« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatives, Gingrich, and Grace

Redemption Song?

By: Aaron Gardner (Diary)  |  January 24th, 2012 at 05:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

With Speaker Gingrich having won South Carolina, and now polling ahead of Gov. Romney in Florida and nationally, there is one question that keeps popping up. What is it about Newt Gingrich that conservatives voters find appealing? Rush Limbaugh has at least part of the answer:

To those of you in the Republican base, this isn’t complicated. Newt is winning. He is on a momentum roll here because he can articulate conservatism, that and he’s willing to take it to Obama. I have said for the longest time that whoever does that, whoever articulates conservatism with passion, with love, cause that’s love of country, with good cheer. Conservatism is inclusive. Somebody who can articulate it happily, proudly, with good cheer cannot be beat.

Rush is right, Newt articulates conservatism. He does it very well and he rarely misses an opportunity to do so in grandiose fashion. This in and of itself isn’t that big of a deal. In all honesty, articulating conservatism isn’t all that hard, especially when our focus is leaning more and more towards conservative populism.

What makes this interesting is that Newt has managed to win by articulating conservatism while having a considerable record of apostasies. Newt isn’t an empty vessel as Rush suggests. No, he is a vessel filled to the brim with ex-wives and mistresses. Newt is a man who sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, who favored an individual mandate, who, for all intents and purposes, lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So what is it about Newt that allows the conservative voter to so easily look beyond these betrayals?

I attempted to answer this question in a series of tweets last night. To my surprise, Ben Domenech gathered up my tweets and put them in this morning’s Transom. To even greater surprise, Peter Robinson then quoted me in a post at Ricochet.

In “The Transom” this morning, Ben Domenech quotes Aaron Gardner, providing a big part of the answer:

From @Aaron_RS: “I think much of Newt’s appeal is that he is on a journey of redemption, and the people want to believe they are as well. His conversion, and the broader idea of Americans being able to bounce back. His story fits the mood. You add the redemption theme to Newt being able to appear confident and communicate ideas to people, and you have a result like SC. Mitt, on the other hand, has no redemption story because to repudiate any past position is to admit he was wrong. In the end, Newt is more optimistic while being honest and that goes a long way in building trust. Mitt isn’t getting that benefit.”

Romney, in other words, is the diligent older brother, the one who has behaved himself all his life and just can’t understand why he doesn’t get more credit.

Newt? Newt’s the prodigal son–a sinner like everyone else.

The idea of redemption being a compelling force in this cycle isn’t really all that far fetched. The last decade has left many people wanting redemption. Whether it is because of the war taking its toll, the economy tanking, or the less than subtle feeling that Orwell’s boot is stomping on our human faces forever; the reality is that a lot of people in America are looking for some sort of redemption, political, economic, and even spiritual. And they are getting it vicariously through Newt’s candidacy.

To be clear, Gingrich is not the redeemer, he is but one of the many seeking redemption. And that, when looked at in the right light, is humanizing and, as odd as this may sound, akin to humility. His candidacy revolves around a symbiotic relationship with the angst the voters are expressing. This was made clear last night when the audience was disallowed the opportunity to provide instantaneous feedback. Newt was thrown off his game by not being able to interact with the audience.

Add to this the fact that Newt isn’t simply seeking redemption, he is willing to fight for it by articulating conservatism, and you start to see why his likability is increasing and his negatives are dropping.

We won’t know until later whether this story ends with actual redemption, both personal and national, or if it ends with another betrayal. That said, the circumstances that exist today have made people less apprehensive towards taking this leap of faith.

As for myself, I haven’t decided whether I can support Newt, or that I could defend him for four years. But like Rush said in the transcript I linked at the beginning:

I trust the Republican base. That’s who I trust. I trust the Republican voters. I’m totally confident with them. They are the people in this audience. Why wouldn’t I trust them? They’ll figure this out. They’re not a bunch of brain-dead, mind-numbed robots. This is how democracy works. It’s how representative Republicanism works. It’s what we’re trying to hold onto, for crying out loud.

Aaron B. Gardner

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://ironknuckle2012.blogspot.com ironknuckle

    Aaron, how would you respond if I asked the following question:

    Does it make sense to offer Newt Gingrich redemption for cheating on his wives, for giving his wife divorce papers while she’s in the hospital for cancer treatment, for telling people his wife is not pretty enough to marry the president, for taking oral sex from a campaign staffer in a hotel room, but NOT to offer Willard Mitt Romney redemption and/or forgiveness for a change of heart on the Roe v. Wade issue?

  • votemout2012

    Newt is winning b/c we have no other choice. I don’t know how we got here when we had a great candidate like Rick Perry. A whoops moment should not not replace a record of leadership. But now we are stuck with 4 unelectable candidates and 4 more yrs of Obama.

  • kowalski

    Two years from now, Newt Gingrich will be telling people as different a story about the positions he supported “back then” but couching them in his language about how he changed his mind based “on the facts” and everyone here is going to be sitting around wondering what to do then. But I guess the calculus is: go with momentum.

    Gingrich remains in my internal and external polling one of the most comprehensively disliked people in America – not just in his own party but among the other party and Independents also. Somehow Redstate has decided he’s the guy to beat Obama but I can’t comprehend why.

  • kowalski

    When Moe Lane said the other day that he “didn’t do the heavy lifting” it really said a lot to me – that somewhere, among Redstaters there was a lot of “heavy lifting” to be done in order to support Gingrich over Romney. There have also been the consipracy theories that people would flock to Santorum to continue blocking Gingrich, etc., etc.

    I think on the merits Romney is a much better candidate than Gingrich. But here’s where I stop campaigning against Gingrich:

    I think Redstate is doing this because of the “base”. They’ve stated comprehensively in the past few days that the “base” is aggrieved, the “base” needs to be satisfied, the “base” needs to be enthused, and that Romney can’t do that.

    What we’re going to find out, if Gingrich gets the nomination, is whether the “base” is really enough to win the General. I don’t think it is. You can have the “base” – and it’s a nice base, it’s an honorable base, but that’s not going to beat Obama in the general election.

  • kowalski

    After investigating some of the things mbecker said the other day I knew I would never do anything to support Rick Santorum in any way shape or form.

    I made my three choices in the order I picked them and they still stand. Perry dropped out. Romney and Gingrich are still standing and I support Romney over Gingrich. For better or for worse, I suppose. :)

    Capitalism is good.

    I notice that we haven’t heard from Robert Hahn through any of this. Not a peep.

  • benko

    To fix the economy/roll back more of Obama’s damage?

    Nothing else matters. Which is why Santorum is irrelevant.

  • http://ironknuckle2012.blogspot.com ironknuckle

    Irrational thinking has taken over. The Republican Party’s only hope at this point is that there are enough rational voters left in Florida, Maine, and Colorado to save Mitt Romney. I can’t believe the party that impeached Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky is bending over backwards, making excuses for someone whose misconduct is even worse than John Edwards.

  • http://ironknuckle2012.blogspot.com ironknuckle

    What’s your issue with Rick?

  • bushhog

    we need to ride the best one we have. Thomas Sowell made a good case today (paraphrased): When the Super Bowl is on the line, do you go with the quarterback least likely to throw an interception, or the one most likely to throw a touchdown?”

    He also allowed that Newt, at his worst, is worse than Romney at his worst — but Newt at his best is MUCH better than Romney at his best.

    Right now, Newt is the “touchdown quarterback”!

  • acat

    Reagan/Carter – in which Reagan “had those goldwater kooks” and brought in Bush 1.0 to ensure the moderates wouldn’t totally defect.

    Dole/Clinton – in which Dole was about as inspiring on the stump as Romney has been thus far.

    What’s notable isn’t that Romney is polling poorly among “the base”, whatever that means – he’s been polling poorly since 2006!

    What’s notable to this cat is that Romney hasn’t even *tried* to change minds. He’s kept on doing his thing and acting as though that’s enough.

    Mew

  • bluerose75

    Excuse me IRON but your facts are like many full of Hot Air. Newt and his dauthers have disputed the story that he gave the divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital. But people like you, like the MSM, will distort facts without having a clue about what you are talking about. I am so DARN sick of people like you that keep harping on his divorces. GROW UP! Divorce happens St.Peter’s fill in(I would imagine that is you because you will sit at the gates of heaven to fill in for St.Peter when he is on break!!). Newt has dealt with his family on these issues. And I am sorry a bitter ex?? As if that does not happen all the time….see the 60 percent divorce rate! Oral sex is another….so what…jealous? Oh that is right he is immoral…well buddy you better tell that to the millions of men and women who love Oral Sex all the time!! And no it is not always performed in a marriage! By the way does not the pleasure of sex also come from God? Or is that manufactured in some assembly plant that man made? Watch out the prude will not like that one….even though many of these religious pious on the privacy of their own computers I am sure enjoy more than their public image will allow? Hypocrits?

    Your mindless attempts to keep demonizing him for his divorces is childish. No divorce is nice. And I am so sick of hearing these sides of the story against Newt. If I am not mistaken does Newt have the right to tell his side? Of course not, the women is always right!! Quite frankly, I could care less about his marriages.

    Mitt Romney’s flip flop on abortion was about KILLING UNBORN life buddy! Divorce vs. Abortion….sorry there is NO COMPARISON. Newt and his wives were adults. The babies had no say and Mitt could have cared less. Oh yes he personally opposed it but nonetheless his TRUE liberal leaning was to fund abortion and planned parenthood! His record will never get him past the conservative test!

    Yeah keep trying to focus on Newt’s marriages while glossing over Mitt’s true form of governance! His is not a conservative…never will be and here is a thought Einstein:

    Newt can reconcile with his family….can Mitt reconcile with all those aborted babies?????? Checkmate Iron!

  • kowalski

    Gingrich really doesn’t create jobs. He hasn’t ever created jobs like he’s currently claiming (some 27 million at this count, based on his own internal mathematics, including “creating” Ronald Reagan, which I guess counts as at least 5 to 10 million jobs) He’s sold a lot of books, he’s talked a lot, and he changes his positions according to “new facts” he finds all the time. And he will continue to do so.

    He accuses Romney of being someone who would “manage the decline” and then attacks Romney for being a capitalist. Well he doesn’t need any help in doing that, but he opened the floodgates.

    Romney would actually do a lot better a job, but there are people who just cannot get over the fact that his wife donated money to Planned Parenthood while he was in Massachusetts. And oh yeah, he’s a Mormon. While Newt Gingrich is a steadfast family man. Impeccable character, that one.

  • kowalski

    Is that he really is a spender and a big government acolyte doing everything he can to make sure people don’t believe that now. His record in pork is the full barbecue treatment, with lots of sauce.

  • RichmondG30

    is NOT on his change-of-heart on Roe v. Wade. Personally, I think his change of position is admirable.

    Mitt loses me on the issue of ObamaRomneyCare.

    The most important reason that we need to defeat Obama this time is to overturn Obamacare before it gets its tentacles set any deeper into the American economy.

    Mitt Romney implemented the pilot program for Obamacare and refuses to admit it was a mistake. HE REFUSES TO ADMIT IT WAS A MISTAKE! Is that the guy you want leading the last desperate, bloody charge to take the Obamacare hill?

    Personally I do not. Mitt could have come out and said: “Look, I thought the mandate was a good way to fund the program and make sure everyone had health insurance. Now that it has been implemented, I realized that it is not. Not only is it wrong to try to force people to purchase a product against their wills, it has driven up costs much more than we anticipated. We should not repeat the mistake on a national level.”

    He hasn’t renounced his position, and until he does he will not have my support in the primaries.

  • runner12

    are quite valid. During this same monologue, he was also honest about both Newt’s and Mittens’ former anti- conservative positions. I just hope one of them will see the light and fully embrace the Conservative, limited government viewpoint. Whoever does, will have my vote and I suspect many others.

    At this point, I am undecided in the primary. But I can see the draw of Newt. He fights the Leftists. Conservatives and everyday Americans are just tired of being pushed around and ignored. They want someone to stand up for them and right now Newt is doing a fairly good job of that.

  • http://ironknuckle2012.blogspot.com ironknuckle

    My characterization is exactly what happened. If Newt hadn’t cheated on his wife, I would support Newt for President.

    And the fact that someone gave a speech at CPAC doesn’t mean he can win a general election.

    Check your calendar, we may be seven (7) days from losing election 2012 to President Obama. I hear they had a party at the White House after South Carolina.

  • irishgirl

    We’ve blown it and now we have to play with the cards that are left. We deserve what we get.

  • texastaxpayer

    ;)

  • fightnright

    He has most conservatives bested in terms of his lines, delivery, poise, timing, affect, and chemistry with his audience.

    Think of the teachers you’ve known. Any one of them could probably impart ‘geometry’ or ‘Spanish language’ to you adequately enough for you to grasp it. But not everyone is capable of weaving a narrative around a topic so that you become enthused about the subject.

    Newt knows how to move audiences towards conservatism so that his listeners remember why they were drawn to the Grand Ideas of conservative philosophy in the first place. Stirring up such enthusiasm is traditionally known as energizing the base. It’s not necessarily connected to the ability to work smoothly with those disinclined to share your vision, or to wisely choose your battles, or to govern effectively, but it’s a talent found rarely enough amongst our contemporary politicians that many of us have forgotten what it’s like for one to be a statesman. Finding someone with all of the abilities above is nearly impossible, which is why current leaders don’t seem much like the heroes we were taught about in American History, and more like lesser men.

  • bluerose75

    Good analogy! Newt when he sticks to conservative principles and articulates them he does very well. He needs to apply them and believe in them. That is how he will excel. Newt is at his worse when he loses focus on his message. He likes to be right but of course we all do!

    Honestly…is there anyone out there that can really run for President with a perfect record? NO….I do not care who it is today you will be bad mouthed forever. Most people look to the degree by which you can suvive the scrutiny and how much baggage. The problem is the goal posts are always moving.

    Newt is at his best defining American Exceptionalism. Mitt is not. Mitt has done well in private life which is wonderful. But he cannot convey that success to his record as a Governor! He would easily be moved by the Establishment in Washington and when in office would spurn the conservatives. Now Newt as well has some issues there and he needs to be tied down on those issues! But in the trenches Newt is a fighter and grinder and I like that more than a nice guy that will compromise and flip whenever the wind blows.

  • renl57

    – On global warming (siding with Nancy Pelosi at one point)

    – On the Ryan plan (blasting it as “right-wing social engineering”)

    Gingrich is hardly a principled conservative competing with a flip-flopper (Romney). They’re BOTH flip-floppers. On major issues, not small trivia.

    Gingrich’s “redemption” is nothing of the kind. He’s deflecting these real questions by red-meat rhetoric that inflames the passions of the base so they’ll stop thinking.

    Gingrich gets the base whooping and cheering by bashing the liberal media, and by bashing Obama as “having a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview,” so that they’ll get all excited and hopped up and forget to check how sincere Gingrich is about his conversion to staunch conservatism.

    Romney can’t deflect questions (on Bain, on Roe v. Wade) by rousing the emotions of the base, because he’s not a bomb-thrower like Gingrich.

  • Scope

    RS was throwing up polls, on the front page, including lists of names of candidates that had gotten in, and some who never did. There was a pretty sizable block of people here that were ready to go all in for Mike Pence, myself included. Then there were others that argued that Pence lacked executive experience, and pointed out that presidents are not elected from the House. I wonder how many of those here, who have joined the Gingrich bandwagon, were the same ones arguing against Pence. At least Pence is still currently in Washington, and is still fighting against the liberals, and maintaining his excellent conservative record. Oh well, what could have been.

  • kowalski

    I really have to disagree with you there. I personally thought after Romney didn’t make it in 2008 he stepped very hard and very decisively to the right in his public appearances and statements. He made some of the bluntest and most Conservative statements in the past few years and I was surprised to hear him – honestly – say them.

    People still think I’m crazy for believing those statements were real, but I do – at least as much as I can believe anything Gingrich says. It’s a wash to me whether either of them are really more “honest”. When I look at who is better equipped to lead the country, I don’t think of Gingrich first.

    I don’t want to sound like a scumbag here because I’m not. But the fact is that the whole bundle of Gingrich Investigation Briefings and Reports has yet to be distributed and Nancy Pelosi has already warned that she’s going to drop that bomb when she’s ready. Newt has a huge liability hanging over his head and he’s really asking everyone to just IGNORE it. IGNORE it and keep sending him money.

    I don’t doubt that it’s there. I think Nancy Pelosi and her friends are going to push the Button about 2 weeks before the election and if it’s even close, whatever she’s got on Gingrich is going to be the most disgusting smear campaign anyone has ever witnessed – and it’s going to be effective.

    Gingrich is downplaying the significance of that but in my mind, I know that Pelosi is going to absolutely make good on her word. The Siege Guns of October are still being put together in the factory. Gingrich is telling us they aren’t there. He’s asking us to believe a lot.

  • andystone

    Your whole point is that it’s easy to articulate conservatism eloquently, that there must be something else behind Gingrich’s appeal, and that it must be because his personal story is perversely appealing. It’s a chain of deduction that simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s a lot more eloquent to be able to have an unscripted discussion about conservatism, down to the point where you even put liberal reporters to shame no matter what they throw at you, than to robotically repeat talking points that were drilled into you by poll-obsessed consultants.

  • bonnman

    But I also don’t think this is a one issue election. The health care crisis is extremely important but the country has shifted focus mainly to the economy, it should be our main focus.

  • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

    This reminds me of something my Rabbi said a long time ago. He said he was talking with a fellow Jew who, after not keeping kosher for many years, started keeping kosher again. He explained how difficult it was since he absolutely loved shrimp and lobster.

    My Rabbi said he told him “I wish I would have your piece of the world to come [i.e. heaven]“. Shocked, the parishioner asked “but why, when you’ve been religious and I sinned”. The Rabbi responded. “I’ve never tasted shrimp or lobster so it is very easy for me to not partake in it. You giving up something that you love for G-d takes a lot more effort.”

  • actuarius

    ….

  • powertothepeople

    you should really never again attempt to defend anyone running for public office as this has to be the worst retort I have ever seen.

    While Newt’s past sins are in the past and the victims were his family, for you to act as if they should not be included in a voters litmus test as to the character of the man is absurd.

    But on to the rest of the nonsense:

    Newt did bring the papers to the hospital, that fact is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether that was his main goal of being there or if it was prearranged. Really immaterial as the main thing about the whole situation that makes people cringe is the fact that he A) had the affair and many others during his first marriage but also B) that he chose a piss poor time to end the marriage namely while his wife was sick. People also have issue with the fact that again he cheated numerous times on his second wife and told her he was leaving her once again while she was sick and while she was visiting her sick mom.

    And no, millions do not run around on their spouses passing out or getting oral sex. If you really believe they do, you need counseling for some deep seeded issue.

    Divorces may happen, but that does not make them OK nor do people who are concerned about divorces childish in need of growing up. But again, the issue people have with Newt does not dwell solely on the divorce(s), it again has to do with how he acted while married multiple times and the way he ended the marriages multiple times. While he very well may have found forgiveness in God and his family, his past lifestyle is a part of his character, examples of how he acts, and merits our concern.

    And what is your point with sex comes from God? Are you trying to state God is fine with Newts past behavior or people just running around screwing who they want? Or are you trying to imply that somehow having issue with Newts behavior means Iron and anyone else who has a problem with the situation feel God has issues with Oral sex in a marriage? Either way……..you are a moron. God not only condones sex inside a marriage, he encourages it and has not issue with what type of sex happens as long as it is between the man and woman who are married and both are comfortable with it.

    So next time you should really refrain from calling check mate on someone when you are basing that checkmate on written nonsense.

    But at least we agree Romney is no conservative but lets not pretend that Newt is much better. He is simply the lesser of two evils in an election year that we as the voters failed to put up a good candidate.

    Oh by the way, sin is sin. And if you are so willing to accept Newt on his word that he has asked for redemption for past behavior and beliefs, the same should be extended to Mitt.

  • renl57

    There were decent possible candidates: Rubio, Ryan, Christie, Thune, etc. All of whom would be better debaters than Perry.

    But none of them chose to run, typically citing the concerns of their families.

    Isn’t that strange?

    How do you reconcile that with all the rhetoric we’ve been hearing about how absolutely CRITICAL this coming election is for the future of our country?

    When have American men ever ducked serving their country in a time of peril just because their wives were worried about them? We had men enlist in the military and go off to war and risk their lives–and some gave their lives.

    All these Republican men had to risk was their political careers and their family’s reputations, not their lives. Why wasn’t saving the country from Obama’s ultra-liberalism worth that investment?

    If Ryan, Christie, Daniels, Thune, etc., decided not to run just because of personal issues, then this election can’t be as critical as all that, can it?

    They don’t seem particularly worried about letting their country down, about having to live with their consciences after Obama locks up the Supreme Court with two more left-wing appointments.

  • sethellis

    This is an excellent post. I think you are absolutely right. Many are willing to look past his sins because we want a redemption story. He appears repentant, and we are willing to forgive. However, I think this also explains what might be his undoing.

    The problem is that he is still the same old Newt. The lobbying issue is the best evidence of this. He wasn’t't officially lobbying, but he was walking along the line. In fact, he hired someone to advise him on how to walk as close as he could without crossing. Meanwhile, he tired to pull the wool over our eyes, and try to present it as something else when it was clearly a duck.

    The 2nd wife issue is another example. If he was sorry for what he did, he would have apologized. It would have been easy to just be contrite and move on. Instead he picked it up and used it as a weapon. That’s not the behavior of a reformed man. That’s the old shrewd politician we all know so well.

    Newt’s future depends on us believing he has repented, and I don’t think they will. I certainly doubt that moderates ever will.

  • lineholder

    I think there’s probably a fair amount of truth regarding the element of redemption playing a role in this situation. Even as Conservatives, many of us had forgotten what it means to protect and preserve our liberties and freedoms…to respect the very foundation on which this nation was established…and it’s only been since Obama took a blatant move towards hard socialism that we have woken up to the reality of how much those things really mean to us, and to those who come after us as well.

    I guess in some ways, plenty of us are looking for a chance at redemption when it comes to our failures as American citizens and stewards of the legacy left to us by our founding fathers.

    I genuinely hope that we are not too late in coming to this realization. I truly do.

  • earhartam

    It makes complete sense. Summed it up perfectly. Newt can work with the crowd and respond to them. and they respond to him. He is assertive and blunt regardless of whether the listener will like what he has to say. He’s not as much of a straight shooter as Perry, but he does have moments when he doesn’t care whether the listener likes him or not. Perry was more, “If you like me vote for me, if you don’t like what I stand for don’t.”

    Romney is the same whether with people participation or not. He doesn’t seem to care how the American people are affected by his comments or past policies; he will always think he is right and act accordingly. Romney is dismissive of anyone asking him to defend his positions.He doesn’t feel he answers to anyone; He cannot gauge the temperature in the room, because he is always cold and distant. He misses the point of a republic. It’s the will of the people, not the will of Mitt Romney or any president.

  • Finrod

    I don’t see an answer to my question in what you wrote.

    It is The Reason why the Base doesn’t support Romney.

    Part of it is that advancing conservatism will by necessity involve rolling back the crap that this current Administration has dumped on us. That’ll require a fight, and I for one have never seen Romney fight for anything except to tear down his opponents.

    Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and a family man. Ronald Reagan was a divorcee. Which was better for the country?

  • likeaglove

    It’s the hypocrisy that I can’t abide. His personal life has been that of a bull in a China shop. Forgive? Okay. Forget? Heck, no. Elect him to be the leader of the free world?

    Seriously?

    We’re either the party of family values or we aren’t. I know that he has become something of a candidate of last resort. With a weak field, I can understand that GOP voters having to lower their standards. However, I refuse to have NO standards.

  • DVPTEXFLA

    We have these candidates because the Republican establishment,( just like the democrat establishment) does not listen to the voters. After all these are the smart guys who gave us FANNIE MAE/ Bailouts/ An out of control EPA/ How is that energy independence going? a wasteful and damaging welfare system/ A departent of education…does anyone think schools are better? A social security that is broke a Fed that just prints money to hide the problems…

    Does anyone really think the Republican establishment is not just as much at fault as the Democrat establishment for the mes our government is in?

    The base is not in love with Gingrich, but who thinks that Romney does not offend the base? If you are going to offend your base…you are going to lose.

    My guy has withdrawn and this is what we are left with?

  • acat

    Look at what Reagan did in 1977 and 1978. Op-ed pieces, columns, speeches, campaign stops for congress, building a network he could call on in 1980.

    Romney, it appears, is trying to follow that example. The trouble he’s having now is because the network he built somehow failed to link to the grass roots.

    How do I put this? It’s a bacon-and-eggs scenario*. Yes, Romney has given speeches and written op-eds that announced a new conservative viewpoint – and that’s good. Eggs are good.

    Romney has yet to burn any bridges with the insider set, though. He’s all eggs and no bacon.

    Gingrich burnt his bridges with the insider set long ago. He’s got bacon.

    I’d encourage you to go read this piece by Ace of Spades and see what you make of it. I think you and Ace are on the same page .. and I understand it.

    I despise Romney, I distrust Gingrich. I trust Gingrich to end the status quo in D.C., if only by dint of his ego detonating. I do not trust Romney to emerge in 2016 with any record whatsoever.

    If Romney wants to turn this around, he needs to stop with the eggs and start with the bacon. Burn his ships. Throw his hat over the wall, not just in the ring.

    Mew

    * bacon and eggs scenario. The hen is involved, the pig is committed. Romney comes across as merely involved, not committed. He needs to change this perception.

  • bfelger

    You also explain in your 5th paragraph, succinctly, why all the men you listed do not have the mettle to be president. I dearly wish they did, but they don’t.

  • deVere

    After making a stirring speech in Missouri about how the men who charged the cannons remind us of our duty to defend liberty, she ducked out and fled for home.

    I guess we need to get ready for 4 more years of Obama. How do I do that? I’m too old to emigrate. Maybe I should buy a Che Guevara t-shirt?

  • bfelger

    …I will vote for him. I might even commit voter fraud and vote for him a hundred times.

    Since you can’t, I have to vote for a damned sinner, who may or may not be saved only by the grace of God.

    So, I am resigned to voting on the issues and legislative (or executive) records.

  • trevorb

    support Gingrich over Romney because he will fight and he will take the offensive against Obama. Romney would not be willing to do so; that didn’t end very well for McCain, if you recall.

  • Michael Dugas

    I love how you all act like you are some how insiders to the Gingrich’s lives. A couple of news stories and you claim to know the GOSPEL truth about Newt and his personal life with his family. But if the media says something negative about some one you don’t like well by gosh the media is just a bunch of lying so and so’s.
    Keep casting stones all you righteous know it all’s. Lord knows you are all perfect. Or, just to be fair, why don’t you tell us all the mistakes and screw ups you’ve done during your life so we can judge you and decide if YOU are worth listening too!

  • jswolter

    …how long we’ll have to listen to Perry’s loyals complain about Perry not winning the candidacy. I imagine, even if Romney or Newt win, that we’ll hear about it for the next four years.

    Votemout, you really should take into consideration the fact that Perry could not get close to the nomination as testament that he is not ready to be president at this juncture. This will make the next 4 years a lot easier on all of us.

  • rbdwiggins

    It’s not up to the voters of any state, rational or otherwise, to cast a primary ballot for any candidate that doesn’t share their core principles and passion.

    Apparently, Mitt thought that he could win the GOP nomination by courting the moderates and independents. Positioning himself in the middle for the general election while simultaneously ignoring the Republican base. Where else would they go in November? Ron Paul?

    He was wrong. Including his general election strategy, but that’s for another debate.

    Conservatism has been unleashed and thrust into the public discourse.

    It’s Obama’s worst nightmare…

    …and a requisite for the restoration of our free-market economy and the longevity of our constitutional republic.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    They are darn near impossible to click from the front page.

  • texastaxpayer

    No one invited your comment or attention…

  • jswolter

    …given the fact that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative while only 20% consider themselves liberal (and 40% consider themselves independent.

    Thus, to win the election, a conservative needs to excite their entire base while not alienating independents so that they split evenly. In contrast, a democrat has to excite independents and their base because a drop in either means they lose. Of course, Obama was able to do this in spades in 2008.

  • floridaveteran

    Slick Willy was impeached because he LIED to a federal grand jury. He was disbarred because he OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. See the difference? If not, the continue to be an Obamamite.

  • floridaveteran

    Newt make sure that he complied with the law to ensure he was not lobbying. Remember his ONE charge that the House voted for was he failed to ask legal advise on the IRS implications of his teaching course.

    Sounds like he learned his lesson! Also remember the IRS and the court absolved Newt of ANY wrong doing in that ONE charge.

  • Ausonius

    The MSM suppressed the most obvious problem with Clinton’s behavior, and the Republicans choked on it.

    The possibility of a hostile power blackmailing the president over his behavior: that is the difference between your next door neighbor fooling around at the local motel, and Clinton fooling around in the Oval Office.

    This is why homosexuals were seen as security risks in the good old days.

    As far as I am concerned, that is why Clinton should have been booted out.

  • jswolter

    You have to be invited?

  • Michael Dugas

    My basic problem with Mitt is one of trust. Trust that he has moved to the right and trust that he has the cajones and desire to wage the fight that is going to be needed to change DC and turn this economic mess around. I joke that Mitt can never be wrong because he’s been on both sides of every big issue. It’s a joke but it’s also true and I don’t mean little issues I mean HUGE issue like abortion and health care etc. He says he’s against Obama Care and it’s wrong on the federal level but there’s no passion in his voice and he has stuttered on that claim recently. He won’t even for a second admit to the problems Romney care cause Mass. like the huge spike in healthcare costs and the dumping of applicants into medicare etc. And with abortion I just don’t believe him. He has done SO much for Pro Choice advocates to placate voters in Massachusetts that all I see him as is a politician who will do and say whatever he has to to get and keep his elected position. No moral high ground that he will stand fast on, draw a line and say no further .
    Now Newt I see as a fighter. I don’t believe he is a DC insider and I believe he feels it was the Republican leadership and Congress members who are responsible for those “ethics” charges and the smear campaign that lost him his Speaker position. I think that may just be the motivation he has that WE need to change our wishy washy, no cajones GOP leadership we have in DC right now. I mean really, the GOP leadership, especially in the Senate, are so out of touch with the party voters it’s amazing. And they have NO FIGHT in them. It’s disgusting. Obviously Newt isn’t the perfect small government candidate I would want. But he’s head over heels a better fighter and communicator than Mitt. And at least twice as conservative.

  • texastaxpayer

    save it and skip to the next.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    Newt is.

    It is our RESPONSIBILITY as voters to judge which candidate has the character and background to best perform the office they are running for. Newt’s past behavior makes many of us believe he is unsuited to be President. If you don’t like that, too bad.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    You invite anyone on the planet to comment. Like me, for example.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    didn’t turn out to be such a great candidate after all.

  • votemout2012

    I could care less if the next 4 yrs of the Obama presidency will be easier for you. Perry didn’t get close b/c stupid ppl believed the MSM and Foxnews BS that Perry was some kind of clown instead of doing their home work. And I wouldn’t count on Newt or Romney winning this thing one week since Perry dropped out and ppl are already seeing the light.

  • Xasteius

    And hence Romney is a problem.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    even a tough, chewy Newt, especially if he were to choose a tasty conservative as VP.

    I get the impression that Romney is still courting moderates, the media and anyone he can convince to like him. Of course, they’re playing him and will turn on him should he be the nominee.

    At this point, Newt doesn’t really care about being liked. Frankly, it may even end up being a plus for conservatives the more folks attack him. He’ll be good and ticked off and have nothing to lose in fighting Obama, liberals, and even the GOP establishment and RINO’s, realizing that the conservative base are the ones who have his back.

  • jswolter

    …value is in the eye of the beholder.

    I think my suggestion for Perry supporters to come to term with the possibility that Perry’s loss means he is not ready to be president has immense value. If Perry supporters follow it, they’ll have less angst and frustration and I won’t have to read endless (and valueless) comments about how the remaining Republican field is useless and that we’ve resigned ourselves to another 4 years of the anointed one. Can’t you see the value there?

  • jswolter

    votemout, I don’t think people considered Perry a clown. They simply considered him someone who could not articulate his personal beliefs. That’s a flaw that has many implications and created enough unease that people were not willing to give him a second look or passing thought.

    You really should take a moment to stop deflecting and consider how Perry tanked his own candidacy. Then in light of that, consider how Romney and Newt have managed to avoid these same pitfalls. Tip: Avoid thinking in conspiratorial terms…this kind of thinking is likely to drive you to be a Ron Paul supporter.

  • WillWong

    All these guys that you had mentioned do not want to be a loser and would rather wait until 2016.

    Anyone who hasn’t got tne cahunas to jump in at the start shouldn’t even be considered in my opinion.

    I was never really a Newt fan but had seen how he strapped his campaign with his bootstraps and pulled himself back into contention, one debate at a time. Love him or hate him, he has shown himself to be a fighter par excellence.

    Unless any of you do not mind 4 more years of Obama, i really suggest we let this current field play it out and once we get a nominee, to pour our heart and soul behind that nominee. I didn’t think i will say this but if Romney or Ron Paul is the nominee, i will work my but off for either of them. I will work harder than I have ever done before because it is thst important and Obama is that bad!

  • texastaxpayer

    So really don’t see any value in dropping my personal opinions and adopting yours. Frankly I don’t care if you feel Perry supporters should “get over it” . I also don’t care if you feel we are unnecessarily frustrated with the rest of the field. Nor do I care that you don’t share our view that the only president in the field has left the race. Just like you don’t care that I believe this. My original post simply turned your complaint back on you and pointed out the voluntary nature of your participation. Surely you can see the “value” of exercising your free will to read or not read posts of your choosing. Just as I see the “value” in expressing my opinion whether you like it or not.

  • mboyle1988

    confuse me. All Rick Perry had to do was not sound like a moron. That’s it. He didn’t have to impress anyone in the debates. He just had to not sound like a moron. He failed. He didn’t have “an oops moment”. He had an oops campaign.

    It is unfathomable to me why people on this site support Gingrich over Romney.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    by restoring economic health to our country, thus proving that the liberal solution attempted by Obama failed.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    of his character flaws through his reckless conduct while in previous high offices. See the similarity?

  • Locke

    You said “I can

  • rhampton

    the economic crisis would have occurred anyway.

    Ending ObamaCare moves the debt clock back only a year or two (2008 debt plus all non-healthcare debt after 2008). In addition, a report by the House Budget Committee (

  • Locke

    Bain attack on Mitt, and then point out that what he has done is something Mitt himself could not and could never do.

    And similarly for his “rightwing social engineering” remark, except that the conclusion would be that Ryan could well have responded similarly, but had reasons for not doing so that reflect well on him.

  • Locke

    nt

  • votemout2012

    How about this I don’t not like any of these candidates and it is Pathetic that this is our choice when it would have been a solid win for conservatism. Please don’t try to explain to me how I think. Ron Paul really? I would say he would be the anti-Perry. If you don’t like my comments you are FREE to not read them. Bye-bye

  • AceInTX

    I was just thinking the other day that Newt needs a redemption message as a way to bridge the gap with SoCons….nothing will get a SoCon teary eyed more than a good and believable redemption story about a lost sheep returning to the fold….

    A word of caution however…SoCons are pretty quick to recognize a phoney conversion and they won’t be easily convinced a second time if you burn them with a phoney redemption story…so you’ve only got one shot at this Newt!

  • snowshooze

    Ouch. Glad he isn’t mad at me.

  • Xasteius

    no text

  • jswolter

    …that Perry was not a victim. He created his own destiny in the campaign.

    Also, I do “care” about your opinions and beliefs. Hence, the reason I commented on your post.

    I’ll take into consideration that you do not care about anything I have to think or say and direct my comments to those that do.

  • jswolter

    Regarding Ron Paul, that was my point exactly.

    Regarding telling you how you think, I wasn’t. I was pointing out that Perry’s failure is of his own making. Not nefarious media outlets.

    Regarding the other candidates, there’s more to each of them then you are giving credit for.

    Regarding your comment about my freedom to not read comments, same to ya.

  • Adjoran

    Newt is in denial about what he did for Freddie Mac and every other firm he contracted with after leaving the House. He is in denial about the circumstances under which he left the House.

    He has repeated other sins over and over, and expects them to be expigated by simply admitting “mistakes” as in his coalition with Pelosi and disparaging of the Ryan Budget (although never for denigrating conservatives who didn’t agree with him on Dede, who later turned on us), but not apologizing in any way.

    Anyone can see a mistake was a mistake after the fact. Confession and forgiveness doesn’t mean no consequences for the mistakes.

    Even if he were somehow to make all these things right, they would still be factors, and he would still be Newt. He lacks the requisite administrative experience, the temperament, and the character to be President, and he can only win if the economy is so bad that a pile of dog poop could beat Obama.

  • bs61

    Socialized healthcare is not something we can accept!

  • snappy101

    Nah, it’s still a vote against the Republican Machine for forcing Mitt Romney on us. It just happens to benefit Newt because of his debating skills. He’d make a lousy president.

  • DocJohn

    Obomacare is the crown jewel of massive government control. Simply looking at its dollar cost is naive at best. If Obomacare is allowed to stand, even in part, nothing else is possible in reigning in the federal government. If you control people’s health, you control ALL aspects of society. It is THE primary issue of this election and it dwarfs all others, and our very freedoms are wholely dependent on its outright and total repeal, regardless what the Supreme Court does in June. If and until Romney repudiates Romneycare as a total failure, I cannot support him or believe he would demand total repeal of Obomacare.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …by both being ignored and being bashed.

    No analysis is complete unless it accommodates that observation.

  • paco12348

    I’ll take Newt with all his warts. Jesus isn’t running.

  • radicalrighty

    Just as “jackass” may be less than respectful, so is rubbing salt in the wound of Perry supporters, who very much admire, and even love the man.

    Tit for tat.

  • DocJohn

    And certainly no president can “create a job”. If you would take your pious glasses off and actually hear what Newt says about jobs:
    “… we created an environment where the American People created millions of new jobs…”
    The ONLY jobs that a government can actually “create” are public sector union jobs that “drain” resources from the economy as opposed to contributing to it.
    For you disappointed Perry supporters, some red meat – I absolutely loved his idea of a “part-time” congress – that more than anything terrified the GOP elitists, IMHO. The very thought of the “citizen-legislator” is so utterly foreign to these power-mad elitists, that they just could not support the good Gov. On the other hand, I implore you to consider the considerable common ground Perry shares with the man he endorsed – not to mention the shared enemies.

  • In The Hook

    I don’t mean “we” the voters, though we did ourselves no favor in pushing Pawlenty and Perry out of the race. I mean “we” in terms of our leaders. Our “A” team took a pass on this race and we should be forever incensed by that. Where’s Jindal? Why did Mitch let his wife push him around? What about Christie? Why couldn’t Pence or Ryan jump on board?

    We shouldn’t take this out on Romney, or even the establishment. They are not the reason that everyone who would strike the best tone and have the best experience to defeat Obama decided they wouldn’t rise to the challenge.

  • score333

    Will Rogers said during the Depression, “What this Country needs is some Good Honest Failures, we’ve got enough Successful people and look where that’s got Us”.

  • malvernpa

    Conservatives are not dumb. If you want to stage a world wide defeat of freedom and do so with some people cheering you on then support AGW and make a boogy man out of CO2. Our planet can be called Earth or the water planet or the carbon planet. Most life is carbon based. So on a sofa Newt and Pelosi make the case for cap and trade. However Newt realizes that is the wrong position and on his web site very clearly makes the point that he is not on the AGW support list. Romney on the other hand says global warming is going on and that man has something to do with that. That is the deal breaker with me and Romney and I do not think I am alone. Will I vote for Romney over Obama,,, yes will I watch every move he makes,,, yes.

  • celador2

    The spiritual associations of a path to salvation by the author reflect views of a person who has found his savior , political that is. But the rest of the rationale is speculating beyond the evidence.

    Newt Gingrich has had a comeback many times and maybe that is a sign of —gasp!

    Voters in SC exit polls liked a loud angry guy who attacks enemies while standing in a media stage in a ‘debate’. Newt Gingrich can sock it to Obama on a stage and , hey man! Who can ask for anything more.

    That is the only qualification Gingrich supporters SC cared about for president.

  • tealady69

    I would agree with bluerose75, check out your facts….his daughters who should know have reputed such claims. However you see redemption, I believe it as Newt has professed. And if he is wrong, God will have the last word. The world and the U.S. is messed up big time, but what’s new? We will never have peace, there never has been in this world since the beginning of time, and so the best we can hope for is someone to delay the inevitable. Our best chance is with Newt. And the filfth put forth by those who don’t check out the facts, is just that and I am not persuaded.

  • In The Hook

    Actually, the fact of the matter is that this strikes me as exactly the wrong reason to vote for somebody.

  • In The Hook

    But mboyle is right. Perry immediately jumped to the front of the pack when he announced. All he had to do is confirm that he was indeed what people were expecting and that’s about it. He failed to do that and was not ready for a national campaign.

    That’s not anything shameful since he was basically begged to get in, but let’s call a spade a spade.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    We offer redemption on the basis of confession and repentance. It appears that Speaker Gingrich has settled down. He acknowledges what he did, and he acknowledges that it was wrong. It’s been ten years and there does not appear to be any resurgence of the unacceptable behavior. We understand sexual addictions, we know that they compel people to act in a manner that is inconsistent with their morals, and we know that it is possible to recover from such things. That’s why we can accept Speaker Gingrich’s past misbehavior; he seems to have recovered.

    Now, Romney:

    I don’t fail to forgive him for a change of heart about abortion. However, abortion is far from being the only problem. He claims to have been a conservative governor with a progressive legislature, but his discretionary actions, those not demanded or forced by the legislature, are no less progressive than the ones that were forced. We know, therefore, that Governor Romney adjusts his acts to suit the electorate for the sake of keeping peace. We have no indication that this has changed about him; every indicator says that he is still adjusting his rhetoric to suit the electorate to whom he is playing.

    No repentance means no redemption.

    End of discussion.

  • Ann_W

    In this new diary– Newt Gingrich on Romneycare in 2006. Written by In the Hook.

    So Newt supported it, if he were the Gov. he would have tried it. So Newt is as bad as Romney in that area, + add in immoral, attacking Paul Ryan, and being an unfocused, and chaotic leader.

    I don’t understand why people think he is a good idea.

  • Ann_W

    Marianne says he hasn’t. Plus he’s attacking her. Maybe like everything else in his life Newt is saying he repented for show.

  • Ann_W

    Not a very conservative principle. Neither was attacking free enterprise, which is what he did going out.

  • mizzou1776

    The Oil lobby had a tribune in Perry & he had war chest in return. If only Perry had been able to hack the campaign. Perhaps he is all-too-human. The men that survive these contests are suspect as “humans”; including Reagan.

  • JSobieski

    and not just look for the word “mandate” within it.

  • blark

    While the analysis here on the topic of redemption is interesting, and while christians will agree that the matter of redemption, spritually speaking, has to do with salvation and is between God and the individual, and is made available through GRACE, by faith in the atonement of His son, Jesus Christ and sincere repentance. Reasonable christians will conclude that the decision regarding Newt and the nomination and fitness of the trust of the presidency of our country is very different matter than spiritual redemption and salvation. Reasonable christians can forgive and believe in forgiveness, but still make a reasonable judgement of about the trust they place in an individual. As a matter of Christian Principle, I believe that a child molester can be forgiven, redeemed, and based upon the principles of repentance, gain spiritual salvation –but only God has the wisdom to sort that out and determine sincerity of heart. If that proven child molester sought the position to care for my children, I would reasonably decline them that opportunity. In doing that, I am in now way denying the possibility of their redemption, just that for me, I cannot make a sufficient judgement of that matter to grant them current trust with my children. Newt, and many in his rolling momentum, are serving up a new flavor of koolaid called “Newt Redeption” and would have us see his redemption in terms of his “pain” and “mistakes” and “divorce” –afterall, he would say, “who hasn’t suffered these things or know someone who has suffered these things, etc…” The fact is, there is no deception and dishonesty in “pain” and even in “divorce” –which is the way Newt would like to characterize his past. “Pain” and “Divorce” do not nearly adequately describe over a decade of deception, on two seperate occasions, of carrying on an affair with women other than the one he was married to. These were not “oops, I jad a moment of mistake”, Rather, they were long, sustained, patterns of dishonesty and lack of basic personal integrity –by him, and also by the women involved. And now, he would have us think that he has undergone a conversion or redemption. Reasonable christians, even those who understand and believe in spiritual redemption, are not drinking the koolaid, but unfortunately many are. I see no evidence, other than his words (which he is very good at) that he his conversion to Catholisism is anything more than a conversion of convenience –faith of his Mistress-turned-wife, and a reasonable faith for one who would seek the presidency! Look at his financial contributions to that church. Given his level of wealth, the percent he gives to God (through his church) is pathetic, and hardly represents a humble person who feels deep remorse about past wrongs, etc.. I think it will be amazing, if New gets the nomination, that for the first time in a long time, the Democrats (with the Obama’s as their poster family) will have the moral high ground on family values. That will be an interesting twist that all the bold conservatism speech will not be able to overcome. And it will be 4 more years of Obama.

  • hls87

    He attacked the bnusiness model and practices of Bain Capital. Bain was not about free enterprise. It was about self-dealing by the financial/governmental elite. It was about exploiting lax fraudulent transfer rules in the bankruptcy code and the opportunites created by bad monetary policyt to fleece the financial system. MItt Romney was no more a capitalist than the Russian oil billionaires who got their start as Communist Party hacks.

  • celador2

    When we stand in Grace we stand in the Light. Love of GOD’s creations do we value and serve in community. I want to share again the story of John Newton the former slave ship captain who repented his sins and spent a life time serving the Lord as an ordained minister working for abolition of slavery and ending the slave trade earlier. The hymn AMAZING GRACE is accociated with the the Rev Newton. He inspired many by his works and repentance.

    Abolition of slavery was a colllaborative effort on both sides of the Atlantic over many years. Membership in that club was broad and wide. And it was driven by people of many faiths with a righteous zeal that soared!

    A moment that stands out as a turning point is when the British government considered recognizing the Confederacy. Afterall the Rebels as US called them had cotton and Great Britain had mills.

    The workers in northern England united on the side of free labor and protested against recognizing the US south depite the cotton for the mills. Unitarians in north who had worked to ban slave trade in Liverpool came forth in protest. Evangelicals inside and out the Church of England and Dissenters said NO. Evangelicals drove Abolition.

    The dying Prince consort, Albert age 42 joined the abolitionist effort not to recognize the US south effort in 1861. He had spent his entire life married to Victoria doing good works. She never recovered from his death. Albert wrote a memo to the government urging they not recognize the Confederacy.

    The British government did not. The Confederacy had arrived and flopped.

    On this side of the Atlantic fellow abolitionists took heart just as did the new US president Lincoln and govenment. They had had some set backs of late.

    The abolitionists were motivated by GOD’s grace and love. They were driven by faith. And for all their harshness and uncompromising views and actions they would fight wars to end slavery and allow for free labor. Free labor requires free markets and personal responsibility. In other words abolition would allow for more participation in self government.

    I see the ‘radical Republicans’ and similar ones before and after the civil war including Gen and later pres Grant, I must say that it gets no better than this!

  • hls87

    He made some mistakes, they all do. His problem, ultimately, was not that he couldn’t articulate his beliefs but that very few voters shared them. Republican voters like big government and so we are stuck with big government candidates. Fox et al. played a role in helping to marginalize the small government message. “Conservative” media deserve a share of the blame for that. But what Perry’s failure (and Fred’s before him) really says is that Republican voters prefer bad candidates to good ones. As long as that’s the case, America will be stuck with two progressive parties, both of which are intent on driving us over a cliff and politics will be pointless except as light entertainment.

  • mizzou1776

    Essentially Romney is our David Cameron. I am sure he regards Reaganism with disdain to this day. His father certainly ran against Goldwater. Cameron could have had a Tory majority if he ran a straightforward campaign. His opponent was wounded almost as bad as Nixon after Watergate. But Cameron ran away from Thatcherism: result a coalition that allowed him to dispense with the Conservative Manifesto (such as it is over there). Unencumbered by the tentets of his party Cameron set out to neuter the true Conservatives. By the Grace of God he failed. Will Romney succeed in America?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    justifying why the model is illegitimate. They attack the “model” and then point to unemployed people and point the finger of blame at Romney and Bain as if only but for Romney and Bain, the unemployed would still be employed. It is a totally disingenuous attack that serves to discredit free enterprise. But what it mainly shows is that Perry and Newt got desperate and bore false witness against Romney’s character.

  • Ann_W

    He reshaped troubled companies to the point that they had a much better success rate than than troubled companies generally do. In fact the venture capital people at Bain had a better success rate than companies simply asking for a loan. You don’t know what you are talking about. A risky job of turning co.’s around will have some failures. It”s why you and I probably don’t put our money in troubled companies, but he did and succeeded better than the companies would have on their own. The WSJ did an article on their success rates.

  • circlegranch

    be considered a form of ‘influence peddling’? It’s reported that Mr. Romney’s PAC’s donated to important campaigns leading up to this primary season. Specific county GOP organizations, especially in NH, benefitted from his PAC money. Nikki Haley and Terry Branstad, both governors of early primary states rec’d donations, as well as a long list of city, county, state and federal politicians in several states. A number of these individuals have come forward to endorse Mr. Romney. In the case of Nikki Haley, reports vary but her campaign supposedly rec’d somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 from PAC’s supporting Mr. Romney.

    On one hand, Romney is protected and defended when questions about Bain are raised because its unpatriotic to ever put capitalist practices under scrutiny. Just ask Rush–its not done in polite conservative company. But, as Newt points out, his consulting with Fannie and Freddie was done as a private citizen. He was hired to do do a job and was paid for it. That’s the free market system at work. Romney and his supporters don’t want free markets questioned when he’s involved but has no restraint in criticizing Newt for a legal exchange of work for money. Newt has released his reports written and his contract. He has quoted members of Congress that dispute Romney’s claims. The questions initially raised about Bain are left untouched because the very asking was so repulsive, no responses were required. The questions of whether or not the federal govt. bailed out any of the companies and the request of documentation about numbers of jobs created and whether or not they were created during Mr. Romney’s active involvement at Bain created a fever pitch among Republicans to a level unseen in years.

    If asked about the coincidence between his PAC’s donating to a number of key GOP pol’s and the subsequent endorsements many have given him, we’d be told the truth; its all perfectly legal, which, of course, it is. It’s perfectly acceptable for money to exchange hands in this respect, just as there were no laws prohibiting the contractural relationship Newt had with Fannie/Freddie.

    The question remains, if one form of the free market is influence peddling, can the same definition be assigned to the other?

  • brojohn2

    I read these comments and wonder what it is we conservative people are looking for. If it is perfection, well there was only one who was perfect and he was nailed to a cross and killed because the “establishment” couldn’t stand to lose power. Of course in the end it meant that all we who ARE NOT PERFECT could find redemption through that death.

    There are none who are perfect, no not one, we are left to choose between imperfect men who are running against one who would destroy our nation. Stop already with the I can’t support this or that one, and support the one you can. Let people vote for who they can support, and whoever our candidate is, GET INVOLVED, and support them until Obama is defeated. Let’s come together and stop trashing those who are running to be our candidate in November. Our target is to win more seats in the House and Senate, and to defeat Obama. The rest of this stuff is trash. Gingrich, is flawed, so what. Romney is flawed, again so what. Who is perfect, if you can find them, get them to run! For me, I wanted Perry, now I will support Newt, I lived through his indescretions and through the contract with America. I think he has repented of those things that are wrong in his past, and I think he will make a better president than the others in this race. I will support him, without trashing the rest o the field.

  • hls87

    And then Romney made people accutely aware that Perry doesn’t worship at the alter of Social Security. As soon as it was widely known that Perry has serious reservations about a federal government that promises to care for us all, his candidacy was doomed. The debates, the immigration flap and all the rest was just noise. Perry was a genuine conservative who seriously wanted to change the status quo in Washington. There is a small constituency for that in the Republican Party, and much of it is committed to the lunatic candidacy of Ron Paul. Perry had no runniung room.

    This doesn’t mean Perry wasn’t ready for the national stage. It means that the national stage isn’t ready for him, which strongly suggests that we’re doomed. We’re about to go over the fiscal falls. We can’t save ourselves without a profound redefinition of the role of government in our society. We won’t get that redefinition as long as Republicans mess about with pointless candidates like Gingrich and Romney. GOP voters have no interest in grappling with the problems that are about to destroy us; that’s a tragedy.

  • hls87

    have no idea what the term means. Very few Americans are possessed of an ideological compass and many of the ideolgical compasses in circulation are broken. Voting behaviour is not rational. There is no ideolgical path to a general election victory.

  • hls87

    Neither. What did I win?

  • celador2

    blark, I appreciate your deep and dense analysis on redemption and its being possible. But we need not trust that person in every way. Dante reserved the last rung fo hell for treachery. Can Newt keep his word in his heart?

    I do not see Newt Gingrich as a trustworthy candidate at this point. I do not see his life as a shing example of redemption or his performance at debates as inspiring or reflecting qualities it takes to actually do what he says.

    Should Gingrich be rewarded with the nomination? His supporters do not care about much more than his ability to fling zappy comments at Obama and Media on camera.

    I liked four whom I saw as having both a moral foundation and who were constituional conservatives. Bachmann, Cain, Paul and Perry. combined they would make a knock out punch that would fly high.

    The GOP will not be a party of family values if its members do not value them and give unconditional waivers when convenient.
    Newt has never apologized to anyone in public. His personal life is off limits.

    If Romney wins and Christie is VP we will be a party of Romneycare v Obamacare. Gov Chrisite refused to join NJ to 26 state law suits against Obamacare. R says he will repeal but only Bachmann knows Obamacare inside and out and would see through repeal.

    But, I can see why in this day and age of media some who dislike Obama might find Gingrich’s words and tone reassuring. They see sellouts in DC and Newt, no longer an insider, is now going to change that trend of going native. He will take ‘em all on!

    .

  • Aaron Gardner

    This post wasn’t about supporting Newt, it merely my read on the mood and what I see as a driving force of Newt’s current appeal.

    I clearly point out that we don’t, and won’t, know whether his redemption story is worth a hill of beans until later. Furthermore, I point out that the circumstances, a sluggish economy and 3 years of overbearing and intrusive government, have made people less apprehensive about picking a flawed candidate.

    I swear, sometimes it is like people don’t even read what is written.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA….

    Thanks, I really needed that laugh to start my day.

  • geah

    this stop. Sarah did not run for her own reason, and yet she gets blamed, wonder what you would have said IF she had run. I really think it would have been GO HOME Sarah.

  • Aaron Gardner

    ;)

  • rdcjr

    CONSERVATIVE in the White House or the flawed Marxist we now have. It strikes me as odd that many here, on a conservative site, do not seem to understand the idea of a flawed man being touched by the hand of God. This touch leading to admitting ones sins, asking for forgiveness, and by God’s grace and mercy receiving total and absolute forgiveness. Which then starts the process of redemption. Is it really this hard for people here to see that Gingrich’s conversion is a powerful statement that God is no respecter of persons. God no longer sees Gingrich’s past sins yet many here dwell on them. How many of us have been as pure and white as the falling snow? Before we continue to cast these stones I suggest we look into the mirror. Newt ain’t perfect thats for sure. But his past infidelities are not a sound basis for judging his ability to fix this train wreck created by Obama, Reid & Pelosi.

  • circlegranch

    Painfully, we remember the McCain campaign trying to muffle Sarah Palin’s attempts to expose the candidate Obama. McCain was adamant that origin of birth, political background, friends and associations, the real estate purchase details of his home, troubling quotes from his autobiographies, et al, were off limits. No one in his campaign was allowed to ‘attack’ Obama on such issues. Meanwhile, Obama’s team ridiculed McCain for not being able to type on a keyboard because of injuries sustained as a POW, cornered him on the number of houses he owned (another debate brain freeze moment) and a host of other personal affronts.

    Even last night, Romney told Hannity after the SOTU speech that Obama just doesn’t understand the American people and our economy. According to Romney, our president is just a naive, hapless fellow that ended up president before he was qualified. It’s all good—he’s just uninformed and ill-advised. We just need to politely nudge him aside and elect Romney and we’ll let the adults take over govt again. This need not be anything other than civility, kid-glove handling and never speaking ill (or truth telling) about the opponent. It’s McCain 2008 in reruns.

    If Newt wins the nomination, he will be well equipped to start exposing the president’s background as well as his record in the Oval Office, and the kid gloves will be in the trash can. All the bad news about him that Americans should have been told before voting in ’08 will be told now. If scorned ex-wives and an ill-conceived episode of playing pattycake with Pelosi on a couch are fair game, so is the treasure trove of negatives on Obama that while unearthed, has yet to be exposed on the national stage (i.e., debate stage and in TV ads).

    Our 2008 nominee was too polite, too timid and too fearful to tell the nation the truth before it was too late, Part II of that horror movie is being released now in a theater near you, starring Willard Mitt Romney. It’s all too familar. In ’08, Gov. Charlie Crist of FL played a big role in McCain winning the nomination. Today, he’s consulting with Romney’s team. Floridians returned the favor when Crist ran for the Senate and voters sent him packing in favor of Marco Rubio.

    Win or lose–both the nomination and presidency—Newt Gingrich WILL tell America the truth about our president’s past and his current record. As evidenced by enthusiastic applause at the SC debates, we are suffering from a perpetual belly ache from the sugar-coated, non-stop dessert buffet served over and over by the elites in the GOP. We want red meat. Perferably raw.

    As for not offending the dear and delicate Independents among us, they are going down with the ship along with the rest of us. It’s past time for them to hear the truth, too. It is most likely the case that having only been spoonfed those sugary treats that they are independent and can’t take a stand one way or another. We blur the lines in our society on everything–churches that soften the message to draw in bigger crowds. Schools dumb down curriculum and deliberately leave out the truth on the environment and American history so as not to offend or confuse young minds. Youth sports leagues have long ago stopped keeping score and intead, make sure everybody gets a trophy for ‘effort’. Men, especially fathers, are portrayed as idiots and useless annoyances on our TV shows and commercials because manliness is so passe. Everywhere in our society we can point to efforts being made not to tell the truth. Donald Trump ignited the conservative base when he was bold and brash enough to tell the truth. No one else in this race has been able to rally the troops so fervently since–other than Newt.

    Newt has nothing to lose. He recongizes the dire circumstances in America and he’s never been guided by popularity polls. He will speak the truth. Like the rest of us, he’s far from perfect and he may well not ever be president, but it is my hope that for the sake of America, he does spend these next several months telling us the truth. If he accomplishes only that in this race, he will have served his country well.

    Add to your reading list for today: “Gingrich Frames the Debate” by Peter Ferrara http://www.spectator.org 1/25/12 edition

  • Finrod

    See the front page today.

  • acat

    By “fixing” Obamacare?

    By raising the gas tax?

    By implementing a VAT?

    None of these are anti-conservative per se*…but they’re all not what conservatives are looking for.

    Mew

    * I don’t see a way to actually fix Obamacare without keeping the mandate … the numbers just don’t work without it… and requiring insurance as a part of citizenship is not notably conservative…

  • levtannen

    Hello everybody. I am new on this blog and I ask you to forgive my naivety and my poor English.
    But what amaze me is how you like labels. How you like to attach a label to a complex problem and then to stamp a person with that label without even trying to see what is under the label.
    Newt supported personal health mandate, so he is not a conservative! But personal mandate only now became a symbol of fight with the Obama Health Care. It use not to be such a symbol. Quite opposite. It was invented to fight with the idea of government provided health care. There is nothing liberal in the idea that people should pay for their health care rather then to receive it from government. But when a person without an insurance goes to a hospital and request care he does exactly that. Receives care without payment. Only the way how Democrats twisted that idea made it liberal and unconstitutional. So support for personal mandate in the past does not make Mr.Gingrich less conservative.
    Newt suggested that Global Warming is real. Again. Originally it was a scientific problem. Some scientist suggested that the earth is warming up and the cause of this warming was the human activity. People naturally became worry. It would be stupid not to become worry. Democrats stood up, made Global Warming their battle cry and messed up with the science to the point that now it is impossible to find out the truth. Global Warming became a test on being conservative. But it was not in time when Mr.Gingrich supported it.
    I am not suggesting that Mr.Gingrich is saint, but am suggesting that we have to see a real person in real time, not labels put on him by his opponents.

  • Finrod

    Turns out there wasn’t any ‘there’ there. What the House fined him $300K for, the IRS said Newt didn’t do anything wrong:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

  • Finrod

    Therefore Newt is better than Romney when it comes to ObamaCare. QED.

  • Juggernaut

    Makes Mitt look bad once again……..and he’s still breaking the Reagan rule, oh well, its a bloodmatch with a libertarian racist fulfilling his “Bucket List”.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/new-freddie-mac-contract-prohibits-lobbying-activities/

    Newt Gingrich was specifically prevented from lobbying Congress on behalf of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 1999 and the early 2000s, according to a contract released Tuesday by the firm he founded.

    The contract, which covered services rendered by the Gingrich Group from May 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, states specifically: “Nothing herein is or shall be construed as an agreement to provide lobbying services of any kind or engage in lobbying activities.”

    The document continues, “Newt Gingrich and Group do not provide lobbying services of any kind and do not engage in lobbying activities. Neither The Gingrich Group nor Newt Gingrich will provide lobbying services of any kind nor participate in lobbying activities of Freddie Mac’s behalf.”

    The release of the contract comes one day after the Gingrich Group released a separate contract with Freddie Mac, covering work beginning in 2006. That document did not contain the explicit no-lobbying provisions, stating only that Gingrich’s firm was contracted to “provide consulting and related services” to Freddie Mac.

    The 1999-2000 document offered more specifics about Gingrich’s services. Among the firm’s duties were serving as “advisor to Freddie Mac in areas of strategic planning and public policy,” “meeting with major stakeholders of Freddie Mac to discuss business and public policy issues,” and engaging “in discussions with Mitchell Delk and other senior officers of Freddie Mac.”

  • daune

    That’s what Mitt said a few days ago. If that is the kind of fight we can expect from him if he becomes the nominee, then we will lose if Mitt wins. i still remember, and still cringe with the memory of McCain condescendingly lecturing an elderly woman about how Obama was a “nice” man, not a socialist and that we shouldn’t be afraid of him. Well, we got Obama, and guess what – I’m afraid, I’m VERY afraid. We don’t need yet another holier than thou nominee. We need someone who has made mistakes, and understands all too well that those mistakes exist in others as well. We need someone who has been bad enough to recognize that vice in others. Gingrich says he knows he’s done things wrong – if he has learned from that as he claims – he will be a far better fighter for conservatism than a man who is incapable of calling a snake a snake.

  • celador2

    Mariane says Newt Gingrich has never apologized. He has never apologized to the public who might have felt deceived by his many betrayals and actions. His line is that his personal life is off limits. He does say he has made peace with GOD, something like that.

    His supporters agree that is all that is needed as his personal life is private. Newt does admit he did some stupid things over the years though, in the public arena, ad with Pelosi and Fannie andFreddie.

    The founders had a debate on does personal lifie matter for public officials. And most agreed we can not wall off a personal life and say its not related. Dr Benjamin Rush was a strong advocate for having a personal and public lifie in line.

    What troubles me is that its even an issue.

  • texashistorian

    you make. We tend to have a litmus test attitude around here towards candidates. I would be much more concerned about Newt if his supposed non-conservative positions on issues were things he actually crafted legislatively and/or worked to get passed when he was in the House.

  • stardustsara

    shame on rush. gingrich is a phony and his moral character is dreadful. who is adelson – what is his history – that is what amazes me. this man owns many casinos which cannot be done without knowing certain people.???????? does nancy pelosi know something

  • stardustsara

    shame on rush. gingrich is a phony and his moral character is dreadful. who is adelson

  • edintexas

    Romney

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    back in the day …

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/24/145730393/gingrich-wisely-left-rockefeller-off-his-conservative-resume

    Gingrich moved right to cater to his district and move up the GOP ladder.

  • edintexas

    how the MSM continually noted Clinton’s extra marital affairs? Or made a point of giving Prime Time interviews to the woman who stated that Clinton raped her? Or provided extensive coverage of the allegation that Clinton exposed himself to a female State employee while Governor?

    That’s what I thought.

  • WillWong

    I noticed a disturbing trend over the last three years. Obama is getting bolder and bolder with his lies. He is not even bothered with half truths.

    Like taking credit for the troops success in Iraq after he had been resolutely against the surge…..

    Promising that the unemployment rate will clib over 8% if his stimulus plan wasn’t passed and blaming Bush when it actually reached 10% despite the stimulus….

    Lying about Congress being the Do Nothing Congress when it was his own administration that has done nothing….

    Lying about having done the most for Israel when in fact he had done the most in weakening Israel….

    Question is who can remember all his lies when the MSM fails to call him out? There are a few ads out that uses Obama’s words against himself. Looks effective but far in between. If Newt wins the nomination, do you think the GOP will support him 100% or just let him fail?

  • carolynr

    I really believe that you have tapped into this momentum that Gingrich has going now. Being major paper blogs, I have noticed that many, many people have stated that they were mistaken for their vote for Obama. They, by their vote, feel responsible in some way for the State of the Union…and I don’t mean Obama’s speech.

    We all have sinned. Without sin there would be no need for redemption or for that matter, GOD. One learns, if they have morals, from their mistakes, their sins. How many times have I wished that I could take a word back…but it was too late. I felt terrible and the only thing I could do is apologize and not do it again. For those that are immoral, well they fall into the category of sociopaths.

    Gingrich is by far not a perfect candidate, however, without his intent, I believe Gingrich has shown exactly what Aaron is talking about. We can change into a better society, a better model and we all know and believe that because each and every one of us that has made mistakes or sinned has gone one of two ways. They have corrected the behavior or they continue to repeat it. Obama is a perfect example of the latter.

    Add to this what Kitty (acat) said referring to his metaphor with eggs and bacon and America sees a light at the end of this tunnel, albeit, dim. With Romney, there is NO SUBSTANCE. His campaign is exactly like last night’s State of the Union Address…a rehash of the same old s**t. It won’t fly…we know it won’t fly and no matter how one “looks like the president”…America is waking up to the fact that looking like one and being one are two different things.

  • barleycorn

    And your “poor English” is more than compensated for by your clear thoughts.

    Caught up in the deluge of anger caused by Obamacare most folks don’t understand how the “individual mandate” issue has morphed over the past few years.

    In a diary entry back on December 29 I discussed this very point.

    http://www.redstate.com/barleycorn/2011/12/29/romney-is-right-but-mainly-wrong-about-an-individual-mandate/

  • liveforadrenaline

    If you can name one thing Romney has EVER done for Conservatives, then vote for him.

    Gingrich, on the other hand, has done some wierd stuff, but he has also ACCOMPLISHED a lot for Conservatives… with his Contract and a balanced budget and wins in the House.

    If he wasn’t stabbed in the back by incredibly lame members of Congress, and his own party, like Boehner, then he would have continued to do the right thing. At least, that is my opinion based on the fact that I remember his term in Congress very well.

  • Finrod

    Your prose will be more legible once you learn the fine art of Capitalization.

  • Finrod

    I’ve disagreed with you many times in the past, but not this time– you’re dead on in just about everything you wrote here.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    begins with the line “Angels are singing redemption’s sweet song.” We are all fortunate beyond measure to have redemption available to us.

    Thank you for the beautifully written diary and your continued efforts to promote conservatism.

  • cbartlett

    We MUST repeal Obamacare! I worry that deep-down, Mitt doesn’t really want it repealed because it would sort of look like he was admitting that Romneycare might have been bad. He will still not say that Romneycare shouldn’t have happened. Obama will kill him on this.

    Also – while I have no problem with Romney’s success in a capitalistic system, I fear that there are millions of voters that will fall for the Obama/Democratic class-envy mentality that will cover the airwaves if he is the nominee. The class-envy crap will trump the possibly-redeemed-adulterer crap.

    I have about decided that if Romney is the GOP establishment choice – that may be the best reason to vote for Newt. I’m tired of them running the show and screwing up the economy. Time to give someone else a chance to fix it.

  • cbartlett

    The fact that the out-of-touch GOP leadership is against Newt, seems to be a very good reason to vote FOR him! I just hate to “hand” Romney to them, like they expect. Think we did that with McCain and we all know how well that worked out….

  • soljerblue

    More jobs, less spending, lower debt…all these are vitally important. But Obamacare represents the largest intrusion into the personal liberty of Americans in my lifetime. It’s a wide-open door to rationed care and bureaucrats running a lottery with the lives of senior citizens and those with chronic care issues. This is totally unacceptable to me. Therefore. Mitt Romney is totally unacceptable to me because of his refusal to aknowledge his error in getting Romneycare in MA, and his claim that it was a model for Obamacare.

    I might also add that one of Romney’s top staffers said as recently as this week that his boss will not, as president, try to repeal that monstrosity.

  • davidmadison

    Let me guess… You’re a Ron Paul supporter, aren’t you?

  • davidmadison

    I personally believe in spiritual and personal redemption. I believe Mr. Gingrich has made the effort to amend his past and, has moved forward in his life with greater respect for others.

    What gets me is that, there are people who can’t get past other folks’ mistakes but will honestly expect us to overlook theirs, when they are caught up by them.

    May the hell you condemn others to be the very one you find yourself in.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    I’m condemning him to Georgia.

  • Xasteius

    Romney, Ross Perot, and Donald Trump are corporate raiders. True, the system that allows them to ply their trade is a free system and has its faults, and it probably better than a dictatorship. But Perry was right when he called it vulture capitalism (a distortion, if you will of capitalism).

  • moodyboots

    “Corporate raiders” is Hollywood lingo parroted by know-nothings.

    Not only what companies like Bain do is morally right, it’s hugely important and noble. Proper allocation of capital and efficiency are at the heart of capitalism. They aren’t a distortion, they are what capitalism is about.

  • lapert

    If there was any doubt that these arguments are made (or at least appeal to) by uninformed pseudo-populists it is silly posts like this.

    Ross Perot? Donald Trump? What on earth does the founder of a couple IT services firm and a real estate mogul/entertainer have to do with corporate raiding. Even if you knew anything about what Bain Capital actually does you completely discredit yourself by throwing these people into the same category.

  • lineholder

    There’s another part of capitalistic ventures that has to do with starting from scratch, developing a product, and establishing/executing a business plan that allows a business to succeed.

    In the kind of economic environment we’re facing right now, with so many people out of work and so many business owners (especially small business owners) experiencing a heavy sense of uncertainty about what kind of tax and/or regulatory measure this admin might throw at them next, you can’t exactly blame people if they respond somewhat negatively to someone who has been involved in the other end of capitalistic ventures like Romney has, even if it is a valid and necessary part of capitalism as a whole.

  • moodyboots

    Bain Capital started from scratch, developed a strategy and established/executed a business plan that allowed them to succeed.

    Then as shareholders, they did the same thing – developed a strategy and implemented a business plan – in multiple companies that they acquired. Companies that would sell from pizzas to office material to steel.

    And they did it so well that some argue that they saved the American economy. Read this article, for example:

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/01/25/How-Private-Equity-Helped-Save-the-U-S-Economy.aspx#page1

    Anyway, what I said was that proper allocation of capital and efficiency is what capitalism is about.

    Parts? To you Apple or Microsoft are which part? Because those companies, like many others, exist today and employ millions of people, because at some point they were funded by private equity and venture capital.

    That “parts” thing people talk about is just ignorance and flawed logic. Some companies sell x, others sell y, others z.

  • lineholder

    to building up a company and dismantling company. You know that just as well as I do.

    Running a business efficiently and cost-effectively apply regardless of the context. But the simple fact of the matter is that in the kind of economic environment we’re facing, business owners who have built from the ground up and who do want to see that business continue to succeed but who are also facing a heavy shadow of the kind of uncertainty I mentioned…one of their greatest fears is going to be finding themselves in a position where they have to sell out to a company like Bain, moodyboots.

    You can’t expect people to be totally devoid of emotion on that part of it. Even when they apply logic and reason and know for a fact that companies like Bain do serve a position purpose, it still hits on some of their worst fears at this point. How much of that might be transferred to Romney personally? I don’t know. But I’m not so naive or stupid about people in general to believe that it plays no part at all in influencing their opinion.

  • moodyboots

    The mindset is always the same. Companies are created to prosper; eventually all of them are dismantled (few companies are older than 100 years old; even less are older than 200; etc).

    The reason people sell companies to Bain is only one: because Bain offers them more money than the other potential buyers. Why the heck should they fear that?

    I’m not sure in which world you guys live, but in mine, most business owners, if not all, would love to have the opportunity to convince a company like Bain to invest in their business. Scared? Every day hundreds of business owners and entrepreneurs try to get a meeting with successful venture capitalists and private equity funds like Bain.

    What do you think guys like Thomas G. Stemberg, Bill Gates, Tom Monaghan or the late Steve Jobbs think of what Bain do? They became billionaires and icons because venture capital and private equity exist.

    I think there are lots of folks who believe in the fairy-tales from Hollywood about creatures who someone make money of buying healthy companies and running them into the ground. Pro tip: that kind of stuff is 100% fiction. It doesn’t happen it the real world (unless something illegal goes on). There are no miracles.

  • lineholder

    You keep trying to paint Bain and what the company does as if it is some paragon of perfection. It isn’t. There’s a side of the activities that companies like Bain engage in that is ruthless and cut-throat. That’s part of succeeding int he realm of business, right?

    And there are plenty of business owners who would just as soon find a way to succeed on their own and of their own accord than to give a company like Bain any type of controlling interest in what they do.

    It isn’t even close to the paragon of perfection that you are trying to paint it out to be.

  • moodyboots

    that don’t have a side of activities that is ruthless and cut-throat? Because if so, you are delusional.

    I’m not really sure why is Bain different and what exactly is that standard of perfection. Can you give examples of “perfection”? Corporations are corporations, their management makes decisions for the good of their shareholders, some they get right, some they got wrong.

    And sure, plenty of owners want to keep controlling interest. But how exactly is that a negative against Bain? Care to explain? I mean, owners who sell their businesses sell them voluntarily.

  • texastaxpayer

    They are not interested in reasoned debates these Rombots. They conflate Romney/Bain with capitalism and free market ideas to shut down any honest discussion regarding Romney and how he chose to make his money. The favored tactic of the left, attack the challenger while ignoring the challenge. It’s pitifully pathetic on its face. They dont seem to get that if they can’t face the facts honestly in the primary and win they stand absolutely zero chance in the general. If I thought Romney had a better chance of winning I would engage more but the way things are looking I doubt we need to be distracted with this.

  • moodyboots

    I’m glad to debate those alleged problems that venture capitalism/private equity companies (or Bain Cap. specifically) pose.

    So far, what I’ve seen is a bunch of lies, myths and typical anti-capitalist and marxist talking-points.

  • sandiegovoter

    He has proven that again and again.

    He’s a lying, cheating back-stabber. Ask any of the Republicans who were near him in the 1990′s: Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Bob Livingston, Bob Dole, etc.

    Why aren’t they backing Newt?

    Could it be because Newt was involved in the House banking scandal (writing bad checks on the House bank account) and then used the same scandal to drive both Democrats and Republicans out of office.

    His marital adventures are just the tip of the iceberg. Deep down in his soul he is a liar and an ego-maniac. Absolutely unelectable.

  • sandiegovoter

    nt

  • sandiegovoter

    Bain Capital is a business. It was a very profitable business when Romney ran it. If other businesses copied some of Bain’s successful strategies, they would be more successful.

    Bain is a great example of what the private sector can do when the laws are obeyed and government gets out of the way of free enterprise.

  • sandiegovoter

    I listened to him religiously for years. I’ve had to tune him out lately.

    He’s tacitly backing the Romney-bashers in the party by bashing Romney and laying off of Newt Gingrich.

    Newt is the one that I don’t trust. I’ll go back to listening to Rush once the primaries are over.

  • lineholder

    but you’ve never started a business of your own, have you? Developed your own product? Come up with a marketing concept? Fought to establish your own niche in the market? Dreamed of seeing that business grow? Knowing that it was your dream, your hope, your sweat, time, energy, effort, and anything else that you could put into it that kept it alive?

    It just gets personal for that business owner, moodyboots. If the kind of economic environment we were facing right now was one where business growth was encouraged, then I daresay people probably wouldn’t object very much to what companies like Bain do, neither the good (investment for growth) or otherwise (dismantling of businesses). But that’s not the economic reality we’re living in right now, is it?

    Because of the economic environment, how a business owner views the activities of a company like Bain could be altered. It’s as simple as that.

  • sandiegovoter

    Done.

    Gingrich supported taxpayer funding for abortions (in D.C.) when he was Speaker.

    Gingrich is also the father of the individual mandate on healthcare.

    I will not vote for Newton Gingrich.

  • sandiegovoter

    In which case, all of the other candidates start to look good.

  • sandiegovoter

    He wrote 22 bad checks on the House bank account and then went after Republicans and Democrats who did the same thing.

    He’s a textbook hypocrite.

  • sandiegovoter

    When you call yourself a historian but the work that you are engaged in is lobbying Republicans to support Freddie Mac, you are a lobbyist regardless of what you call yourself.

  • Locke

    history of this period and his part in it brought to light. He could use as campaign literature the 1992 NYT article by liberal Adam Clymer House Revolutionary.

  • texastaxpayer

    :o

  • lapert

    At least you admit it isn’t about economics or capitalism it is about emotions. Just like income inequality, universal health insurance and every other progressive idea.

    By the way, you seem to think Bain was involved in hostile takeovers or something where the owners weren’t fully aware that Bain was their best option available not because of Bain’s ruthlessness but because of their own business conditions.

  • lapert

    The meme that Perry didn’t do it to himself is ridiculous. What happened tot he conservative virtue of taking responsibility for your own predicament. The blame rests fully with Perry and his campaign team, even if he wasn’t operating in perfect conditions.

    By the way, I doubt Perry thinks it is the voters fault he failed – that absurdity is reserved for a small number of his followers who attached to him no differently than the most obstinate of Obama supporters attached to Obama.

  • deVere

    Sarah put on a non-campaign 2011 campaign, financed by her conservative-voter-supported PAC, and then deserted her loyal supporters, myself included.

    Who knows why she did what she did? She just has to live with the bad reputation she has earned for herself, and hopefully she’ll have many years to do that.

  • moodyboots

    That’s exactly what Romney did with Bain. That’s exactly what Bain did with many businesses.

    What exactly differentiate Romney from those other companies? You keep saying “a company like Bain” as if they produce porn or something, but what exactly is a “company like Bain”?

    I’ve made you multiple requests for you to go beyond those creepy talking points, but you don’t. Seems to be you’re just bitter about something or merely parroting stuff you heard somewhere else (maybe in Newt/Perry OWS type attacks).

  • olds88er

    Romney care was voted in by the Mass. legislature and the public is mainly happy with it. Romneycare is NOT Obamacare as it only applies to Mass. citizens. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take this issue off the table in a few months.

  • olds88er

    The President CANNOT repeal Obamacare, it will have to be repealed by Congressional action. BUT the President can grant exceptions by Executive Orders, as Obama has already done many times. The main problem will be how to de-fund it.

  • JSobieski

    Either something is a good idea or it isn’t. If Romney is happy with something at the state level, it shows that he . .. can be “happy” with regulatory heavy hand of Obamacare.

    The only argument Romney ever makes against Obamacare is “federal level bad, state level good”. Most economic policies are either good ideas or bad ideas. Romney in his heart of hearts is fine with Obamacare. If he sincerely opposes it, he can’t even explain why.

    Mass. is happy with it because they are liberals.The voters don’t believe in markets, don’t believe in capitalism. Those same voters would penalize Big Pharma, Big Oil, and cripple US manufacturing with as many environmental regs as there is paper in Mass.

    California regulations on fuel only apply at the state level, but those regulations are still counter to the conservative concepts of capitalism and markets.

    Mitt saddled the citizens of Mass. with an entrenched healthcare system not based on market principles.

    It will be a slow fade until the only insurance company left in Mass. will be the government.

    The fact that Mitt isn’t apologetic about it tells you everything you need to know . .. and fear.

  • JSobieski

    would you find the following argument persuasive:

    Totally different than federal tax increases—these increases were at the state level, and the voters of those states approved?

  • olds88er

    How can he do that when most of the people there like it? The taxpayers were already receiving free medical care at the hospital Emergency Room. He wanted to stop all of the freeloaders by forcing them to buy insurance. They could buy it wherever they chose. It was not sold by the government.

  • JSobieski

    This kind of sophistry just makes people more suspicious of Romney.

    Things that Presidential candidates are asked about:

    Constitutional amendments (something they have NO role in)
    Budgets (something passed by Congress)
    Laws (must be passed by Congress before reaching President’s desk)

    So the “President CANNOT repeal Obamacare” is really just the worst kind of political sophistry.

    The President cannot repeal Obamacare BY HIMSELF is more accurate, more useful, and more consistent with the ways in which issues are raised

  • JSobieski

    They can’t by whatever they want. Mass. has strict rules about what MUST be included in health care policies.

    You can’t for example buy low premium high deductible policies in Mass.

    This is precisely the core problem with Obamacare—in the long run, it won’t be possible for insurance companies to stay in business, and the choise of consumers will gradually shrink until we are all on government option—which becomes single payer

  • olds88er

    Romney only was governor for one term so why would he try to change anything in order to please the electorate? Live with it, Romney will probably be our candidate. Do you think all Democrats are happy with Obama? Good grief, lets quit eating our own!
    I would be your perfect candidate but I was born in Cuba!

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    It’s not important whether was can overlook Gingrich’s past transgressions and personal history, what is important is whether the squishy middle that decides elections can and will. It’s likely they, especially women, WONT do that. Gingrich is not ‘likeable’ except to base conservatives and suffers a huge gender gap in general election matchups.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I agree.
    What gets me is why we dont have 90% of GOP primary voters thinking likewise.

  • JSobieski

    Instead, he is both “proud” of Romneycare and “happy” with it.

    Except for the different levels of government, Romneycare is very very close to Obamacare.

    The dynamic between prohibiting low cost plans, interference in the operations of insurance companies, the incentive for individuals to just pay the penalty, and a shrinking market coupled with sharply increasing prices.

    “state level” doesn’t address any of these issues, nor does it excuse those issues.

    Bad economics at the federal level is just bad economics at a smaller scale—doesn’t make it better, smart, or reason to be “happy” with it.

  • JSobieski

    just as he did on abortion.

    It would be very easy to do. Look at premiums in Mass.

    Your logic justifies a liberal R governor who raises taxes in his state, and then being “happy” with it in a Presidential run.

    Would you defend such a candidate by saying that he pleased his constituents?

    Well, the US is a different constituency than Mass, and we are NOT pleased with Obamacare.

    So Gov. Romney, be pleasing to us if you want our votes. If being pleasing is what you do—then do it! Be pleasing!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    floors me to this day. Therefore, it must mean that he agrees with it, as he defines the choices he made. on this issue, he did not do the easy political move. Mitt does have courage and convictions.

  • JSobieski

    Your arguments are grounded on very shaky logic.

    Pleasing constituents
    Only one term so why bother
    Bad crap at federal level = good ideas at state level

    Laughable arguments.

  • olds88er

    Don’t write anyone off. A convention can draft a candidate. When the rubber hits the road who knows what may happen. We almost chose Reagan in 1976. But it was next to impossible to take the nomination away from the sitting President. In fact it WAS impossible, we didn’t succeed. We told the delegates that Ford would lose to Carter, and he did!

  • JSobieski

    Perry may have said the phrase “vulture capitalism” but Romney implemented policies based on a hostility to capitalism.

    State level implementations of bad federal policies is a Constitutional argument, not a policy argument.

    The fact that Romney can’t defend Romneycare except based on “state level” and “happy with it” shows that he really believes in what he did.

    Romney will end up “fixing” Obamacare—not repealing it. He will negotiate some grand compromise that will nibble along the edges and end a mandate.

    At its core, Romney and Obama agree on healthcare.

    The difference between them is that Romney will listen somewhat to R’s in Congress—-that difference means something, but it ain’t all that and a bag of chips.

  • olds88er

    From what I have read about Texans’ comment about Perry, I think his approval rating is down to about 25%. He may not even run for re-election.

  • acat

    …just a few days ago, saying that Obamacare would be fixed, not yanked.

    Team Romney distanced themselves from the statement, but good ol’ Norm is still associated with the campaign, and still rumored to be in the running for the HHS slot, should Romney win.

    Personnel being policy, G.C., I think we can conclude Romney hasn’t actually changed his mind, despite what his campaign says.

    Mew

  • acat

    No caveats whatsoever.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    It will be the moment that he admits Romneycare is not a good idea, and that he is neither “happy” with it nor “proud” of it.

  • olds88er

    He started off mandating that vaginal shot, then in-state tuition for illegals,then a part-time Congress, then cut their pay to where they would have to get an additional job, then Social Security is a Ponzi scheme,(it is but calling it that was tactless and scared the Hell out of every Senior and Boomer.) That’s why he did so poorly.Mouth was engaged before brain was in gear.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • lineholder

    Here’s some information about Holtz-Eakin. He’s presented his own evaluation of O-care’s impact to Congress.

    http://americanactionforum.org/experts/douglas-holtz-eakin

    Here is a video of Holtz-Eakin making a speech on Jan 25th, 2012, in which he lays out many of the costs of O-care that were NOT calculated in either the CBO scoring or the House Budget Committee. The video is about 25 minutes long, but it is excellent in regards to the information that Holtz-Eakin provides. Holtz-Eakin is witty in addition to extremely knowledgeable, so the video doesn’t get boring!

  • lineholder

    “employer dumping”.

  • acat

    “Words. Just words.” rule.

    Mew

  • Dave_A

    What you call a ‘vaginal shot’ was simply a vaccine for Human Palpaloma Virus. It was no more an ‘intrusion’ than any of the other vaccines which Texas mandated before he was governor. Anti-vaccine folks belong on the same ‘crazy boat’ as truthers & paulbots….

    In-state tuition for the children of illegals? That issue has no place on the national political stage…. State issue… Right now, the two ‘sides’ on immigration are both populated primarily by absolutist fools with terrible ideas – we should NEITHER grant amnesty NOR spend another dime on border-centric security – making any more time spent on the issue time wasted….

    The one I’ll give you is the ‘part time congress’… But it’s mainly absurd due to the fact that making Congress part time would just give them more vacation days, invite corruption & accomplish little else. The overwhelming majority of folks on Capitol Hill have enough money to never work another day in their lives…. Those who might be forced to ‘find another job’ would be doing so with the power of their political office in-hand, inviting all manner of corruption. Yes, it works for Texas. But Texas is a state (eg, in international terms, provincial) government, not a world superpower.

    Perry’s problem was (A) the early debates, and (B) ‘selective’ immigration idiocy – and I say ‘selective’ because it’s still held against Perry, but not against Newt.

  • romansdaughter

    He admits that he jumped into the race too late and just coming off of back surgery. But I believe we will be hearing from him again in a a couple of years. It ain’t over. God is going to use him still. That’s what I really admire about Perry…he takes full responsibility.

  • circlegranch

    to walk back. Mitt was out of step with the Mormon Church’s philosophy on how to deal with immigrants and his dogmatic rhetoric about ‘magnets’, ‘amnesty’ and such that he used against Perry are going to cost him Latino votes. If this isn’t a blatant example of him flip flopping and taking multiple positions for political expediency, one can’t imagine what is. When he had to knock Perry out of the race, Romney, fueled by hateful immigration rhetoric from Ann Coulter and gang, was in the ’round them up and ship them out’ camp. Now faced with about a quarter of voters in FL being Latino, Mr. Rommey has smartly stuck a wet finger in the air to check the breeze and finds himself at odds, so flipping is his only safe alternative. Every prediction made that he’d run in the primary toward the Right, but swing to the middle and Left in the general is already coming true. When faced with deciding between what will be a moderate Obama in the general and a moderate/Left Romney,those coveted Independents will wonder, why change horses?

    This is not leadership. This is not conviction. It is, sadly, Mitt Romney at his finest.

    As for Rick Perry, his influence and bold ideas are talked about extensively in this campaign. He brought much to the debate and his policy proposals are not going away. What remains to be seen is whether or not those still in that invoke his ideas are man enough to give credit where credit is due. It will be a mark of character, or lack thereof.

  • lizzie

    exact quote during the not-widely-seen one one one interview with DMReg Kathy Obradovich in early December, where she finally got him to admit that recovery from his July 1, 2011 back surgery (with his own adult stem cells)
    had indeed slowed him down for ten weeks .

    and then he said: “No Excuses. It is what it is”

    Perry’s reluctance to discuss that back surgery really hurt him, but those of us who know about it, admire his version of “The Buck Stops Here”, something that neither Obama nor Romney can handle.

    I do still wonder why Perry put his part-time Congress idea up front.

    I always thought, and communicated this to his campaign, that he had the right pitch with his energy program, but failed to communicate it simply and clearly:

    More domestic energy = lower consumer and business costs = even more jobs.

    Glad to know Rick Perry managed to shoot an egg at 100 yards with a sniper rifle at LaRue Tactical. Fairly sure he needed a few egg shots with mental images :)

    It is what it is.

    We are where we are.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that he has promised to repeal and that Bush41 was denied a second term due to backing off a promise that was essential to his election in the first place, I think Mitt could repeal it, but would be less likely to than Santorum, equally as likely to as Newt.

  • romansdaughter

    I don’t like Newt much but I am cheering him on in Florida. I just heard that Santorum is leaving the race because of his daughter who is seriously ill at the hospital I frankly thought Santorum should not be running right now because of his children and especially Bella, I am glad he is seeing this. So this will help Newt I think if Santorum is out of the race. Seriously I am thinking that if Mittens is the nominee we are going to lose to Obama…because Mitt is treating conservatives like they are not important. He is going to find out in the General how important they really are and then he is going to be sorry cause I am on Twitter and most conservatives are really starting to despise Mittens. Look what he is doing to Allen West…sick.

  • romansdaughter

    “It is what it is”. I deeply admire him for that, since that was one thing that turned me off to Herman was it was everyone else’s fault and not his.

  • jimmyg

    This is the first I have heard that Romney had anything to do with Col. West other that his Pac giving Col. West’s campaign a donation.
    I presume you are talking about the redistricting. What did Romney have to do with the redistricting in Fl.?

  • avagreen

    who I’m more sure than rain that isn’t falling, is who they polled.

    Big surprise>>>>>> Libs in Texas don’t like Perry (RINOs, Democrats, trial lawyers, etc.)

    They count on the uninformed to repeat this w/o knowing the mechanics behind it.

    This isn’t anything new in Texas. wise up.

  • romansdaughter

    “”Allen West being redistricted out of existence in an effort led by Romney Florida Spokesman.” But it is no secret that Mitt doesn’t like the Tea Party.

  • avagreen

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024516/1/index.htm

    I asked you yesterday for your thoughts instead of posting your talking points (more or less).

    What have you to say about your candidate and this article in view of your comments about Newt.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Bill McCollum and Bob Walker. And to counter Tom Delay, I offer Duke Cunningham.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Maybe I saw the wrong interview.

  • rhampton

    but I’m not surprised that there are additional expenses (btw, thanks for the link). And I do appreciate the symbolic importance of repealing Obamacare as a rebuke to increased socialism, however this election is first and foremost about our dire economic situation precisely because the enormity dwarfs any single program or contributing factor.

    On September 30, 2008 – more than three months before President Obama was sworn in – our national debt had already passed $10 trillion dollars. TEN TRILLION! Obamacare, as offensive as it is to the principle of good conservative governance, is not THE problem. Clearly our economy was already infected with an aggressive, terminal illness before Obamacare was added to the mix.

    As I see it, some conservatives seem to be have latched on to the idea that the repeal of Obamacare is some great step towards fixing the systemic problem of deficit spending. Hardly. All that it does is buy us two, maybe three more years before going broke – a bit of breathing room, nothing more.

  • Pingback: More Important: Strong Conservative Record Or Clean Personal History? | Animus Turbare