digging when you’re in a hole.

Hayward not only notes the two facts you gave about the 1968 election, but goes on to tell how many governorships were lost (11) and how much Reagan won by (500,000 votes) and that the California legislature changed hands. But, Hayward is “narration without factual context”, and you are the fact guy?

If you want more facts, one could argue that Reagan took the governorship away from a two term Democrat, and Romney followed 12 years of Republican governors. But why? The argument of likeness on this sort of small ball fact basis is incoherent. I recommend reading a good history like Hayward’s to get a real sense of who Ronald Reagan was rather than googling facts about his elections.

The GOP establishment and its toady media have mutated into this beast that is all belly and no brain, seeing no further ahead than the meat currently on their plate.

I see a big GOP loss this fall, with all blame cast on Tea Party conservatives by the same toadish punditry who’ve created the big loss in the first place.

In the future I see an actual tea party event – not a march, not a parade, not meetings on the lawns of government buildings. What I see is a real tea party – where angry, disgusted middle class taxpayers finally decide they’ve had enough and begin a tax revolt. Think about it…… what are they going to do if a huge number of Americans simply refuse to pay their taxes? Arrest us all? It is our money which runs everything – without it the government slows to a crawl. We can cripple them. We are the source of the money – the American taxpayers. Ultimately, we hold all power. All that is needed is an offense sufficiently large and angering to make people take the leap. Once taxpayers see that others are refusing to pay their taxes, it becomes that much easier for others. It is not revolution, per se, and is non-violent. It is civil disobedience in pursuance of the presentation of our grievances to those who would govern us. The problem of illegal immigration and that our government is powerless to control it – no matter which party is in charge – tells us all we need to know: our government is powerless to counter law-breeaking if enough people are breaking the law (refusing to pay taxes) at the same time.

I believe we’ve got ourselves a plan, should it become necessary at some point in the next few years.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 28, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    if you’re a conservative they might confiscate your property and more, since you may have guns or subversive materials, like links to this site, or Tea party connections. Remember our government homeland security forces have already defined us as terrorists. Don’t be clinging to that gun or Bible.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 29, 2012 at 9:48 am

      Despite the melodrama one hears about Obama going dictator, in fact, it is political cowardice which best describes our politicians. Homeland hasn’t the manpower to control one state, let alone the country. 95% of their personnel is pencil-pushing bureaucrats. I don’t see our military forces taking up arms against large numbers of the American people either – we’re the same people and of the same families. The US military is not made up of hired Hessians. Whatever they might do will cost money. Tax money. That we won’t be giving them.

    Sorry, but they’ve automated the taxation to the point that they take it from the service provider and employer (corporate taxation, excise tax, universal access “fee”, excise tax, FICA, but FICA-holiday for the worker, Medicare, Income Withholding, etc) long before I ever see a red cent.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to donb. | January 29, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Federal taxes are collected in myriad ways, federal withholding being just one of them, FICA another. A tax rebel can go to his/her employer’s personnel office and change his claim to whatever works best for the tax revolt. The way my personal income is set up, I could withhold 100% of my federal tax burden, but it isn’t necessary for every rebel to hold onto every tax dollar. Some, like me, could withhold 100%, others 60%, others 10%, but the goal is an overall refusal to pay federal taxes in numbers that brings the federal government to the table pronto.

      I own a small business, +30 employees, and my payroll folks deduct federal withholding and other taxes from each employee, which I am supposed to forward to the IRS. It doesn’t happen by magic – the feds don’t come and get it – my staff has to do it all for the federal government. Now, imagine if all the small businesses in America decided to just sit on that money and not send it in, all at the same time. It happens all the time now, just individually and uncoordinated – business people who aren’t doing well for whatever reason, so they temporarily dip into the withholding money to pay bills (a few knowingly steal it) and get themselves into tax trouble when they can’t replace it. We all know how long it takes for these folks to get caught and punished – years.

      All these ass clowns in DC are fighting over the chance to control the money. Tax money. OUR money. But we control the tap. There is no system set up to forcibly collect it except on an individual, case by case basis. They cannot handle a mass refusal to pay taxes – there is no mechanism.

      I think a three or six month period of mysteriously lowered tax receipts would reveal the tax revolt, then a federal calculation of how long before the federal government goes broke… which causes panic among the office-holding feds… which causes internal divisions among politicians on whether to fold or stand fast, whether to support or fight the tax revolt. These clowns live for the money and for reelection to get even more money, and we’d be directly threatening the two things they hold most dear, and in a way they’ve never seen since the Boston Tea Party. To defeat the revolt would require deft leadership, of which Washington DC has precious little.

      It would be like pouring gasoline on an ant hill.

Thank you Professor – excellent post!

I am beyond outraged at Romneys’ character assassination of Newt. Zany? Unstable? This is not policy disagreements, this is trying to destroy a person. Can you imagine Romney calling Obama zany?, unstable? – no neither can I. In fact I don’t think Romney will get close to attacking Obama on anything the way he is on his own party’s candidates.

And what is wrong with these Congress people and the Florida AG selling out their constituents for money and jobs? And Congress people like Utah’s Jason Chaffetz using their time to stalk Newt’s rallies? That is not what his constituents elected him to do. This is shameful.

Thank you to LI, Dan Reihl, and others not corrupted by the elites in the party for actually investigating Romney’s past including all the videos of him saying very different things than he does in the debates. And thank you for correcting the misinformation Romney and his buddies are doling out about Newt.

Romney is the Obama of the Republican party. Dishonest liberal, with support from his media sycophants like Drudge. Drudge is Mitt’s Media Matters, with help from other wannabees and Coulter/Cupp types. Mitt’s hit team comes to him with the Florida plan, and he gives the nod for the hit, and cocktail partiers clamor to get invited to his party.

You have to expect that he will try all the tactics of the left, while accusing Newt of using them. But no one expects the Spanish Inquisition Legal Insurrection. 🙂

Romney apparently has Drudge, while Gingrich has Newsmax. It will all work out in the end, as far as who the people of Florida and the nation want to represent them against Obama.

Talk about neo-Stalinist revisionist history. Did you not conveniently forget Newt dumping “vulture capitalism” into the campaign before Romney started referring to the “disgraced Speaker”?

One can certainly agree that Romney and the mucky mucks are dumping garbage, but how conservatives chose Gingrich as the champion of small government is simply unreal. This guy was for the individual mandate and lobbied for it. This guy said we’ve got to have cap and trade. This guy was a consultant for the forces that won the health care act wars, for Freddy Mac. Why is he suddenly the darling of grass roots conservatives? Palin called him an imperfect vessel for the Tea Party movement. Duh!

And the characterization of Gingrich’s ethics problems are rather selectively honest. That Brokaw broadcast was real. That vote wasn’t a Democratic vendetta, it was obviously a bipartisan one. I see that nobody cares that he was banging Callista in the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America while married to someone else, but really, are you all addicted to victimization?

    kakypat in reply to skeptical. | January 28, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Actually, I believe it was Perry who said “vulture capitalism.” The only reason Gingrich went down that road is that Romney spent millions in Iowa attacking Newt. Newt didn’t respond until after the Iowa caucuses were completed.

    The fact that you would even consider Brokaw’s words as true and unbiased says much about you.

    kakypat in reply to skeptical. | January 28, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    “…but how conservatives chose Gingrich as the champion of small government is simply unreal.”

    No it’s not. I don’t look at what he or Romney said or did when they weren’t in office. I look at their actions while they were actually governing. Newt had a lifetime ACU record of 90%, the Contract with America, welfare reform, etc. For goodness sakes…he orchestrated the takeover of the House for the first time in 40 years. Did you know that there were reporters in DC who didn’t even know any Republicans? Romney had Romneycare, among a host of other big government, liberal actions.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to skeptical. | January 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Romney had I think around $10 million in Newt attack ads in Iowa before Newt attacked him.

    I think “vulture capitalism” was Perry’s term. But questioning the wisdom of the LBO era, where individuals and companies loaded up on debt, and CEO’s of corporate raiders and Bernie Madoff EXTRACTED capital, is certainly a worthy question. Especially considering our current $15 trillion government debt, combined with an abundance of underwater houses that were financed with junk debt labeled as AAA.

    Not JUST a Democrat vendetta, some Republicans were willing to attack too … so what does THAT prove?

    JFK and others were banging girls on the side while in the white House … who cares? Are you addicted to trashy gossip?

    Newt was separated when he started with both his new wives … does that really bother YOU? It doesn’t bother me … stay out of his bedroom why don’t you. (oh, that only applies to conservatives)

      The LBO era…….I saw it up close and personal, and totally agree that Bain and Romney deserve scrutiny. It wasn’t an attack on capitalism at all.

      What Newt did in the mid 90s, while separated from a wife who didn’t appear to want to move to DC, and had threatened to end his career with one interview, is none of my business at all, and does not make him incapable of leading this country.

        CalMark in reply to kakypat. | January 29, 2012 at 2:48 am


        Newt’s private life should be dissected in ugly detail. All untrue dirt should be dished uncritically. “Let the people decide,” sniff the “conservative” media.

        Romney’s record and actions as CEO of Bain are OFF LIMITS! Anyone who doesn’t take Romney at his word hates capitalism and is doing Obama’s dirty work for him. Great article and I linked to you. Florida is not the end for this. This battle is going to the convention and likely well beyond that.

    This election was the GOP’s to lose…and by having the weakest field in 70 years, we’ve lost it. Obama will probably win reelection this fall, and that really depresses me to no end. The only way we, as conservatives can do anything, is to elect conservatives to the House and Senate in “veto proof” majorities (i.e. 2/3rd’s) to over the vetoes Obama will in record numbers.

    The GOP political “elites” in Washington have pretty much gutted the party as it is today. They have become the problem (by going along to get along) instead of part of the solution. They are as corrupt as any politcians in this country can be. They have become wealthy, flabby and fat through thier use of earmarks and insider information. It’s time to run them ALL out of office.

    Rich Vail
    Pikesville, Maryland

As a president, my take on Mitt Romney is that he is a loose cannon who is not in control of either his mouth or his aides. He uses unverified opposition research, and says things that turn out to be the kind of lies that demean him. At Bain Capital, he was either involved in criminal fraud, or was not alert enough to detect it, or detected it and failed to report it. None of those results speak well of him. I wouldn’t even voice this criticism of him, if his campaign hadn’t engaged in scandalous lying. If elected, this man is going to have an administration poisoned with the stench of corruption.


    Everything you just said about Romney can you produce a link validating it?

    At Bain Capital, he was either involved in criminal fraud, or was not alert enough to detect it, or detected it and failed to report it.

    Just two weeks ago we were criticizing Gingrich for making false accusations about Bain. Mark Levin threatened to reject Romney as a candidate. Rush Limbaugh was extremely upset with Gingrich on this too. If there is some back up for this, please let us know. Otherwise, there is plenty of real things where Mitt Romney betrayed conservatives. We do not have to argue fake DNC talking points for them.

      raven in reply to EBL. | January 29, 2012 at 12:57 am

      Here’s the back-up.

      CalMark in reply to EBL. | January 29, 2012 at 2:40 am

      “Just two weeks ago we were criticizing Gingrich for making false accusations about Bain.”

      Gingrich got nailed for making false accusations. How it was determined that Gingrich was wrong is still a mystery to me, even though I was watching closely. As near as I can tell, everyone just took Mitt Romney’s word for it. (A privilege Newt doesn’t enjoy.)

      Gingrich pulled his ads and asked his PAC to do the same. Romney’s PAC and Romney were (and had been, for weeks) running ads with huge untruths about Gingrich, but refused to pull them.

      Gingrich changed gears: let’s see what the record says about Bain while Romney was CEO. In short, let’s verify Romney’s claims. Fair enough, one would think.

      The “conservative” media then accused Gingrich of hating capitalism and working for Obama. The same folks who uncritically dish every piece of dirt on Gingrich shut down any critical review of Romney’s most-touted qualification.

      The fix is in.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to EBL. | January 29, 2012 at 3:41 am

      The writers looks at the PAC ad, then delves into the background story, and uses Forbes, Boston Globe, ands The Deseret News as sources. Read the part called What Did Romney Know and When.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Valerie. | January 29, 2012 at 2:10 am

    “…is that he is a loose cannon…” I am sorry, did you mean to type “G-i-n-g..” oh no, the rest of your comment… that WAS intentional.

    “…who is not in control of either his mouth…” Well, this is new. And here all we have heard is that Romney was too scripted, too robotic, too planned, too in control.

    I genuinely like both men. For different reasons. Why some of us are so intent on manufacturing rage at a process that is, and always has been, ugly is beyond me. Perhaps some of us are already preparing our excuses for why we just *can’t* bring ourselves to support whomever wins this primary? Perhaps we will stamp our feet, “sit this one out,” and prove to one and all why nominating this (or the other) was foolish from the start? Self-fulfilling prophesies and all…

    Before we all get ourselves worked into a lather, burn bridges which will not be recrossed (and three other cliches I cannot think of at the moment), we should remember this is not us against ourselves, but rather, us bringing out the very best in ourselves so we can take Obama down in November.

    I have a proposal (knowing full well no one will listen). Why don’t we lower the long knives, win at the end of the year, and turn them on ourselves, turn our best destructive spirits on each other afterwards, say in the 2014 midterms? That would be good fun. And more productive than this short-sighted, spittle-induced, fury we are trying to work ourselves into now.

      katiejane in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 10:16 am

      Uou’re right – it’s too late to beat the drums of “let’s stop attacking each other and direct our ire at Obama”

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 29, 2012 at 12:56 am

    meant that as a reply to tsr and EBL, discusses Mitt’s company that was bilking Medicare.

    Mitt claims responsibility for all 89,000 jobs at Staples, even though he had about a 10% investment and little short term involvement. So surely he will take credit for ALL this too?

If Romney is the nominee, I will no longer not just vote for him, I will actively vote to ensure he does not become President. I will vote for the downticket races the conservatives, whether they be Republican or Independent, and if they are truly sincere, perhaps even a Democrat.

If Romney is the future of the Republican party I will no longer be a part of it.

How’s that for a Shermanesque statement.

    WoodnWorld in reply to McCoy2k. | January 29, 2012 at 2:15 am

    That’s the spirit! Nothing says “anti-RINO” like voting either voting against the Republican nominee or not voting at all. I am sure your approach will send the very clearest message to Barack and his allies and signal to everyone else where your true loyalties lie! Well. DONE.

    “Slash and Burn 2012: Because, if I can’t have MY way…”

Magnificent overview!!

maybe there’s just been too many debates that have dragged this process out for too long. if we don’t stop this inter-party sniping in a hurry, we are definitely not gonna get obama out of the whitehouse. i’ll back romney, i’ll back newt…hell, i’d back a REAL newt as long as it sends barack back to chicago/hawai’i/indonesia/kenya/or wherever the hell he came from.

[…] Insurrection calls Mitt’s dishonest, vile attacks Scorched Earth II. The Lady Logician wrote about a NY Times article outlining Mitt’s intentional attempt to […]

Romney is not my cup of Tea (Party). Romney is a pseudo-conservative and a bad joke played on all of us grass-root Americans. Ann Coulter, Fox News, Karl Rove, Reagan-circle revisionists and their ilk are choosing stymie or substance, Ron Headrest over the Real Thing, Newt Gingrich.

RexGrossmanSpiral | January 29, 2012 at 8:45 am

Screw Mitt Romney, I’m voting for Obama just to spite the Establishment.

Many of the people supporting Romney now seem to be overlooking one glaring flaw: Romney has all of the negatives of McCain but none of the positives. John McCain is considered a war hero by many people. I don’t agree with that for reasons I won’t bother going into, but it’s what allowed many people to hold their nose and vote for him. Yeah, he was a rich guy who married money, had too many houses, held Progressive values, had contempt for conservatives, but did I mention he’s a war hero?

Romney has no positives. None. OK, he’s been married to the same woman for 42 years. What else you got? I can’t think of a thing.

I’ll vote for Newt against Obama any day of the week. But, a few of his supporters are currently sounding deranged. Romney has no positives? Please.

And if Newt and his supporter can’t take the heat from Mittens, it is OK because if Newt wins the nomination, Obama and the Dems will play fair.

[…] Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war […]

[…] groups in the eyes of many voters and has made himself a threat to the established order. Thus the double-barrel smear job against him, one that assumes we’re […]

Well reading this dramatic tale of woe I now feel compelled to identify myself as a former resident of Georgia/6th Cong. District. I’m a gal who credits Newt for waking me up politically, back in the mid-90s. And who plopped down a lot of $$ to buy Newt’s GOPac tapes on VHS(!) and held house parties to show them to friends and family. I worked my butt off for Newt’s campaigns and proudly joined Women for Newt in Georgia.

No forces of the legendary “elite media” influenced me. I’ve seen just one video against Newt (the recent one featuring Tom Brokaw). I now live in Alabama, blissfully beyond reach of the scorching TV ads. Yet somehow, all on my own, I (and my husband) decided many months ago to support Mitt Romney. Matter of fact, since Newt officially declared, I’ve not taken him seriously as a presidential candidate for a second. I know from personal experience how he operates and I know from observation what has driven him these past 12 or 13 years in his newest career. Which by the way is headquartered much closer to Georgetown than Georgia.

I do not want to condemn Newt Gingrich or forget his years of tremendous accomplishment and service to our country. His contributions in the debates up until Iowa were laudable, original, and important I thought. I loved his magnanimous cheerleading for the entire GOP field, and his barbs at the media. When he threw away that script, he shocked me. When he purchased the horrible anti-Bain snuff film and sent a surrogate out to promote it, he lost me for good. Since then it has felt like getting jilted all over again, watching him use familiar old tricks, getting nastier and nastier, whinier and whinier, and in general more and more outlandish.

I’m sad to now state my opinion that Newt is unfit for office — any office, but especially President of the United States. I very much want to remember the Reaganesque Newt who inspired me and who taught me so much.

Last comment – Jennifer Rubin’s tweet is a hoot! You’ve really lost perspective if you can’t smile at her rather understated mockery. If that comment is enough to send you into a tailspin, you wouldn’t last five minutes at our dinner table.

    katiejane in reply to Republigal. | January 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Amazing that you say Newt has lost you for playing mean, nasty as if he just started all the mean stuff for no reason. So he was nasty dinging Mitt about Bain but all of Mitt’s smears have been ok? As for Rubin’s tweet – I doubt that the Mittbots would find humor if he had been included.

      CalMark in reply to katiejane. | January 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      “When he purchased the horrible anti-Bain snuff film and sent a surrogate out to promote it, he lost me for good.”

      “Snuff film?” Who’s over the top NOW? Are you denying the assertions of the film? Or just name-calling? “Nah-nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-you-capitalism-capitalism-nah-nah-nah!”

      Everything about Romney is off-limits; nothing about Gingrich. We can’t even ask, what did Romney and Bain do while he was CEO? But we must recycle every old lie about Gingrich, then force him to respond as though it were true.

      Besides that: Swiss bank accounts. Owning Fannie/Freddie. Most people’s visceral reaction? “Crook.” Legality and morality aside, it’s criminally stupid for Romney. In a GOP primary, you can bully your opponent into dropping it by screaming, “anti-capitalist!” That won’t work with Obama.

      Expect to see all of your beloved Mitt’s dirty laundry, so successfully suppressed in the closed system of the GOP primary, gloriously and dishonestly revealed all over the place if (when?) he gets (steals) the nomination.

[…] Legal Insurrection says Romney is winning the battles but losing our war […]

Jen Rubin is only a conservative in the sense that she appears -within the context of the Washington Post- to be so.

Prior to her gig there she was anything but conservative.

Her shilling for Romney should be a red flag.

[…] probably making himself a weaker candidate against Obama. Here’s an excerpt from a post by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection: If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds […]

So nice I linked it twice… EVERYbody needs to read this

Operation STOP ROMNEY 2012