Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Newt: National Review call for him to drop out is “silly”

Newt: National Review call for him to drop out is “silly”

Yesterday, the editors of National Review called on Newt to drop out of the race in favor of Santorum:

When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

Well, as least NR didn’t run a cartoon this time, so that’s progress for the prestigious conservative publication.

Ramesh Ponnuru a writer at NR defended the editors by saying they didn’t really call for Newt to drop out, “[a]ll the editorial did in this regard was tweak the former Speaker” by throwing back at Newt his prior suggestion regarding Santorum.  Given NR’s overt, sustained, and at times childish hostility towards Newt, it is understandable that almost everyone read the editorial not as a “tweak” but as a call to drop out.  [see update]

Regardless, Newt has called the National Review editorial “silly” and has said he’s staying in the race at least through Super Tuesday:

“I think my ideas are much bolder than Santorum or Romney’s. I think my ideas are much clearer and more specific and I have to focus on communicating those ideas. Let’s see how it plays out,” Gingrich told reporters after addressing a Hispanic leadership event near Los Angeles. He is spending most of the week in California attending fundraisers….

Gingrich called the National Review article “silly” and said he had no intention of abandoning the race. He noted that he had been counted out several times before in the presidential race but had rallied back each time.

“The National Review wanted me to drop out in June,” Gingrich said, adding that he planned to revive his candidacy with policy speeches like the one he delivered Friday at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee. The speech was well received, but Gingrich nonetheless placed third in the group’s presidential straw poll.


(video via Right Scoop)

Update: Rich Lowry, in addition to Ponnuru, also is claiming that there was no call to exit, and Lowry takes offense to Newt’s comments.  Stop digging.  There was someone else who understood it just the way the rest of us did (h/t Windy City):

Our editorial advises this morning: the proper course for Gingrich now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The passing of William F. Buckley was the harbinger of a take-over by a childish mentality in the editorial offices of National Review.

Both National Review and CPAC are becoming more and more like Democrat Party Operatives, demanding allegiance to their view of things. NRO especially doesn’t like being told that the “people” must decide who becomes the nominee, not National Review. Not sure what CPAC’s big issue is but it hasn’t acted like a Conservative forum at all these past two years; Ron Paul won in 2011 and Mitt this year! Really?

It’s almost like that soon both NR and CPAC will demand that the GOP stop this silly business of primaries and open caucuses and go back to what had worked so well for them in controlling the masses, “Smoke Filled Room!” Otherwise, those silly Hoi Polloi will think they have a voice, ridiculous, fools!

./end sarc and disgust/

    AmandaFitz in reply to Doug Wright. | February 14, 2012 at 11:11 am

    The CPAC straw poll is of absolutely no value, since it can be bought by whichever candidate has enough money to buy blocks of tickets to distribute and bus in his supporters.

      WoodnWorld in reply to AmandaFitz. | February 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      After having attended CPAC, more than once, I can tell you that is the thing with “establishment” supporters. They don’t need to be bought, they have their own money and are more than willing/capable of getting themselves to D.C.

      I promise you, if “we” are as elitist as many of you presume us to be, few of us would allow ourselves to be sullied with something as low as a bought vote. What are you going to do? Pay us $100? We make more than that in an hour, right?

I can believe that NR didn’t INTEND for Newt to actually drop out.

For a collection of really smart people (and they are), they sure can find a lot of manure to step in.

Maybe this political mavin stuff is harder than they thought…

DINORightMarie | February 14, 2012 at 9:24 am

The last line you quoted from the KOMO article is telling:

The speech was well received, but Gingrich nonetheless placed third in the group’s presidential straw poll.

Those straw polls are typically bought – all I read over the last few years how richer candidates bused in or paid voters to vote in the straw polls, and that is why Paul and Mitt won them – no matter what, no matter where.

Yeah – news flash: Money buys votes in straw polls.

The number of those attending CPAC (10,000+ this year) vs. the number of voters in the straw poll (approx. 3500 this year) is indicative of the weight these straw polls should hold in anyone’s view. Iowa’s straw poll for Michele Bachmann vs. the caucus outcome should be a screaming example of why they just don’t mean anything.

Yet the MSM pushes them anyway. Go figure! Meh.

“On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.”

At that time, Santorum was down in the polls and NRO said he should not out. Now Newt is down in the polls and NRO is saying he should get out. NRO should be consistent.

But maybe this was an NRO “tweak” and meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Is that really the mission of the NRO? To “tweak” candidates? National Tweak Online? I’m sure Mr. Buckley would be proud that all his work and perseverance was not wasted in founding a tweak magazine.

CPAC poll is a joke. They should get a special “Harold Stassen” award for the number of times their choices ran and lost.

Why are Newt’s numbers in freefall right now? No one has attacked him in days (weeks)…

    We’re not supposed to notice that, nor that his main backer, the casino mogul, has already signaled his support to Romney. We’re just suppose to notice that Gingrich has nine lives and hasn’t used more than seven of them.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to zazz. | February 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

      It was Romney’s camp that did the signalling, actually.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 14, 2012 at 10:43 am

        Two things about that: One, neither of the Adelsons have said word one to refute the “signal” (implying silence may speak loudest here) and two, it sure does look like Newt could use another $5-10M shot in the arm right now…

        Any time over the last few days would have been a perfect opportunity for them to rebut the claim and a hell of a time for them to double down on their man. Nada though.

      WoodnWorld in reply to zazz. | February 14, 2012 at 10:36 am

      Ah, “Okay people, move along. There’s nothing to see here…”

      All the same, while I am busy not noticing things, “bolder” ideas are great and all (Lord knows I love a Theoretical Campaign more than Campaign Application), but it’s too bad Newt doesn’t have a few more of them in the fields of campaign finance and/or campaign organization…

    Uncle Samuel in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 14, 2012 at 10:35 am

    This is a turbulent race, one with a lot of undercurrents, rip tides, vortices.

    Hang on. It could get far worse. There could be Tsunamis before it is over.

    Obama is sending out sturm troopers, called (oh the irony) Truth Teams.

    Liberals always speak in opposites or projection.

    For example, Romney calling Gingrich and Santorum liberal democrats: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/romney-rivals-are-republicans-who-acted-like-democrats/

    That is the prime example of liberal opposite speak, projection, denial, etc.

    Romney has a serious, seemingly pathological, disconnect with truth and reality.

If Santorum is leading in the polls, including Michigan, then why is Romney’s super pac taking out a 1/2 million dollars in ads in Michigan……against Newt?!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/pro-romney-group-buys-almost-500000-in-tv-ads-in-michigan/?ref=politics

After Romney’s non-stop lies on stage (seven documented so far) at the last debate, Newt said he was flabbergasted…stunned, but now he is ready for the next debate.

AND he promised to stay in the race until the end.

Thanks be to God.

Romney is the one who should drop out – he has disgraced himself, the party, the political process and the whole conservative movement with his dishonesty, tactics and by running as a Republican conservative when he is a liberal Democrat who governed left of Ted Kennedy.

They have no business calling for anyone to drop out at this stage. Are they out of their collective minds? The problem is that their ‘anointed one’ is a nasty political animal.

I am sure Romney is a nice guy. I personally know and like some of his (many) cousins and I am sure that the rest of his family is like that. Decent hard-working friendly people.

As a politician though Romney is a left liberal who runs a muck slinging organization. I can’t see why the establishment is so keen on him.

    WoodnWorld in reply to forksdad. | February 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    I will tell you why the “establishment” is so keen on him. We really want to beat Obama. More than we want to beat any conservative, we want that man out of office.

    Many here tell us Romney cannot beat Barack. That remains to be seen. I do have to say that judging off of these same peoples’ prognostication records over the last couple months, people like me have every reason in the world to doubt whether they know what the hell they are talking about or have any standing to presume to predict what will happen in the future. Frankly, not one of the Romney haters has given us a single reason to look anywhere else. You can’t even decided amongst yourselves who the “real” conservative is. The real question is, why should any of us listen to any of you?

    Maybe Romney is a nice person? Maybe he is a bad person. I don’t know. I don’t care. I know for a fact, this President, and this administration is worse. Not one of the three potentially viable candidates remaining will be worse than Barack. That is a fact. None of them are perfect, none of them are Reagan, those too are facts. We are not going to get the perfect candidate this time around, maybe even not next time, but we CAN beat these socialist pricks where they stand come November.

    You ask me “why Romney?” I fire back, “Why NOT? Who ELSE?”

      Hope Change in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      Hi WoodnWorld – you ask, who else?

      and I answer, Newt.

      We’ve talked about this.

      Romney is too much like Obama. Romney will likely lose to Obama. Your analysis ignores the debacle of 1996 and 2008. Also Ford to Carter in 1976, similar dynamic.

      Romney is SUPPRESSING the vote in counties where he wins. Romney can’t beat Obama using the tactics of out-spending and suppressing the vote, which is how he opposed Newt in Florida.

      The South Carolina vote was up 30%. Newt won and the South Carolina primary vote broke all records. To beat Obama, we need a repeat of the win in 1994 with the first Contract With America and the unprecedented addition of 9 million NEW voters and decisive gains in the House and the Senate. A TEAM win. An AMERICAN win.

      If you really want to beat Obama, you need a contrast with Obama.

      Newt is the man with the plan. With Newt, the contrast is clear.

      I hope you still know from our earlier comment exchanges that I have respect for you as an American. And I know your motivation is to get Obama out of the White House.

      But seriously, and not at all just to disagree with you — please take a look at Newt. Because Newt can really make this happen. And the important thing is, once Newt wins, we KNOW what he is going to do, starting DAY ONE, to restore the country. AMERICANS win if Newt wins.

      IMO, we’ll watch Romney crash and burn a la McCain or Dole and then we’re stuck. Plus, if Romney were to win, what would we have? Romney doesn’t have the first idea how to UNDO that harm the Left has buried in our governmental structures. Learning on the job. He’s SUPPORTED by the cozy Establishment.

      I mean, WoodnWorld, you list all these Republicans who we’re supposed to respect, who have come out for Romney.

      Oh. Right. How’s the Republican Establishment response to the Left been working out for us?

      Krauthammer worked for Mondale. Buckley’s not at NRO, called to higher duties, and I’ll bet he’s fit to be tied over “The Editors” (unsigned, but it was Rich Lowry, Kate O’Beirne and Ramesh Ponnuru) being in the tank for Romney.

      I’m sorry, if it’s a choice between the man with the plan and these sorry clowns, defending those who are happy to manage the decay of America, it’s no contest. You speak of those who have been in the trenches. Ok. I think Ronald Reagan qualifies, and I think Ronald Reagan would endorse Newt. Michael Reagan has. Nancy Reagan said Ronnie passed the torch to Newt.

      Romney doesn’t have the experience, the principles, the philosophy or the instinct to do battle with the Left as if must be done if we are going to restore the damage that has already been done to our country. As Sarah Palin said, these instincts are either there or not. This can’t be spun or tutored-in by a bunch of cut-throat consultants.

      Please, WoodnWorld, take another look at what Newt is proposing. Here’s Newt’s 2012 CPAC speech with a partial transcript I sort of live-blog typed: http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan

      p.s. The stakes are unspeakably big. I agree. But Newt will win. Just think about that for a minute. If we give Newt the nomination, Newt will win.

      And if Newt wins, we’re going to restore the Constitutional basis for our country. Don’t you see? Winning the election is only the FIRST step. Think what a relief it would be to have someone with Newt’s background, experience and tough honesty as Commander in Chief. Someone who takes the military to heart. Someone who talks about George Washington as our first Commander in Chief. Newt is steeped in the truths of American History.

      I think Romney will lose the election. But here’s the really big part: even if Romney were to win the election, The American People will still lose. Because Romney can’t and wont even try to, fix the UNDERLYING DAMAGE that’s been done.

      I can tell from the tone of your comments that this is a big, big deal and you really care. Me too. Me too, me too. So do most commenters here. Why call names? I know it’s upsetting. For us all. But most commenters here are sincere. Calling names doesn’t help.

      Believe me, WoodnWorld, you are THE ONLY one who even makes me wish for one micro-moment that I could support Romney, because I know you are sincere in why you want him elected. I just don’t think it would play out the way you are hoping. And we would be WORSE OFF.

      I wish you well — and again, thank you for your service to our country. And for whatever you are doing now. You take care.
      http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan

      What can you do the save our country that no one else can do?

        WoodnWorld in reply to Hope Change. | February 15, 2012 at 2:00 am

        Hello Hope,

        You answer “Newt.” You are right; we have talked about this. As of right now, I remain unmoved. Unconvinced. Perhaps Romney is “too much like Obama,” perhaps he is not. In the end, all that matters is the perception of whether he is, or whether he is not. I argue to a mass of the Independent and Democratic electorate, looking a little like Barack may not be such a bad thing.

        If my analysis has not touched on 1976, 1996 or 2008 here, it is not for having ignored those events but, rather, in my knowing that they are not the same thing. Let’s look at 1976? Romney is no Ford; Ford is no Romney. Ford did not have either the record or the credentials Romney does and while both may be perceived as weak, I believe the manner in which Mitt handled Newt in the Florida debates and the tenacity he has shown in pursuing victory disproves the “weak” thesis, once and for all. You may not like “how” he has pursued victory, but if/when Barack is on the other side of the coin, I don’t think we will care all that much “that” he does it. Let’s also not forget Ford was perceived as a “tainted” incumbent, he had a record to run against, and an electorate that was more than a little pissed off about the whole “let’s pardon Nixon” thing. While that was not all that election was about, it certainly cannot be dismissed. Even still, if my memory serves, with all of that he still didn’t lose by that much.

        1996? Bob Dole? Do I really need to delineate the differences between Mr. Dole and Mitt Romney? Let’s not forget the third party, Ross Perot factor, and the ~8% or 8 million+ votes he siphoned off of the national total either. Let’s also not forget that Clinton had tacked sharply towards the center and was, justifiably or not, perceived as being reasonable. Obama has done no such thing and is widely perceived as an extreme Leftist by everyone except other extreme Leftists. There is a margin to work with and votes to siphon off now that did not exist in 1996 where the gap was much tighter.

        That brings us to 2008. I have mentioned the point I am about to make elsewhere, but will dust it off here, again. We did not lose 2008 because McCain was too moderate. We lost because of the unfortunate “timing” of the economic collapse and the character assassination Sarah Palin endured. Whether it is/was fair or not, we lost a lot of independents who fully planned on voting for John and were more than a little wary of Barack simply because of the way she, Sarah, was framed in the public eye. He was “too old,” that put her a “heartbeat away from the Presidency” and too many people either did not know her, or, based off of what they had heard, could not trust her with that responsibility. I cannot count how many people I have talked to that said she scared them off. We lost more moderate Republicans to Barack than we could ever lose “true” conservatives to McCain. But, even with the sweeping economic crisis, the media being completely in the tank for Obama and McCain/Palin being successfully smeared, the Democrats did not win by that much. Certainly not the sweeping mandate they initially claimed it to be. The point being if things had been even just slightly different, the results could/would have reflected.

        That’s an historical summary of why those examples do not neatly explain our current situation or accurately predict why a relatively moderate Republican is destined to lose to an extreme Leftist. I am breaking this up into parts, more to follow:

        WoodnWorld in reply to Hope Change. | February 15, 2012 at 2:47 am

        Romney is no more suppressing the vote than any one of the other candidates. Honestly Hope, to blame him for turnout, when there are any other number of factors to explain “why” we are not turning out (like, people are TIRED, since 2007 this process has not stopped for even a moment), all while ignoring any of the other candidates culpability in the process just doesn’t make sense to me.

        Candidates do not suppress voters, voters suppress voters (for any number or reasons) and they are no more turning out for your man, or mine, than they are any others. In my opinion, South Carolina is not a good example either at all. Frankly, I love South Carolina a lot, was stationed not too far from there and enjoyed every trip I ever made down that way, but it is in no way reflective of the rest of the country and is not a hard place to “break records” in. I believe the Tea Party felt like this was slipping away from them, they were not being listened to, S.C. was one, quick place they could easily respond in, Palin’s pseudo endorsement cued the attack signal, and the Tea Party responded. That’s all that happened in South Carolina. Not knocking it, just saying.

        “If you really want to beat Obama, you need a contrast with Obama.

        I have taken a good, solid look at Newt Hope. I do remember our conversations and deeply respect both you, and your loyalty to Gingrich. There is a contrast there all right, day and night. I do not deny it. I think from an electability perspective, there is too much of a contrast between Newt and Barack. It will be cast as a choice between an unpredictable candidate and the guy who “really hasn’t been THAT bad, has he?”

        The bottom line for me is this: I need to see results and I need to see consistency in those results. There is nothing I see in the numbers right now, whether they be the polls (as imperfect as they are), the delegate counts (as variable as they may be), or the campaign war chest estimates that makes me think Newt can viably take this to the end of the primary, let alone the national election. I would love to put my vote where my heart is, but my mind tells me otherwise.

        I do not need proof that Newt can win, but I do need evidence. Right now, his numbers are in free fall. It seems as though the “Anybody but Romney” vote can only keep a single candidate in their mind at any given point in time; right now that candidate appears to be Santorum. Newt may rise again, he also may not. Either way, the inconsistency of his standing and his irregular performance will still “concern” me.

        I don’t think it is a given that Romney will lose to Barack. The fact that he might look like Obama in certain regards might just be enough to make someone consider voting for Mitt over him. “If I can get all of these things I do like about Obama, without having to deal with all of the other things I do not like about Obama…” I think this administration is deeply worried about the Romney campaign. We have just recently seen proof of the coordination between Media Matters et alia and the White House. Who have they ALL been attacking lately? Who have the usual suspects been swinging at since the New Year? With the same talking points? Mitt Romney. They aren’t attacking him because they like him Hope, they are attacking him because they are afraid of him. They see the alleged similarities, they saw what happened in Florida, they see Mitt’s organization and his fundraising capabilities… I think it terrifies them.

        You say he can’t win? Won’t win? As I said above, as of right now, I remain unconvinced. Unmoved.

        You have my word on two things: I will not give money or time to anyone until we have a primary winner and if Newt is the candidate we select, he will have my full, unqualified support. I will not help him right now, but I will also not help anyone else. More importantly, I will do nothing to hurt him either. It’s a small thing, I know. But under the circumstances, it is the least I can do.

        You are absolutely right about one thing. I shouldn’t call names. None of us should. Two wrongs do not make a right though and I think my arguments are better served when I am not pissed off. I do get tired of seeing one person getting beat up on all the time and it does make me want to start swinging back. I don’t like bully behavior and seeing one person being ganged up upon, with little or no cogent response in their defense, makes me want to wade in with rhetorical fists a-flying and elbows a-winging. I am not saying it is right, but only that I too respond emotionally to all of this and will work on diplomacy and civility, more concertedly, in the future.

          Hope Change in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 15, 2012 at 8:02 pm

          Hi WoodnWorld — thanks for you thoughtful replies.

          I think it is far from a little thing to refrain from attempting to hurt NEwt’s chances.

          and I understand that many of us get pretty worked up about these issues. I certainly do.

          retire05, I think it was, characterized my comments as yelling.

          I don’t mean to be seeming to be yelling. His comment made me try to be more aware of the energy I may be feeling when I’m expressing my ideas.

          I recently saw someone at another place altogether expressing herself with a lot of steam and I found myself thinking it would have been much more effective if it had been not so much like — well — yelling. So I guess we live and we learn.

          I can understand what you’re saying about not liking to see someone ganged-up on.

          I would like to respond, though, that this is how I feel about the untrue ads Romney supporters have run about NEwt. It’s not fair. I don’t like it. Criticism is fine. Lies are not.

          I am delighted to hear that if Newt is the nominee, you will support him.

          I think Newt is going to be the nominee. And I think Newt is going to win in the general election. And then the hard work will begin.

          And our armed forces will have a commander in chief who cares about them and is smart and also sage.

          Hope Change in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 15, 2012 at 8:32 pm

          Hi again WoodnWorld, — Remember in Iowa last December when Newt suddenly went up like 15 or 10 points or something, when Herman Cain suspended his campaign? Newt was running a totally positive campaign. Romney’s people introduced the ads. I saw one ad, one time. I spotted 4 blatant untruths in less than 30 seconds. Things no political professional would think were true.

          Also, in South Carolina, where Newt won so big, voter turnout was up 22%, according to what I read today. Newt isn’t suppressing turnout. It’s not that people are tired.

          It’s that Romney’s advertising made people depressed. In almost every county Newt won in Florida, turnout was up. People don’t like Romney and Romney’s ads made them not like Newt either.

          In case you ever felt like looking at it, here is transcript of Newt’s 2012 CPAC speech and just consider the beneficial effects these policies will have. http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan

          the whole point of this, for me, is that if NEwt wins, the American People win.

          And seriously, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I don’t think anyone is terrified of Romney. (Except conservatives.)

          Romney is just the new politician for Goldman Sachs now that they think Obama may not win. And the Obama people see him coming. They’re preparing for Romney. they have been for years. this is all being orchestrated to the best of their ability. Romney will lose to them. There’s not enough difference. It’s not enough to say, I’m not Barack Obama, I’m not as bad.

          IMO, even the most insider of the insiders sees that they have taken corruption to a level that is going to trigger the opposition of the AMerican People. They KNOW there’s going to be a populist outrage at their shenanigans with our money and our law. The bankers and the Establishment , through Romney, have been buying people off and setting the stage to co-opt the energy of the people. They’ve been setting the stage for years. That’s part of why we see the terrible spectacle of NRO supporting a quasi-politician liberal-moderate who was so unpopular he couldn’t even run for re-election as governor.

          I’m sorry. I don’t want to offend you. But from where I’m sitting this all looks very different than how it looks to you.

          We are in this together as Americans. I want freedom and prosperity and a return to our Constitution and the right to pursue happiness for all Americans. And from things you’ve said, it’s clear you want that too. So we agree on that. We’ll have to go through this with some mental toughness.

Yes – it is silly

BTW – was Newt’s comment for Santorum to drop out also silly?

Hmmm?

This post receives my vote for the most hypocritical post ever.

When Newt is up in the polls, y’all say the others should drop out. When Newt is down in the polls, y’all say Newt should stay in.

And, like Mitt, y’all can’t admit that you’ve flip-flopped when it became convenient for you to do so.

I’m embarrassed for you all.

Everyone has a right to run and Newt certainly can survive living off free media for a few more weeks, but the argument Newt made for Ssntorum dropping out is just as cogent applied to Newt now. Newt’s 10 or 15 percent can easily make the difference in some states. Moreover, if Newt were to do considerably better in some southern states on super Tuesday, even winning a few, there is no question that most if those votes would go to Ssntorum, not Romney.

    WoodnWorld in reply to JEBurke. | February 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Everyone has a right to run and Newt certainly can survive living off free media for a few more weeks, but the argument Newt made for S[a]ntorum dropping out is just as cogent applied to Newt now.

    This certainly is true, but what happens after a few more weeks? What if Super Tuesday is not everything Newt’s supporters want it to be? What happens if Newt does not rise again? Will the current Newt (former Cain, former Perry, former Bachmann) vote finally settle on Santorum?

    I also agree that the argument Newt made against Rick, one heartily endorsed by many quarters here (you know who you are), that he should pay attention to the polls and get out of the way, has mysteriously evaporated now that the terms have shifted 180 degrees. I find the completely transparent, seeming absolute lack of self-awareness to be a little telling and more than a little unsettling.

NR’s editors should resign. Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru are moderate establishment types (as seen by their complete immersion in the Romney tank).

NR used to be the premier Conservative magazine. The current editors are completely out of touch with the Conservative movement.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Aarradin. | February 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Or, perhaps, in your collective, small tent extremism it is you who have lost touch with conservatism?

    Seriously, when HotAir, Matt Drudge, NRO, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Fox News, Charles Krauthammer etc. (people and institutions who have been rocking this fight since before many of you even knew there was a fight) are no longer “real” conservatives, are no longer “in touch” with the conservative “movement,” I don’t think they are the problem. I think you are the problem.

    And we wonder why the “establishment” does not listen to any of you? Why would they? You loathe them. You have nothing productive to offer. You bash your own and think beating them over the head is going to make them more receptive to your point of view. You are intemperate. Opportunistic. Inconsistent. Hypocritical. Largely ignorant of all the factors that put us here. Disrespectful to those who have been on the front lines longer than many of us have been alive.

    Complete immersion in the Romney tank? Perhaps now they are. I promise you they, and many of the sites I listed above were NOT in the tank for Mitt two months ago. Hot Air hated Mitt and loved Sarah this last fall. For them to get to a point where they say anything nice about him at all is a small miracle. NRO held off for months, same thing. Name your blog, name your blogger… very few openly supported Romney in December.

    You think you know what you are talking about. You don’t.

      It appears that you have forgotten to take your anti-rant pills today.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Joy. | February 15, 2012 at 12:40 am

        Or more likely, for once Joy, I took a half dose of your twice daily rant pills…

        If you get pissed, poopy pantsed and whiny it’s “bold” and “brave.” Bravo! We get pissed? “Oh stop your rant Ranting Rantman!” Boooo…

        Anyone who even remotely agrees with you, no matter how cheerleady/bandwagonish, no matter how irrational/implausible, no matter how disconnected from the truth/facts, is a “true” conservative. Anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason, is a RINO. It’s old, tired, it’s low-grade weak sauce.

        Spare the grade school “rant finger,” it’s hypocritical and more than a little unbecoming taken from one of the lead Rantmasters.

          Perhaps when you remember to take that pill you will read your response to me and see that it is a grade school age tantrum unbefitting your obvious intelligence.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 15, 2012 at 8:56 am

          I deserved that and sincerely apologize for being an ass. You have been more than reasonable with me, a fact that has not gone unnoticed. This process is wearing on me but that is still no excuse.

          Joy, I am sorry. It will not happen again. I can make a point without resorting to those methods and will work hard to bring the “heat” (so to speak) without the “flames.”

          Most of us here are more than deeply concerned about our great nation and feel the same sense of frustration as you….some use anger, some attempt to use a bit of humor to make a point as I often do.

          Apology accepted…..you are not just a patriot but indeed a true gentleman.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Aarradin. | February 15, 2012 at 8:58 am

    While I am at it, the same thing I just said to Joy should apply to you. It was a rant, it was largely unprovoked, I do not know you and you did not deserve that.

    I apologize Aarradin.

I thought Santorum should back out before, because of the huge lead Gingrich had, but also because Santorum seemed more like the evangelical choice, and less able to beat Obama. It still seems that way to me, though Santorum got a big bump from the contraceptive issue. Newt has the big conservative history and can talk the talk.

The poll numbers were not the only reason then or now. And Gingrich had 90% (?) of the misleading attack ads against him. Doesn’t that tip the scales a little?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | February 14, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    I’ll add that I think Romney has not spent big bucks slamming Santorum because he wanted him in, to weaken Gingrich’s share. If Gingrich goes out, I bet Romney feels he could flatten Santorum more easily than he did Gingrich.

    In any case, there are apparently $17 million worth of reasons Romney thought it was important to attack Newt. Santorum not so much.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend