« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Are Conservatives Ready to Forgive Newt Gingrich His Sins?

I am now officially a self-declared member of the “Not Romney” camp. I will absolutely, positively support Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination, but I believe the GOP would meet certain doom if he is the nominee. Therefore, should Gingrich be the only other choice, I’d side with Gingrich over Romney.

But I think in the next few weeks conservatives must ask themselves if they are ready to forgive Newt his sins. I’m not talking about his adultery and wives. I’m not really even talking about his ego. What I am talking about is only tangentially related to his sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

It was, after all, Newt Gingrich who advocated for an individual mandate long before Mitt Romney ever did. Gingrich has, like Clinton before him, been a “third way” fan of new fangled ways to do things. The conservative warrior people tend to think Gingrich is, often is not. Newt has a fascination with the shiny in policy and technology, hence the latest oppo drop on Newt that he once praised Donald Berwick, the Obama appointee chosen to oversee the death panels and shoving of grandparents over the medical cost savings cliff.

To be fair to Gingrich, he was offering legitimate praise to Berwick way back when and Berwick’s own writings that Newt praised would be damning to Obamacare. But it is the first of many attacks. [UPDATE: A friend tells me I misread an email from him on this Berwick matter and, considering he is an expert, said I should note that the bit Berwick wrote that Newt praised actually was not good. In fact, he notes that Berwick is more extreme than Obama. Sorry for misreading the info.]

The real issue for Gingrich is that he is the Great American Sisyphus, always rolling his political rock up a hill only to see it go tumbling back down. And unfortunately for many, when Newt reaches the top of the hill and his political career starts its roll back down the hill, many others get rolled over in the process.

Gingrich is going to need to convince people he has changed. Conservatives must be ready to forgive him his sins. And as conservatives come to terms with Gingrich’s sins, they are going to be confronted by a man named Tom Coburn who wrote a book called Breach of Trust and a man named Robert Novak who wrote the foreword to that book. One excerpt will be particularly troubling to conservative activists currently enamored with Newt’s debating skills.

Gingrich either felt that he could not use his office to control spending or was not willing to lose his office to control spending. This goes to the heart of the matter: If your decisions are based on not losing a position, you cannot effectively serve the best long-term interests of the country.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 1283-1285). Kindle Edition.

If Newt can withstand the rehashing of Tom Coburn’s book — a book that portrays Gingrich as talking the talk, but betraying the talk once in office — we may have our anti-Romney. If not, I think Rick Perry may yet have a second coming if he is ready. I say that having asked many callers to my radio show who are Cain supporters where they would go. Most say Newt. The others Perry. And if Newt implodes? They almost always say they’d go to Perry — Romney is rarely their choice.

Some excerpts from Breach of Trust below the fold.

Coburn made his presence felt immediately. It became clear to him that Speaker Gingrich, House Majority Leader Armey and the rest of the Republican leadership were not what they pretended to be. They were revolutionaries in name only, content to take possession from the Democrats of the machinery of government and then run it virtually unchanged. That froze in place the system of pork barrel spending that young Woodrow Wilson described in Congressional Government more than 130 years ago.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 55-58). Kindle Edition.

Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas. He had a saying on his wall in the Speaker’s office that he quoted often: “Listen, learn, help, and lead.” The freshmen later developed our own quote about Gingrich: “Fire, Ready, Aim.”

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 849-850). Kindle Edition.

Gingrich would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously. He usually made us feel as if we didn’t have much value because we didn’t know anything about the political game in Washington. We were from the outside and wet behind the ears in terms of politics, and we obviously didn’t know as much about history as he did. It would not take long for us to become “the conservatives” to him.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 850-853). Kindle Edition.

COMMENTS

  • momac

    I don’t know nearly enough to have a grasp of all of his mistakes. But I get the impression, very much so, that Gingrich is exactly the kind of person that comes up with the idea for something like an individual mandate. He believes he is sufficiently smarter than the bulk of people to be able to legislate better lives for them.

    I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s the impression I have. I don’t see a guy that even really realizes his mistakes. Like he thinks the Pelosi issue was Pelosi herself, not AGW.

    I don’t like him, and I think I’d even prefer Romney almost. That’s right, I think a completely manufactured facade is preferable to another guy with an unchecked ego.

    “If not, I think Rick Perry may yet have a second coming if he is ready.”

    That’s the only guy I can support in the primaries anymore.

  • cheetah2

    I prefer Romney because of his history as a faithful family man, but I would go with Gingrich if I thought he had a better chance of beating Obama.

    I haven’t researched it much yet because I will be a Perry supporter as long as he stays in the race.

  • nathanalbright

    …and it certainly gives fuel for those of us who think that Newt’s stay on top of the scrum for the GOP nomination will be short.

  • wonkish1

    Why he is much more forgiving of the GOP leadership(Hastert, Delay, and Frist) in the 2000s when the GOP controlled everything than he is of Newt in the 90s? Kind of funny because Newt controlled spending better with Clinton than those 3 were able to do for the last decade with Bush.

    So Coburn can cry all he wants to about Newt delivering only a *decent* budget in 95 like it was such a travesty when Newt also delivered a *solid* budget in 96, 97, and 98, but the fact that he shows little issue with the bad budgets of 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, etc. doesn’t make me really care about his criticism all that much.

    **While I may stick to “no comment” and “undecided” on whether Newt is the best candidate for 2012, I will still defend Newt’s tenure as Speaker until the cows come home. The guy accomplished more for us in those 4 years than the entirety of the GOP leadership in 8 years with near complete control of government.

  • nathanalbright

    …as perhaps Newt gave off this air of arrogance like he was too good for the freshman “conservatives” who did not find him very appealing. Sometimes we don’t get along with others simply because of their arrogance even if their positions are better than that of others (like Hastert and his unsuccessful crew in the early 2000′s).

  • wonkish1

    The fact that I wont sit idly by as people falsely trash his tenure as speaker or his last 10 years of work. We are all better for Newt’s work over the last couple decades and nobody should forget that. That is why I have been very aggressive to take on those that claim that the CHT and the Gingrich Group were vehicles for lobbying or even corruption. Those allegations are absolutely not true and leveled by candibots who don’t have a clue and will say anything to tar the person that isn’t their preferred candidate.

    Since I’m not personally committed to any specific candidate yet I don’t care if people support Newt’s candidacy or not. As a candidate Newt does have some faults that I would be the first to point out, but…

    Lets not forget who our friends are, who has done a lot to move the ball forward for conservatism,, and we should definitely avoid crossing the line from looking at who may be the better candidate to openly tarnishing the great work someone has done for our movement. And that goes for all of the candidates.

  • wonkish1

    Coburn clearly shows a certain degree of bitterness in those years that they are the years that brought his expectations back down to reality. He came in really idealistic and then didn’t like the view after he got there. And he shoulders Newt with some blame for his idealism coming back down to reality which Newt doesn’t deserve because reality is reality regardless of who is leadership.

    Then afterward he came to expect that from the new leadership after Newt and so he wasn’t quite as disappointed in them because his expectations were lowered. What is odd though is that he doesn’t look back and give Newt credit for doing *better* than Hastert, Delay, etc. when Newt was facing a tougher situation than the latter group had.

    Its a healthy reminder that in 94 the GOP was out of power for so long that many that entered had such sky high expectations that they would be able to fix everything and today you see a lot more healthy level of expectations of politicians who look at one large achievement at a time.

  • renl57

    Romney and Gingrich are actually similar in worldview. They’re both technocrats, believing that experts can figure out ingenious solutions to problems. And that once the public sees how ingenious these solutions are, they will support them.

  • gunsrus

    I would actively support Newt…
    I would vote for Cain or Perry (not necessarily in that order).
    I would go home and shower after shaking hands with Romney and could not possibly vote for him.

  • bzip

    You would have to be nuts to support Newt over Romney. Newt has a 10 fold increase in baggage and flip flopping compared to Romney.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote for Newt f he were the nominee but how can anyone truly make a case that Newt’s baggage and all his flip-flopping is better then Romney?

    Nope, it is 100% Rick Perry for me.

  • renl57

    I remember the diaries and posts here on RedState, back when Gingrich first announced his candidacy.

    The reaction wasn’t exactly positive.

    With Cain, many folks quickly rallied to his common-sense message.

    With Perry, even before he entered the race, many folks were waiting for him to enter the race so they could jump to his support.

    None of that happened with Gingrich. He remained stuck at the bottom of the polls; and folks here on RedState didn’t even consider his candidacy to be a serious one.

    The ONLY reason I can see for this new showing of support for Gingrich is that all the other NotRomneys have flamed out or are in the process of flaming out. I just saw a poll reported on Fox News that if Cain drops out, the plurality of his support will switch to Gingrich.

    Nobody would be talking about Gingrich if Ryan or Rubio were running.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Erick, you make a solid point. Newt is no more conservative than John McCain. Again I think that voters who call themselves “conservative” don’t know what the word means. The Progressives and the GOP establishment have successfully redefined the term until all it means is “If I quote Reagan and trash Obama, it makes me a solid conservative.”

    On balance I think Perry has more substance and than all the rest. This election is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Perry may not be a great debater but a few well placed jabs on Obama’s handling of the economy might be all he needs to win it.

  • avgjo

    Tom Coburn got goofy the first two years of Obama’s term.

    He defended Nancy Pelosi against FOX news viewers, essentially calling them dupes as he defended that witch.

    He could have messed up the USDA Food ‘safety’ deform by raising his voice and he didn’t.

    IIRC, it all started around the time he grew that ridiculous goatee…

  • avgjo

    made a great point about Gingrich.

    For all his stupid remarks, positions and personal behavior (and there’s plenty of that to go around), in practical results, he did much to advance conservativism during his tenure as Speaker. This commenter went so far as to say more than Reagan (again, speaking in terms of results). I think that’s too far, but Gingrich did DO a lot.

  • wonkish1

    Newt and McCain are not even on the same planet let alone town when you compare the degree of their conservatism. McCain made it a habit for a decade to screw over every conservative he could find that would get him a nice puff piece. The guy is barely a step up from Lincoln Chafee for crying out loud.

    Newt presided over the most conservative 4 years since Reagan when actually for 8 years after his departure we had the White house and both houses of congress for much of that time. The guy has done more work advancing conservatism than any of the other candidates. Now he might not be the ideal candidate, but don’t you ever insult Newt by comparing him to McCain again. That is beyond atrocious.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Read it and weep.

  • teme

    Life took him to a state where legislature is 85% Democrat, and he wasn’t that obsessed over becoming president that he would have tried to plan his decades of his life around re rooting himself to Utah or Michigan, so that he could run there for Senate or governorship if opportunity arise. So he implemented Heritage foundation inspired health care, and dem legislature changed it a lot.

    Here are really good thoughts from someone you know from 4 years ago:
    “So if the Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia were tomorrow, I?d vote for Mitt. Sure, he has waffled on social issues ? but I think that highlights his pragmatic approach to politics. He was never going to get elected as a pro-life candidate in Massachusetts and he knew it. I won?t fault him. I think, if he gets elected based on conservative support, he won?t betray that support in office.?

  • teme

    He ran about as conservative as you can get elected in Massachusetts.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    It’s early.

  • wonkish1

    And probably unlike you I have actually read that section of Coburn’s book so I know exactly what he is referring to.

    I assume you mean *E*rick nor Rick right?

  • GoldieAZ50

    Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.

    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2423/how-newt-gingrich-added-16-trillion-national-debt

    I will never vote for Newt or Romney.

    I saw Rick Perry asking students 21 or older to support him with their vote, on NOVEMBER 12, 2012 – thats a week AFTER the election, under 21 to just work hard….HELLO voting age is 18.

    This is the best the GOP has to offer? Really?

    I don’t owe my vote to any of them. I will not defend nor excuse their serious shortcomings, not for the election cycle or for a full term in office, which none of them deserve.

  • radicalrighty

    Hasn’t it been about that long since he called the Paul Ryan plan, “right-wing social engineering?”

    And Newt, the global warming and cap and trade defender, is going to tap our domestic energy supplies? Is he unhappy with the EPA, DOE, and the NLRB?

    It is sickening to think that the GOP is ready to turn to this guy, when we have someone with the right opinions on all of that (and more), in this very campaign.

    Rick Perry is the most conservative of our candidates. Newt is the polar opposite.

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

    …because the focus is on both “process” and “policy”…with political and hisorical implications necessarily explored in both realms.

    The “process” issues raised as part of his Coburn-”baggage” is related to elitism, and the “policy” issues raised as part of his contrasting stridency is related to statism.

    The political implications of the former are correlative to how the GOP “establishment” [including Wall St.] can accommodate his egocentrism…as long as it gets what it thinks it wants. The political implications of the latter are predicated on how the True-Conservatives [including the TEA Party Movement and Evangelicals] can accommodate his rhetorical legerdemain.

    This rather “telelgraphic”distillation can go in many directions, but the one I prefer to cite is based on the pummeling I received last night when continuing to defend Perry after his latest “voting age” [18 vs. 21] gaffe…which he glossed-over with Greta with an all-too-familiar “everyone makes mistakes” dismissive-muttering. My son was merciless as he trotted-out poll-after-poll that suggested Perry isn’t YET gaining the recognition I [and many others on RS] feel he merits.

    Certainly, applying the above critique to Perry yields four distinct outcomes that compare favorably with those that are derivative of The Newt. One need only recall citations [noted repeatedly in prior blogs] of how books illustrate postures … frozen-in-time … that merit subsequent scrutiny. This approach contrasts with Ann Coulter’s “let’s only look @ current quotes” anti-intellectual posture [again, fleshed-out in prior blogs, here and @ Politico]. It undermines the capacity to slant the argument towards a predictable outcome [in her case, flipping from "anti" to "pro" Mitt]…but it does serve to enlighten, and to defend against the potential for subsequent contradiction to undermine credibility.

    Specifically, except for the Gardisil-reversal, Rick’s “process” approach has led to an environment in which Texas soars…and he has been rewarded politically [after having been tested [primary challenge from KBH] as a result. And Rick’s “policy” stances have been firm, with his supporters harboring the hope that the public will learn of the importance of the 10th Amendment that pervades his meme.

    Compare/contrast their books; Rick’s “Fed Up!” is replete with philosophy/fact, idea/ideal, challenge/solution; The Newt’s are replete with defenses that are not Constitutionally-rooted, notably of the Individual Mandate. And both “Winning the Future” and “Real Change” are of recent vintage.

    This conceptualization leads to each of the points that have been blogged, thus far. The TEA ["Taxed Enough Already"] Party Movement remains volatile, remains skeptical of Mitt, knows not what to expect from The Newt, and still hungers for someone like Perry…if he can excel in national-venues [such as the debates].

    This should not be construed as derivative of anti-Mitt/Newt bias; it’s referenced, solid, and somewhat somber in both content/tone. Reactions will be of-interest…

  • TSquared

    But Perry? You got to be kidding…

    It does not matter whether or not Perry is better (more conservative) on the issues than Romney or Newt. Perry – with his thick tongue and slow thinking – would most likely fair poorly in the general. If it comes down to Perry (and most likely it won’t), then we are in trouble.

    The rule is: Vote for the most Conservative guy/gal that you can get elected. It’s doubtful that Perry qualifies for the later part.

    You guys over here at RedState still bantering about Perry is almost as bad as the Cainiacs over at Free Republic.

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

    …first, it ensures BHO’s re-election and, second, it violates RS-rules.

  • swamphermit

    Yesterday’s ‘Double Post’ bashing of Cain was a classic…offering more support to the reporter than to Cain.

    Anyway, Perry was a disaster for RS, i.e. y’all should stay away from trying to pick or destroy presidential candidates.

  • steveinfl

    If you can vote for Romney over Newt, maybe you should just go ahead and vote for Obama. Obviously, you weren’t alive in the 1990′s, or maybe you just slept through it. Folks, the only way we win is when we challenge and expose liberalism for what it actually is. That’s why Reagan won. There is no one better in taking the fight to liberals than Newt. Not since Reagan.

  • steveinfl

    Personally and professionally. He admitted he is a sinner, and asked for forgiveness. If God can forgive him, I can,too.

  • cazamias

    In my mind, the most damning moment for Newt came not when he told Rush Limbaugh that we need to “move beyond Reagan,” nor the moment on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. It was this moment he was on a Sunday talk show panel with Tim Russert, that hideous Doris Kearns Goodwin, and others… and he remarked quite explicitly that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (not Ronald Reagan) was the greatest president of the 20th Century (causing DKG to start screaming and clapping with glee). There was a smirk in Newt’s face when he said this –almost like he knew he was conceding some major point to the libs on that panel –like he was going to thrown them a bone, give them something for which they could love him,,,, it’s just this type of insecure vanity that concerns me with a President Gingrich. And yet, if only because i feel that he can continue to feel more heat from our side than from the media’s side, I still support him over Romney.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Newt supported Dede Scozzafava in NY. She was so far from being conservative she supported the Dem candidate when she didn’t get the nomination. Incredible!!

    Then there’s Newt’s attack on Paul Ryan’s cost cutting plan. What was that all about??

    Let’s forget the cozy little sit down with Nancy Pelosi. You might buy the “it was a mistake” excuse, but the rest of us don’t.

    Oh, and BTW, Newt supported JOHN MCCAIN in the primaries on 2008.

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

    First of all, I perused “Free Republic” and haven’t detected undue fealty for Cain [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2813789/posts].

    Second, as Romney continues to bump his head on his ceiling [even after yesterday's FNC interview], The Newt hasn’t rectified his myriad stances [notwithstanding his crazy/illegal idea of creating community-boards to decide whether illegals can "stay on the island"]. Meanwhile, the TPM [representing "Main St."] searches for an alternatives…as has been the dynamic throughout 2011.

    Third, Perry has SOME time to achieve the type of rudimentary dominance of which Mitt/Newt can only dream. His foibles will always be highlighted [unlike those of BHO, etc.] by the MSM/LSM/ELM, but he must ensure his focused messages are disseminated via other mechanisms.

    This is why RS plays a role in the campaign “mix” and why [based upon the current dramatis personnae] the magnet keeps turning towards Perry.

  • steveinfl

    We are so blind. Gingrich runs circles around the entire field, he pulverizes the democrats, and reveals he is miles ahead. We have to fight a battle of ideas. We need someone who can express those ideas the best. That is what wins elections.

  • wonkish1

    Its quite possible that I know more about Newt’s record that anybody on Redstate. Over the last decade I’ve watched over a 100 of speeches, hundreds of articles, several books, etc.

    I’ve also posted the most recommended thread on Newt’s baggage on RedState since the campaign began(one which got me a lot of accolades based on how fair it was).

    Don’t tell me I’m ignoring Newt’s record, you don’t have a clue.

    And who cares if Newt supported John McCain in the primaries a lot of conservatives did and for reasons that ranged very far from any agreement with the ideas of someone like McCain. Newt also was the first major public official to recommend Sarah Palin too McCain publicly for a VP pick.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    n/t

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

    The Newt specifically endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two recent books: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

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

    [I thought I'd written this previously, but will re-post]

    …The anti-Cain postings were based on the fact that an accusation had been presented with a FACE…coupled with the apparent-endorsement of its essence from Cain’s attorney.

    No one is [yet] a “disaster” [for Perry, for RS], although for reasons aforementioned, Rick reflects the core-sentiments of Constitutional Conservatives.

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

    …because the premise of your vignette corroborates my “statist/elitist” appellation, although I don’t think he would allow himself to be susceptible to the ‘captive’ conservatives.

  • wonkish1

    Saying that you have a responsibility to buy insurance is not the same thing as saying that government should forcibly make you buy it for one. People have a responsibility to take care of their own retirement(outside of SS) and buy food, but does the government force them to, no!

    In regard to Newt’s support of the Heritage individual mandate back in the 90s I just simply disagree with his statement of support back then.

    The individual mandate was recommended by the Heritage Foundation because it would get the issue of charity care under control. The problem is that it isn’t legal and sets a bad precedent that the government should force people into buying a product. Instead I think that once you made a few fixes elsewhere in Healthcare you could just scrap charity care altogether.

    Obama supported an individual mandate because he wants to socialize health risk by removing pre-existing conditions(what is known as community rating) well if you do that without an individual mandate then a bunch of people refuse to pay for the way overpriced health insurance so they added it in. That is also what was the case with RomneyCare.

    But to answer your question I didn’t and don’t agree with the Heritage’s proposal in the 90s. I don’t think Newt should have agreed with it.

    But I also don’t think that *THE* litmus test for what is and isn’t a conservative should be the support of the Heritage individual mandate in the 90s.

    Maybe you do believe that, but I doubt you’ll find many that will agree with that.

  • docnick

    OK… We have lots of people who feel ‘stone casting’ is good… That is what causes us such problems. The question is ,”Who can beat Obama in what will be the most costly run for President in history?”

    Which of this group has any viably ideas about fixing the problems we are facing along with the experience to get the job done?

    The answer seem obvious….docnick

  • celador2

    Newt is nasty,nasty. He led a double life as he came on TV and said his second marriage was a bond with Christ. He had to resign as Speaker over an affair with a 20s Agriculture com staffer. I recall the tabloid photo as he and she emerged from her apartment after he resigned but was still married. Frozen grins.

    Newt became a Catholic and offers that conversion as proof he found salvation with his partner in sin whom he married after hiiiiiiiiiiis fall. They live in hip northern VA and have jewely bills over a million dollars!.

    He made an ad with Pelosi because he backs cap and trade, a big EPA remedy. That is where his heart is.

    He now suppports free markets health care but has not always.Newt was not there when free market people needed him.
    He is a snake oil salesman who can win no debate with anyone including himself.

    Cain backers who back Newt are using a double standard to jump ship to Newt, If they do not care about character in flip flops and private life they should stick with Cain. Cain is more core conservative.

    Cain has himself to blame for losing support not the staff for not covering it up.

  • sunshinek67

    that I could only dream of doing myself. While I realize that EE wants to stay focused on the record, professional no doubt, I feel the need to interject into the discussion the obligatory Newt is no ‘poster boy for conservative values’ statement.

    A Gingrich nomination will ensure that the GOP conservative base can no longer be the party of family values. Gingrich received his 3rd wife, a former aide, from adultery on his 2nd, Callista Gingrich would be our next First Lady. I don’t think so.

    Lose the Family Values platform GOP, it is confusing my teenage sons when I attempt to explain to them and reconcile a Gingrich candidacy with some of the pillars of the party.

  • celador2

    Perry is the strongest conservative left standing. Newt has no character and can not be trusted and Romney is too liberal and elitist.

  • celador2

    There is a Dem bill stalled that has gone no where, cap and trade.
    Even presidential candidate Newt Gingrich could not swing support for its passage with his joint ad with Pelosi.

    I prefer all the other candiates plans for energy.
    Thanks.

  • celador2

    What goes on in the spiritual arena is between GOD and Newt.

    In the secular arena as a voter I do not trust the man for elected office. I distrust his policies and think him lacking in character.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I am more worried about how someone will govern rather than dwelling on their past. Especially, their personal lives. Who am I to judge another man’s circumstances and the related decisions?

    That said, I have no doubt a “President” Gingrich would be eminently better that what we are currently experiencing. If anything, Newt’s career displays that he largely learns from his mistakes and can accomplish great things. He can operate in a bipartisan environment that will guarantee permanent change.

    I don’t need, nor will we get, perfect.

    All this destructive prognostication isn’t worth spit. It demeans and tears down our eventual candidate.

  • gunslingr45

    Its hard to forgive him for the couch thing with Nancy when he said he did not regret it. Does that mean he is still for and behind it?
    Also what about all the gun bills he voted yes on? That scares me the most.
    I’m kinda down to Michelle and Perry now.

    “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know”

  • celador2

    Perry speaks very well and has good ideas. He also has character and faith that have led him to be an excellent public servant.

    Thomas Jefferson could not speak in public and would fail your snakeoil salesman litmus test.

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

    …because you neglect to address his rhetorical flourish regarding the Individual Mandate….which he wants to impose upon 300 million Americans!

    At a forum in 2005, alongside then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), Gingrich explained the tradeoffs that both the right and the left would have to make in health care: For the right, some transfer of wealth is involved in providing health care for the working poor, the disabled, and other groups. And for the left, individuals should still have control over their health care, rather than total government management.

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/flashback-gingrich-championed-the-mandate-as-300-million-payer-system—-in-2005.php

  • gunslingr45

    more like every issue.

    ?For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know?

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

    …because you must also deal with other CURRENT manifestations of his elitism/statism:

    WHAT IS NEWT GINGRICH?S VOTING RECORD ???
    10/22/1991 ? Voted for amendment creating a National Police Corps.
    03/-/1993 ? Voted for sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
    09/25/1996 ? Introduced H.R. 4170, demanding life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across border.
    01/22/1997 ? Congress fined him record-setting $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing.11/29/2006 ? Stated free speech be curtailed in order to fight terrorism and need for a ?serious debate about 1st Amendment.?
    09/28/2008 ? Stated if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
    10/01/2008 ? Stated in an article that TARP was a ?workout, not a bailout.?
    12/08/2008 ? Paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
    03/31/2009 ? States USA should have Singapore-style drug tests.
    07/30/2010 ? States Iraq was ?Axis of Evil?. Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.
    12/05/2010 ? Stated that a website owner is an enemy combatant. Should be executed for publishing government memos.
    01/30/2011 ? Lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
    02/13/2011 ? Criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
    03/15/2011 ? Stated that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
    03/23/2011 ? Completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
    06/09/2011 ? Campaign staff resigned en masse.
    07/15/2011 ? Poorly managed campaign over $1 Million in debt.
    08/01/2011 ? Hired company to create fake Twitter followers.
    10/07/2011 ? Stated he would ignore Supreme Court and bypass Constitution and Congress.

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

    This latest compilation of The Newt is c/o recent entries elsewhere…

    http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=54&threadid=6203564#6203759

    …which do not depend upon having read/heard his entire Oeuvre.

  • gunslingr45

    how many gun bills {bad ones} did he vote yes on? And why has he now said he does not regret spooning with nancy on tje couch?

    ?For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know?

  • sunshinek67

    At the end of the day, character matters. Try explaining what you just stated to a couple of very impressionable teenage boys. Boys, this is your new President, he is trustworthy and loaded with character, just ignore what you see and hear in the media.

    Luckily, my three year old just watches Dora~

  • teme

    Power corrupts. His whole life in politics Gingrich was living a life that was corrupt both personally and professionally. Newt Gingrich hasn’t shown that he has any capability to handle the power and himself after his supposed recovery.

    President isn’t supposed to be a starter level job. Newt Gingrich hasn’t been tested after his supposed repentance. We can’t know if he can handle himself or whether he will become drunk from the power.

  • wonkish1

    LOL, do you even know what many of the cost drivers in healthcare today are?

    And I would 100% agree with the actual specific policy prescriptions implied in that generalization. And if you want to get into it I’m more than welcome to.

    And my last post completely addressed the individual mandate or did you not read it?

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

    …because your opening-’graph is sooooooooo problematic!

    “Saying that you have a responsibility to buy insurance is not the same thing as saying that government should forcibly make you buy it for one. People have a responsibility to take care of their own retirement(outside of SS) and buy food, but does the government force them to, no!”

    Puh-leeze! His governmental solution necessitates this private purchase of a product/service, notwithstanding Article I Section 8. [Indeed, does he ever CITE the Constitution?] Is he not going to enforce this recognized sense of individual responsibility? Or is he going to establish it as a block-hole, into which all his self-contradictions are to be sucked?

    This observation precludes the need to address your specious metaphor related to geriatric-years [noting, just for example, the existence of Medicare and the mandated FICA-withdrawals over the prior decades].

  • celador2

    As a voter I do judge the past behavior of a candidate as an indicator of the present and future. I applaud change in positions too.

    Private lives show character. Newt lied to the public and led a double life. He sees himself above the laws of GOD and who knows what else. Humility is not a Gingrich virtue and never has been,

    His lack of character and horrible policies choices at times make me doubtful he is fit to govern as president.

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

    …because, in counterdistinction to your whitewash, The Newt avers:

    “But my point to conservatives is, it?s a model of responsibility. If I see somebody who?s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance, I?m looking at somebody who is absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who was ever on welfare. Because what they?ve said is, a) I?m gambling that I won?t get sick, and b) I?m gambling that if I do get sick, I can cheat all my neighbors.

    “Now when you talk to hospitals, a very significant part of their non-collectables are people who have money, but have calculated that it?s not worth the cost to collect it.

    “And so I?m actually in favor of finding a way to say, if you?re above whatever ? whatever the appropriate income level is, you oughtta have either health insurance, or you oughtta post a bond. But we have no right, we have no right in this society, to have a free-rider approach if you?re well off economically, to say we?ll cheat our neighbors.”

  • gunslingr45

    That much info says alot about the man. But is that Newts record or Obumbers?

    ?For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know?

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

    …because I recoile @ his attitude:

    A decision to go-naked rather than to buy health insurance is “irresponsible”?

  • gunslingr45

    voting yes on bad gun bills?

    ?For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know?

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

    …I have addressed the gravamen of your comment.

    Your “LOL” presaged your dismissiveness, and YES, I accept your invite: “if you want to get into it I?m more than welcome to.” {sic, because “a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with”}

    You ask: “do you even know what many of the cost drivers in healthcare today are?” I reply that I do, but that I wonder why you ask.

    Thus, due to your assertion of “100% concurrence” with NewtCare, let’s hear how you would differentiate his policy-prescription from RomneyCare/ObamaCare….

  • medicineman

    I have had one myself, so I can and tend to give Newt the benefit of the doubt.

    What tends to come with them is MORE humility…not necessarily totally humility.

    With all of Newt’s warts, and Perry’s inability to hit the ground running, Newt will get my vote in the primary.

  • cheetah2

    Gingrich was no more serious about winning when he entered the race than Cain was, and as far as I can see he is not presidential material. I absolutely do forgive him and have nothing against him, but I still don’t trust him.

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

    …because, in the process, we can “out” such individuals as “Wonk” [vide supra].

  • wonkish1

    I’ve stated that I don’t agree with Newt’s previous position on the individual mandate.

    Again is that THE litmus test to what a conservative is or isn’t because a very large number of conservatives have been at least luke warm to the idea in the past.

  • gekster

    From Project Vote Smart:
    Gingrich key votes

  • cheetah2

    I saw this on twitter yesterday (Mr. Erickson mentions it in his diary above):

    Erik Erickson of Red State: “Asked listeners where they go after Cain. 3 in 4 to Gingrich, 1 in 4 to Perry. If Newt implodes? 9 in 10 to Perry. 1 in 10 to Romney.”

  • geoph

    Can Cons forgive him his sins, sure – as we are primarily a Christian group.
    I think the intent behind the question is more, whether we can overlook his failures to support our agenda.

    When Newt first spoke of running, I was dead set against it. I wrote and encouraged him not to run, Referencing many of his past transgressions. It appears I was not alone from his initial pol numbers. ?Then our field was set. Each candidate (excluding Huntsman and Santorum) has had their moment in the spotlight and have been found wanting by Conservatives or unable to sustain their message during that time (I feel sorta bad for Bachmann here).

    So now it is Newt. On the upside, everybody knows his baggage. It will be hard for the Liberals to reignite that fire and drop any bombshells exposing Newt. ?On the downside, there is all his baggage and betrayals to our agenda – and THAT is what I have been thinking on.
    Has Newt undermined Conservatism any more than most of us? How true to our goals were we since the ’90′s? Newt ushered in a Freshman Class the likes of which were not seen for sometime. Newt sensed the mood of the Nation and was able to act. Newt stuck to his/our belief about government size and spending. He crossed the line Lefty dared him to cross and Clinton shut down the government. Where was OUR support for that action? Where were WE when the attacks kept mounting?

    So can I overlook his failures to support our agenda? Surprisingly, i answer yes. It would be hypocritical not to as we are overlooking everyone else’s. I mean, who else from the GOP has ?gone as far? I count 22 House members and neither Ryan, Boehner, nor Cantor are on that list.

  • wonkish1

    The guy has written 2 dozen books, delivered thousands of speeches, and written hundreds if not thousands of articles and research.

    And some of the things you listed in there I had absolutely no problem with at the time and don’t right now.

    The fact that you have ZERO idea of any of the context of any of that shows how pathetic you are as source on any of this since you probably just copied and pasted this from other site.

  • wonkish1

    You don’t even realize your doing.

    I would highly recommend that you tread carefully.

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

    …to illustrate why this discourse is worth MORE than scorrnful “spit.”

    *

    BEFORE:

    ?Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object?the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.?.Thomas Jefferson

    *

    AFTER:

    ?Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object?the public TROUGH; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that EAR-MARKING/INSIDER-REWARDING PROCESS. One side believes it best done by EXECUTIVE FIAT THAT UNABASHEDLY REWARDS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS AS one COMPONENT of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people [ENHANCED BY THE MSM/LSM/ELM]; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them [SUCH AS THOSE WHO ARE FISCALLY-REWARDED FOR NETWORKING-PROWESS]. NEITHER is right, time and experience HAS PROVEN.?.Thomas Jefferson UPDATED BY DR. BOB.

    *

    We are justified in this day/age [if not compelled] to explore these data; why would you wish to adopt an anti-intellectual approach to this journey?

    The Buckley Rule applies, but many of us continue to maintain an open-mind as to where/whether we concede to what you portray as reality.

    First Mitt, now Newt, next Huntsman? How ’bout tethering the principles that emboldened the TPM with the personnae of the POTUS-GOP candidates?

    Care to lend a hand?

  • nathanalbright

    Dr. Bob is a thorough person, and he does not suffer fools gladly.

  • wonkish1

    Your quickly becoming one of the biggest temper tantrum posters I’ve seen in a while.

  • josephmn

    Newt undercut our team horribly when he delivered his ego boosting insight on the budget;

    White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called Paul Ryans’ House Republican plan for Medicare “right-wing social engineering,” Then on meet the press backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance.

    He just may be brilliant, but I sure don’t want friends like Newt.

  • Common_Cents

    How can Gingrich be an insider if people are saying he was run out of DC?

    Those excerpts sound like whining more than anything.

    Was Gingrich single handedly supposed to do all the heavy lifting?

    How did Boehner, Delay and company fare since then?

    Heck, why does our team talk better about “our friends across the aisle” than one of their own?

    Gingrich wasn’t God, or the President. People judge him from that point of view, not just as Speaker. Why aren’t others judged in the same way?

    What happened to Republican leadership since gingrich? They have been largely a big government dismal failure, falling all over themselves to be bipartisan(read: CAVE) to “our friends on the other side of the aisle”.

    Don’t fall for the trap of comparing Gingrich to perfection, in a vacuum. Compare him to reality and the choices we have today.

    Love Perry, hope he makes a competitive run, but the guy is playing some serious rope a dope with hardly any traction. If he is drafting, he better put the pedal to the metal.

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

    The Newt doesn’t merit “the benefit of the doubt” for his policy flip-flops, nor can his support for the Individual Mandate be viewed as anything other than inexcusable.

  • wonkish1

    And I’m not to bad myself. And I’d advise him to make sure he knows which one is the fool and which isn’t.

    Again for the sake of harmony on here I would recommend to you to take it easy. I have a lot of patience, but that

  • circlegranch

    Is that not enough of a signal to the voter that the status quo has gotten us here and its taking us into a hole from which we cannot return? For example, Congress is gridlocked over a bill Coburn tried to get introduced which would have cut a billion from the DOD. That automatically sets hair on fire amongst conservatives but stay with me. Coburn stated that we are spending $51,000 per year on students attending school on military bases. That’s triple, perhaps 4 times what is spent per student in public schools. Coburn noted, and I agree, that is waste that can be cut. That is waste that we can no longer afford. Yet, Coburn’s bill to do something about it got such weak support it never made it to a vote. Why? Democrats and Republicans are so fearful of not being re-elected that they are frozen in a lockstep of inaction and refusal to do the hard work.

    This post by EE is one of the most important I’ve read in weeks because he was unafraid to call a Newt a Newt and put the cards on the table. Obama’s approval ratings are lower than that of any president’s in modern American history. This is the moment for conservatism to rise up and conquer. What are we doing in response? We are weak-kneed; we are acting just like our elected officials. We are so afraid of losing that we won’t stand up and take control of this election process. We are too timid to say that we aren’t settling this time. The tea party is impotent, at least in my city and state. No rallies; no call to action. OWS sucked that atmosphere dry and now people are afraid to stage a protest for fear of being grouped with them. I was told yesterday, “Let’s wait and see how Iowa shakes out. Let’s see who the Christian conservatives there support and then we’ll figure out a plan of action going forward.” Really? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all and does that not scream of weakness and fear?

    It isn’t just the tea party activists that have lost their way. The mightly conservative coalition known as the Christian Right has joined the same ranks. For the last 3 years, all we’ve heard from our own mouths and from those of our grassroots, freedom and liberty groups has been that America needs to return to not just fiscal responsibility but moral accountability. When we watch a trial unfold on cable TV where a young mother scams the world for 30 days knowing her baby is dead and buried in a snake-infested swamp, that she died a horrific death in the trunk of her car and she ultimately walks free, moral people are outraged. When monsters that abuse children are able to post bail and walk around free, people of ethics find it beyond repulsive. When we listen to our president slam America around the world in much the same way his pastor did, when the Air Force Academy allowed a wicken ‘prayer’ circle be constructed on their grounds, when Christians and Jews are ridiculed yet other faiths are promoted, Americans used to get pretty ticked off and very, very fearful. Pastors cower in fear and refuse to speak about morality and how it is infinitely woven into our political environment. Apparently, they don’t watch much TV or else they’d see what is happening to Christians and Jews around the world; their places of worship are being burned and bombed and members are being murdered. With heads in the sand, we seem to believe ‘it can’t happen here’ so let’s just stay on the good side of the government, don’t rock the boat, don’t talk about what is happening right before our eyes on American soil.

    The powers that be, led by anti-progressive celebrity voices (I hesitate to call them conservatives anymore) tell us its o.k. to settle this time. It’s great if we nominate a man that rejected the National Rifle Assoc., supported a woman’s right to choose, supported gay marriage and even sponsored a governor’s initiative supporting gay proms in high schools. Companies overtaken by Bain Capital often went under, taking hundreds of jobs with them, but the head guy is one heck of a jobs creator? He did not wear the uniform of the U.S. military and that used to matter. And, if that guy doesn’t work out, let’s settle for a lobbyist and a man with a huge truckload of personal baggage that in previous times, used to bother people that demanded personal integrity in elected officials. If you watch Mr. Speaker in video clips these days, he looks over people and in one to one interactions, he seems disinterested in the average folk. He appears to suffer the masses with feigned empathy simply because its required. He is not warm or real. He’s a polished politician that believes his intellect is so superior to others that we should just bow and be grateful. At the Thanksgiving Family Forum, rather than talk about his own failings, he borrowed the hard luck story of a friend’s son’s illness as being a humbling time in his life. He does not seem geniune. He says he’ll ‘teach classes from the Oval Office’. Where will he find time to do that? We need leadership that attacks our problems, not serves to educate the chattering class. That entire suggestion is something Obama probably wishes HE’D thought of; remember the outrage on the first day of school in the fall of Obama’s first year? He wanted to do a nation-wide live video into every school in the country. Parents were appalled and called it socialist intervention and government indoctrination. Schools ended up providing alternatives for kids that didn’t want to hear Obama’s message and rightfully so. Obviously, Newt’s teachings would be a polar opposite but the concept of the president taking on the role of Professor in Chief when things are so dire is questionable. Newt wants to teach and instruct. We need 9-1-1 involvement and action. Let teachers teach and give curriculum control back to school boards. Let preachers preach and give them First Amendment protection from regulatory agencies. That’s the action we need from our president.

    I fear that a President Gingrich will be reminiscent of Pres. Obama. He will project that he’s the smartest guy in the room so don’t question him or challenge him. He will give glowing speeches and will be very good at attacking those that confront or challenge. The tea party coalition in Congress may not be with him because once elected, he’ll triangulate and sell conservatism for the sake of approval ratings. He’ll welcome liberals into his fold and compromise to accomplish. The problem with that is, they don’t want to compromise; they want power and control and every time our moderate president, whether Romney or Gingrich, offers the hand of friendship and compromise they will fail.

    If conservatism is alive and well in America, we need champions running for the Senate and its take-over in ’12 and we need a staunch conservative president that will work in concert with our grassroots members in the House. Already, we talk about compromise and ending gridlock by reaching agreement. That is not what the tea party fought for in the last 3 years. We stood for the taking back of America which means defeating liberalism and progressive icons in Washington, D.C. Anything short of that is nothing more than a continuation of what has gotten us into this mess.

    This is a very disheartening time in conservative history. We have no strong voice to defend us. Rush is lost in the weeds of being on the attack against the media. To whom shall we go? We need the clarify and guts of Erick Erickson. His voice is sanity and I’m thankful he has the courage to speak the truth. We are headed toward nominating a moderate. That person will not offer bright bold colors of difference to what we currently have. At a time when Obama loses moderate support by the day, the message to us should be that we can nominate a strong, consistent conservative and not settle. Woefully, we never seem to learn.

  • avgjo

    lines of welfare reform, balanced budget and tax cuts.

    Not to mention the effect those things had in shifting the conversation.

  • snappy101

    The answer is “no” for this conservative. This is the most “inside the beltway” candidate on the debate stage. If Washington is broken, it didn’t happen overnight. Also, Gingrich is a man of ideas not a man of execution. There is absolutely nothing in the resume of a consultant, professor, congressman, author, analyst, and documentarian to show he’s ever even tried to run anything large in his life. He’s a thinker and talker not a do-er. He’s never even tried for an executive position of anything large. I’m all for giving Gingrich a job in the White House as some kind of Presidential Advisor, a job where I think he would be a tremendous asset to someone like a governor, a mayor of a large city, a business executive who needs help maneuvering among the DC shark infested waters but his first big time executive position should not be President of The United States. If he thinks he can run something large like a country, he has to prove it to me by taking an executive position in a large organization, a business or a state where he actually has to manage and execute a large budget and deal with/fix problems not just present ideas on how to fix them. As far as his political baggage goes, he doesn’t have me there, either.

  • wonkish1

    And I’m a huge, huge fan of Paul Ryan so I got very pissed as well.

    But the work Newt has done over the last couple decades deserves applause from conservatives even those that see examples like that as reasons to not support his candidacy.

    The degree that people allow their dislike of a person’s candidacy for dislike of the person and his great work for this country is the point where I start getting annoyed.

    Again this is just some healthy advise that it is important to make the distinction between those 2. You can not support Newt’s candidacy and still appreciate the work he’s done. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

  • bzip

    This just coming front and center this morning. As if we didn’t already know Newt supported the mandate it appears Newt also supports rationing of health care for the elderly.

    Newt’s Health Problems
    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newts-health-problems

    Across The Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right (by Newt)
    http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

    Newt?s health problems
    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/11/30/newts-health-problems/

    ?In 2009, he wrote another Washington Post column in which he echoed a refrain often heard from people who believe we should ration care to the elderly: ?More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life.? Rationing advocates like Berwick typically bring this particular datum up to demonstrate how much money we can save by not providing expensive treatment to people who are soon going to die anyway. Oddly, they rarely mention the inconvenient fact that many people receive the same expensive treatments and live for far longer than two months, or even two years. Gingrich?s column also fails to note this reality.?

    Does anyone really think that Newt is better, more conservative then Romney?

    Sorry but Rick Perry 100%, even on Rick Perry’s worst days he is 1000x better then Newt or Romney.

    ?Newt’s endorsement of Gunderson’s program, combined with his praise of the egregious Dr. Berwick, creates problems for him that are only exacerbated by his long-standing support for insurance mandates. As Quin Hillyer recently put it, “Gingrich has supported an individual mandate for almost 18 years, has written in favor of it as recently as 2008, and even several times this year has defended it in concept.” Indeed he has. He put it most clearly in the Des Moines Register: “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance? and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” He made matters worse when he explicitly added that any large-scale health reform legislation should contain an “individual mandate.”

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

    …because there should be JUSTIFICATION for forgiveness…starting with the target-individual’s own conduct.

    You acknowledge “there is all his baggage and betrayals to our agenda.” You then pose a series of challenges that characterize why he is so problematic.

    “Has Newt undermined Conservatism any more than most of us? ” YES, particularly because he had been in a position during the past almost-two decades to chart a principled [albeit less fiscally rewarding] course. Whatever you portray as his great accomplishments during his brief tenure as Speaker, you must confess has lacked any degree of permanence. He failed to dismantle the governmental structures that BHO has lushly refurbished.

    “Where was OUR support for that action?” EXTANT, even after he faltered during subsequent years.

    “Where were WE when the attacks kept mounting?” SUPPORTIVE, notwithstanding his political calculations that over-weighted Lewinsky.

    “[C]an I overlook his failures to support our agenda?” YOU CAN, WE CAN’T.

    “It would be hypocritical not to [overlook his failures to support our agenda] as we are overlooking everyone else?s.” NOT! [Peruse any response to any RS-posting for documentation of the scrutiny being devoted to this effort...which some continue to decry--perhaps because some falls too-close-to-home--even on this webpage.]

    “[W]ho else from the GOP has gone as far? I count 22 House members and neither Ryan, Boehner, nor Cantor are on that list.” Not sure where you are going with this but, regardless, others have achieved myriad levels of success that has prompted them to vie for the POTUS-GOP nod.

  • tnguy

    Our side has constantly downplayed the differences between us and liberals, by nominating men such as Gingrich and Romney.

    I won’t be a part of that. I hope many of you won’t either.

    How can any of you – who truly are conservatives – support someone like Romney, then turn around 4 years from now and try to convince others to vote for a conservative? The lesser-of-two-evils argument holds no water with me. It’s intellectually dishonest of us to support someone like George Bush with his medicare prescription programs and so forth, then turn around the next election cycle and tell people that dems and their big gov’t agenda must be stopped. So instead of getting more of Obama’s massive gov’t expansion, we get the same thing at a slightly slower rate, if we elect Gingrich or Romney. Either way, we lose, as a nation. We need to highlight the sharp differences between them and us, and hold that line, not constantly move it based on whatever centrist or left of center republican talks his way into the nomination.

    It’s as if people do not grasp the peril of our nation. Unfunded pension and healthcare mandated benefits and the welfare state have us on the brink or ruin, and conservatives are conceding the notion that we have to support one of two men who both have a history of supporting the very massive gov’t machine that threatens to drag our nation’s finances into the abyss.

    What is wrong with some of you?? Seriously. Gingrich has supported a gov’t health care system. Romney actually implemented one. Dress it up however you want, that’s what they are. Our country is essentially on fire, and we have people worried about how the firemen present themselves instead of trying to find one willing to put out the fire.

  • PubliusII

    Leave aside Newt’s divorces, adultery, etc. In my view, those may be moral failures but not grounds to withold support from him.

    Newt has three problems:

    1. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is. When Newt was Speaker, Clinton consistently outmaneuvered him. Newt’s massive ego persuaded him that he was always 3 steps ahead of Clinton, when in fact Clinton was pretty much always ahead of him.

    2. He’s most interested in his career, not in reform. When the going gets tough, Newt will fold his principles to preserve his incumbency. This trait also explains Newt’s inconsistent positions over the years. Now Newt is not as bad as Romney, but hardly steadfast. To be fair, Newt has an active mind which helps him produce ideas, which is great. But some of the ideas are dogs.

    3. He’s a part of the Washington Republican Establishment. Example. he has taken big bucks from Freddie/Fannie for “strategic advice”. Is that the guy who will really reform our corrupt system? I doubt it.

    In my view, these are the traits that conservatives must forgive if we are to rally behind Newt.

  • rcastonjr

    how many of his books have you read? How much do you really know about his positions by taking the time to read his writings? Or are you just parroting what you have heard from the rumor mill? I don’t say this to be mean but to promote the idea that one needs to take a little time to get to know a person and a good way is through their writings. No doubt about it, Newt is a idea man. That may or may not be a good thing!

  • texabama

    Although I’d be loathe to vote for either Romney or Gingrich, if I were down to just those two I’d choose Romney. I believe both will say or do whatever they think will help them politically or monetarily, but in the end I trust Romney more at his core. If nothing else, Romney has shown he cares about his family and their well-being. Gingrich doesn’t appear to be able to say the same.

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

    …recall the profundity of this event…and the pattern is set for the next millennium:

    House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
    By John E. Yang
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

    The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

  • westcoastpatriette

    a perfect depiction of his ego-driven impulsive nature.

    Newt has a proven record that clearly demonstrates his inability to be faithful to anyone–wives, constituents, conservatism or the Constitution. He knows he is supposed to be a conservative, but has betrayed those principles many times–with little remorse other than knowing he must feign humility until he has made his way back into the good graces of whoever he is trying to dazzle.

    What makes him so dangerous is he really thinks he is smarter than everyone else–and this is how he justifies his betrayals. These character traits make me nervous. In many ways, he lacks a core similar to Romney. He’s just more brazen about admitting them and thinks all should be forgiven–because he said so.

    I don’t think his shooting star will last long. There are several candidates who are more stable, conservative and trustworthy than Newt and people are too vigilant this time around to overlook Newt’s near fatal flaws.

    We shall soon see.

  • wonkish1

    You what the Singapore system did. Which is essentially our system inverted, but substantially more private based because of the nature of how it works. Essentially every citizen directs a percentage of their income towards an HSA(similar to how private SS accounts would work). You then convert Medicaid into a subsidy based system to buy private insurance to ensure affordability for the young and poor. When either the HSA grows large enough to fund the insurance from distributions or the person starts earning enough(whatever comes first) they kicked out of the subsidy.

    Since you have large capital funds at age 65 you no longer have a need for Medicare. And since you have affordability across the system than you no longer need charity care(essentially you can get rid of hospitals being forced to care for uninsured because the system guarantees affordability). Cost shifting that both of those programs create because of lack of government payment goes away.

    And then you also cure skin in the game issues because the capital funds(HSAs) allow for more out of pocket expenditures which means higher deductibles and co-pays across the board.

    You see a problem with that approach??? I just killed 2 government programs(the more expensive Medicare and charity care) and converted medicaid.

  • Common_Cents

    He was a Democrat until 1989?

    He supported Al Gore in 1988?

    He voted for Jimmy Carter!?

    Ohhhh wait….that’s not Gingrich.

    That was Rick Perry.

  • Common_Cents

    only baggage ;)

  • nathanalbright

    …”Gingrich supports Death Panels” being appropriate?

  • westcoastpatriette

    Last sentence in that paragraph should say, “He’s just more brazen about admitting “mistakes”…

  • Common_Cents

    People will be pounded 24/7 w/ these comparisons.

    Perry=Bush day in, day out.

    It will be devastating and I don’t see how Perry can counteract and overcome that.

  • parkfairfax

    If you would even suggest voting for Obama over Romney, then why are you even here? The bad in Romney is not knowing where he stands all the time, but with Obama you KNOW you will dislike everything. As much as I mistrust Romney, I’d rather have him picking court appointees than Obama.

    Newt cannot win in a general election. He can take a fight to the liberals, but it’s all moot if he doesn’t win the election. When the Democrat can steal the family values theme from the Republican nominee, then not only is Lucifer headed to the slopes, but the election will be over before it started. Newt is the Republican Al Gore. His hubris is his ultimate downfall.

  • Russ Martin

  • nathanalbright

    why is it that your rejoinder to old baggage is to bring up far older baggage (since the last Democrat in the national presidential election Perry voted for was Carter in 1976). I wasn’t even born in 1976.

    Rather, you ignore plenty of fairly recent material with a dismissal as if because you do not want to concede its relevance you wave it away with a dismissive sneer.

  • wonkish1

    Is because a system I just laid out for you is a pretty close example to what Newt is going for, and that generalization he gave is a perfectly fine way of summing up what I just put.

    Also I should have been more observant of your M.D. in your sig. Sorry about that.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I have no issue discussing specific policies and contrasting them against other candidates. Where I draw the line, for example, is when someone starts hurling around labels such as “amnesty” designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than intellectual. That is not only contra-intellectual. It is partisan, irresponsible, foolish and speaks to either a severe lack of depth in a persons knowledge or blind zealous action. By the way, I am not now, nor have I ever suggested this has any specific relevance to you.

    Most normal folks don’t have the time to research these issues, so the destructive meme becomes the “truth” and potentially influences people to make bad decisions. Someone will have to educate me on how that helps the “cause”? Ditto something such as Gingrich’s personal history. Is the rationale that Obama has only been married once, but oh that Gingrich, ya know, he’s been married twice and somehow that makes Obama a better President. Nonsense. Retrospectively, these same people would probable say Jefferson would be a horrible choice for President because he was a slaveholder and their are rumors of philandering. Sure.

    So following that example, do you believe most people know candidates such as Perry and Gingrich have said to secure the border first, before anything else? Or do you think many who either support or oppose those candidates superficially believe they support “amnesty”- whatever that means?

    So I certainly don’t oppose and intellectual discourse or opinions grounded in facts. What I do oppose, because it is destructive, is lightweight propaganda devoid of facts and poo-flinging by someone, simply because they support another candidate.

  • sunshinek67

    Hot Air is loaded with Newters, yes irony and pun in that order. Perhaps you would be better served in their rooms.

  • concrusade

    …so long your name isn’t Mitt.

    If the conservative base passes on Mitt for Newt, we’ll be bigger hypocrites than the Speaker of the House was when he assailed President Clinton for having an affair in office.

    Between Mitt and Newt, I vote Mitt 10 out of 10 times. Political character is one thing (which Mitt obviously lacks), but personal character is another. A serial adulterer who changed religions twice as a matter of political expediency is unacceptable for the top of the Republican ticket.

    I pray that Cain’s loss is Bachmann’s gain in Iowa.

  • johnnyappleseed

    The candidates are like a box of chocolates that have no marking as to whats inside, and we have to squeeze them to get an idea of what they are.
    I normally buy chocolates that have what’s inside either on the box or scrolled on top.
    I prefer the one with an R on top for Romney, he has moral fiber inside, you can call him a flip flopper, or any other term you choose, but he never left his wife after he found out she had a major disease, i.e.(Mc Stupid) has never been accussed of adultery (Gingrich), Romney has been sucessuful in the private sector, was vetted in the last run for president,
    Heck! even Reagen changed position on abortion, so let’s get real if we don’t care about moral character, let’s go with Gingrich, the press will do a McCain on him, giving us the big”O” for another four.
    I’ll take Romney, Perry, even Huntsman, or any of the others running if it comes down to it, God, Country, Duty, should rule the Day.

  • gator_hoo

    That’s the whole point. His position is whatever is the most convenient position at the time.

  • Common_Cents

    If a true conservative can’t dominate his own base, when can he?

    This is not in jest, I really want to know what is holding Perry back? I think he’d make a great President, but very doubtful he can get elected.

    It will be “Perry=Bush” 24/7 365 by the left in the media smears. Nobody has addressed how he’ll counteract that.

    that aside, can someone explain why Perry hasn’t locked the nomination up by now?

  • wonkish1

    But if I see something going down a rough path I usually try to do my best to drop a warning before that happens.

    Its amazing how much things can spiral out of control because you read someone’s post comparing Newt(someone I deeply respect) to McCain(probably no other Republican I disliked more over the last decade and I’m not exaggerating) and wanting to gouge my eyes out at reading something like that.

    That necessitated a quick response and now things have run the course to here.

  • parkfairfax

    The issue I have is not that mistakes happen, for that is undeniable. However, Newt is man who knows what he believes. For him to blast Ryan’s plan, I have no doubt that he meant it. He is no Cain or Perry. So, I am led to believe that he really meant what he said. You don’t make a mistake like that. You make a mistake on a fact, a date or conduct. To draw a conclusion on a piece of legislation when you were a MoC and are as smart as Newt is based on a genuine belief. This was no mistake, this was Newt’s genuine opinion, to say nothing of the shortsightedness of someone who was planning to run for the Republican nomination. That is strategically suspect at best, stupid at likely.

    The Obama Machine will poke and prod until Newt explodes and we will be left waiting until 2016. Romney is too safe in his approach, Newt is too volatile. If Perry came across as more intelligent (voting age 21???), then he’d be great. But he will be painted by Dems as W 2.0 (dumb Texan). That will not play well. Cain is toast.

    How difficult is it to find an articulate, passionate Republican with a grasp of domestic and international affairs with character? It should not be THIS difficult.

  • unitedwestood

    This is complicated, but Newt kept stating he balanced the budget, of which, they did not. But if the democrats come out on him with this one, then they have to admit that Clinton did not balance the budget, we had a deficit. Then they would have to give GWB some credit. I’m not so sure they can sink his ship without sinking their own…. but if this comes out…… and he’s being say all along – I balanced the budget………….this could send him into a tail spin. I believe I’ll stick with Perry, until he gives me reason not to. I did however really like reading your post.. it gave me even more insight into Newt.

    This web site and it’s figures are why I claim the budget was not balanced.
    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

  • Common_Cents

    We have an insular spoiled golfer in chief that cannot triangulate like Clinton. This is a moot point.

    Republican establishment? Wait, I thought they ran him out of DC years ago? How have DC Republicans fared w/out Gingrich? Hastert, Delay, Boehner…..terrible.

  • Langley

    I understand you aren’t going to be a red-meat movement conservative and get elected in blue state. You are, at a minimum, going to at least keep quiet about some issues (social) or at least not emphasize them to the electorate, but will rather emphasize the principles of good government, low taxes, low spending, government reform, etc.

    However let’s compare Romney to another deep-blue-state Republican Governor: his supporter Chris Christie of NJ.

    NJ voters weren’t looking to make serious reforms that went up against the powerful teachers’ unions. Christie had to stump around the state, using forceful and truthful language without backing down an inch, to even get a chance at passing his needed reforms in New Jersey with Democrats in control of the legislature.

    Rather than just accept the liberal electorate as they were and go along with liberal policy ideas, Chris Christie expended a great deal of political capital to push the public to support what was right and necessary for his state’s budget.

    Can you ever see Romney doing that? As Governor or President? I sure can’t.

  • nathanalbright

    …and hold on in the meantime.

  • nathanalbright

    …and what was the source of your animus towards McCain, just for curiosity’s sake?

  • wonkish1

    That first its your job to persuade the public to support your policies and if you’re not capable than you shouldn’t be implementing them *yet*. And Obama didn’t adhere to that when he rammed ObamaCare through. So I on the whole tend to agree with this notion that you have to first convince at least a majority of the public to support something before you try to do it(in most cases at least).

    The problem he had with Ryan plan wasn’t anything in it. It was that the GOP hadn’t sufficiently sold the American people on it yet. He actually likes most of the Ryan plan and has espoused much of things in it over the years.

    So the mistake that was made was that he said some very horrible things that made it sound like he hated the plan when he was trying to make this case that he felt the American people weren’t sufficiently sold on the ideas in it yet.

    Does that make sense?

  • ihateliberals

    Romney is not a conservative and most of the Mormons I know are conservative. Romney comes from Mass. and there has never been a conservative politician come out of Mass including Scott Brown. these people are RINO’s at best.

    Newt is the next best thing. Unfortunately the real true conservatives have been demonized and beaten down. Whether or not they can come back from that is yet to be seen. Tim Pawlenty dropped early and he would have been a great conservative President. Michele Bachman is still hanging on and I root for her everyday. The truth is that any of the three Newt, Bachman or Pawlenty would be 1000% better on any given day than Obama. Romney is nothing more than Obama lite.

  • JSobieski

    Assert that Gingrich is not conservative because of three things he said, and ignore what he actually accomplished when in government.

    It would seem Nick that you put more importance on words than deeds, and more importance on the avoidance of a mistake than actually achieving anything. No offense, but that is a recipe for increased budget deficits.

    Given those standards, you should vote for Paul or Bachmann. Neither has managed to actually accomplish anything but their supporters love them because they never say the wrong thing or endorse the wrong person. We all know that it is much more important to avoid making a stupid video as a media tactic than it is to get spending under control or do something meaningful! I mean, really—we have our priorities, right?

    Since when did conservative mean being so ideologically rigid that one never actually accomplishes something?

    Newt was the key individual in balancing the federal budget, but because of an odd-ball House race in NY, he isn’t conservative? Really?

    The incidents you mention are almost all form over substance, with the exception of the Paul Ryan flap which he appologized for within 24 hours. What conservative was running in 2008 with a chance to win anyway?

    P.S. I support Perry and am on the record as being concerned about Newt. However, the guy did more for conservatism in terms of actually moving the country in a conservative direction than any other currently living politician.

    You indictment of Newt is based on 2 political endorsements, a stupid media stunt, and a poor choice of words for which be appologized. My defense of Newt is based on balanced budgets, tax cuts, welfare reform, and the leadership to successfully nationalize House and Senate elections.

    Conservativism is at its core anti-utopian—it is about results.

  • lepelerin

    21 year olds now allowed to vote… he is toast. I think Ginrich is most electable. I know, it’s hard to believe, even for me.

  • gator_hoo

    1) This is the first year that people have ever harped on the “ability” to debate. Why? Because Perry is the most dangerous candidate to the Democratic agenda, and the news has focused on his gaffes. While he has had some gaffes in the debates, so has every candidate, but the focus was on Perry’s. (Romney-the excellent debater- got killed by Perry on Social Security in the early debates, pointing out that Romney himself had called Social Security criminal, Romney also denied having left a line out of the paperback version of his book about how Romneycare should be implemented on a national level, Romney also “is running for office for Pete’s sake.”.

    In some ways, I think that Perry would be the ideal candidate to run against Obama, because Obama is nothing if not thin-skinned, and Perry is the only candidate I trust to actually go after Obama while on the stage with him. Newt can’t go after Obama on two key issues: Obamacare and the Housing collapse, because he supported an individual mandate and worked for Freddie Mac. Romney can’t go after Obamacare.

    Perry is the only one who can make a case that the federal government is too big, because he is the only one of the three who earnestly believes it. Too the extent that Romney and Newt believe it, they might believe that the federal government is bloated, but is the rightful source of authority it has claimed for itself. Only Perry is truly advocating for a return of power to the states.

    I don’t think the Bush attack will be effective. They aren’t the same candidate at all, as anyone who watched Bushie after Bushie line up behind KBH for governor can attest. Also, things are worse in the country now than they ever were with Bush. I don’t think running against Bush would be an effective strategy, heck people are going to wonder, if anything, why Obama has been unable to undo all of the damage that the “moron” Bush inflicted on the country.

  • Tbone

    They are the flavor of the month voters. This is why various candidate keep popping to the top. Can any rational person look at Bachmann’s record and say = POTUS? No. Can any rational person look at a BSing bozo like Herman Cain who can’t even run a competent campaign and say = POTUS? No

    Now we come to Dr. Newt. All the guy has ever won is a House race in Georgia. He got run out of the Speakership by his own Party. He will turn 70 a few months after taking office in 2013 and he is so fat and out of shape he might drop dead of a heart attack any moment. He has demonstrated nothing but poor judgement in his personal life. His conservative credentials are well left of GWB.

    Yet, because he sounds smart, the dimwits are willing to overlook all his warts.

    Me, I like a guy who has won 8 elections including Governor of a large and diverse state 3 times and has a proven conservative record, Plus10 years executive experience working with the opposition and a clean personal life with a proven Christian commitment.

    So what is holding Perry back? Really effing stupid voters.

  • wonkish1

    Believe that intragovernmental debt constitutes real debt or not. Some argue that it isn’t and others argue that it is.

    Personally I believe that the debt picture is actually bigger because you have to take the present value of certain future liabilities(like pensions for example) and count that as debt and that is much higher than intragovernmental debt(but then of course I’m not someone that actually believes intragovernmental debt is real debt because it is something that only deals with some of the future liability issue.

    But either way, Debt to GDP(what really matters) went down a lot in the late 90s. And the budget situation was quite good back then in large part thanks to Newt.

  • JSobieski

    that the Republicans shouldn’t try to push something through in the way that Obamacare was pushed through. Big changes required public support.

    He also apologized for his choice of words.

    People have a very disproportionate sense of what to hold against candidates.

    People who accomplish things are going to make mistakes. People who don’t accomplish things are going to have the best chance at being mistake free.

    Voting for someone who never says the wrong thing is voting for someone who never accomplished anything meaningful.

  • supergirl2911

    To know him so well? If so, welcome!

  • gator_hoo

    When a candidate is accused of a thirteen year affair by a woman he admits that he knows and his answer is “I do not deny it, but I will not address that issue.”

    Interestingly, I note that to the extent Cain has denied the affair, he is always careful to deny a “thirteen-year affair,” but not an affair generally.

  • andystone

    in a diary yesterday that was criticizing Newt’s pro-life record, calling him pro-choice. Only, it turns out Newt has 98.6% lifetime pro-life rating from the National Right to Life Committee! But just because his record is so long, it is possible to cherry-pick enough of the remaining 1.4% for an entire diary.

    Is someone with a decades-long record that is 90+% positive really such a bad choice?

  • lepelerin

    I didn’t know changing faiths was a problem. So he went from nothing to Baptist and forty years later to his wifes faith, Catholic. I don’t see the issue.

  • andystone

    They both had to work with Democrats, yes. But Gingrich drove a much harder bargain. Romney gave up everything on key issues such as abortion, and was not too shy to run to Ted Kennedy’s left in one election.

  • wonkish1

    Besides the fact that he ran way to the left of Bush in 2000 and hated on every tax cut he could find back then. The guy had a never ending ability to stick it to conservative legislation so that he could get another “Maverick” puff piece written about him in the newspapers. You could always count on him to sell out the conservatives and do it publicly. And he never did it with even a sane argument behind it. It was just to make him look better. It was actually quite funny that his slogan was “Country First” because for over a decade its been “McCain first” and everybody else can go to hell.

    Furthermore, practically all of the major legislation he proposed actually did more harm than good.

    I mean at least people like Collins, Snowe, and even Lincoln Chafee had the common decency to not run to the papers every time they knifed us in the back.

  • Common_Cents

    So what you are saying is nominate Rick Perry to get clobbered by Obama?

    Because voters are dumb and they won’t vote for Perry. Tbone you have just made my point.

    This has been my point all along.

    Electability matters.

    Rick Perry is not catching on. I wish he was.

    Do you really think millions of effing stupid voters can be educated on Perry’s accomplishments in time to win?

    Why isn’t Perry dominating among the base in the primary?

    Probably the real reason is we don’t have many truly informed educated conservatives in this country.

  • bzip

    You could easily make a case for death panels and mandates for Newt.(not to mention his global warming love affair with Pelosi).

    I don’t understand anyone who would support Newt after researching and knowing his history. Any of the other candidates would be much better at least they don’t support the very issues we are fighting Obama about (yet sure enough Newt seems to support many of those same issues that Obama does).

  • andystone

    was the “dumbest thing he did in recent years”, so I don’t see how that doesn’t qualify as regretting.

  • wonkish1

    I’m not even sure I’m going to support him in the primary.

    You can understand why I have followed him so much by reading the top few paragraphs of this diary.

    http://www.redstate.com/wonkish1/2011/10/19/a-play-by-play-on-newts-transgressions/

  • Tbone

    in the general and see that there isn’t much there they like.

    But, if you think that we need an American Idol candidate, then I guess we are doomed.

  • bzip

    Can we say too many people really aren’t paying attention except to 30 second sound bytes from debates. Wonder why we have the elected official we have the country falling off a cliff.

    You are your Bush nonsense is about as lame as it gets. So you would rather have the flip-flopping Newt sitting on the couch with Pelosi supporting mandates, death panels, global warming in addition to extra material afrairs played over and over on top of ethic violations. Oh that goes over real well.

  • JSobieski

    Newt led a conservative renaissance and moved the US in a conservative direction.

    Michelle Bachmann is better about not making stupid videos, and not endorsing RINO hags in NY primary elections, but what has she actually accomplished?

    Moving the country has to be our goal. People don’t succeed in that goal by avoiding all risks, avoiding all mistakes, and sticking to ideological talking points.

    People who do things also make mistakes. Hopefully they learn from them.

    Even if Newt wasn’t apologetic about the Nancy thing (and he is), does that outweight welfare reform and balanced budgets?

  • concrusade

    It’s not like he chose a different Evangelical neighborhood church. Coupled with his adultery and other personal character flaws (humility being the major one), it shows a major lack of conviction.

  • cheetah2

    Of other 2 likely nominees we have Romney’s flip flopping which the Democrats are already deploying attacks on, and the semi truck load full of baggage that Gingrich is dragging around. I question the notion that Perry will be any worse off than either of these guys would be in the general election.

  • eldstenorge

    Yes! No! If you are a Christian, you forgive everyone. The atonement really cannot work for any of us if we cannot forgive while asking the Savior to forgive us of our sins. However, forgiveness is one this, voting for someone is something else. How can you trust someone like this? One wife, that may have been a mistake, but two wives? And, like McCain, a wife who was believed to be on her death bed at the time? No, I want someone I can trust. Philosophy is very important, especially after what we have put up with the last few years under Obama. BUT, honesty and trust are the first step. If that is not there, you look no further. If Newt is nominated, I will look to a third party, be it Constitution or whatever, but it will not be a vote cast for Newt Gingrich.

  • Common_Cents

    and swear you believe in your heart of hearts that Gingrich would pursue death panels, cap/trade global warming, mandates, more affairs and have more ethics violations.

    This goes for everyone. I’d like to see how many people would actually say that. Esp considering the possibility of having an R congress and with tea party influence and state of America today.

    Who really believes completely that he would?

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

    but, you’re correct…there’s a lot missing there.

  • circlegranch

    In order for that to happen his endorsers, such as Steve Forbes, Ted Nugent, Gov. Brownback, Gov. Jindahl and others need to stand up and really fast and start getting air time. If Steve Forbes calls O’Reilly and says he wants a segment on the Factor, I think he’d get it.

    Another key component that must happen, but may well not happen, comes from conservative radio and TV celebrities. If Rick Perry had been the beneficiary of one-fourth the positive attention and air time that Cain and now Gingrich have rec’d. we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Yes, it maddening that we have so many conservative voters that hang on the every word of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and use their opinions to shape their own. That’s sad and it defeats our entire goal.

    People that claim to be conservatives, Reagan-ites especially, have confidently put on blinders for this, the most important election of our time. Somehow in 3 years they’ve become conditioned to believe that we must cater to the center in order to win. Thomas Sowell did an excellent piece on that this week. He rebukes the Michael Medved’s and others that have rolled over and gone back to sleep. He cites the failure of Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and others including those on the Left that had spineless positions such as Jimmy Carter.

    Of course, Perry’s message would resonate across the country and of course there is time. The big problem is the Big Talkers that refuse to stand on conservative principles and help propel the proper candidate to the nomination.

  • johnt

    Nobody measures up to our standards, right? I mean, not everybody is up to running against a piece of lower order trash in the WH. Let’s march right through the entire field finding fault and hand the nation over to David Axelrod & the NY Times.
    Perhaps we should grit our teet and give Newt some minor credit for reining in the Clintons, you know, the people who first wished to destroy our health care system. We might even attempt to remember the declining deficits and what the alternative was, the rules reform in the House, the clown he replaced, Bob Michel remember? But of course what else, one Republican. Coburn, attacking another, it almost gets boring, not that Coburn’s credentials are perfect now either,
    So who is the target for tomorrow?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    That supporters of Republican Presidential candidates not named Rick Perry were not welcome at RedState.

  • jetman

    There is now a real possibility of The Republican Convention being a true OPEN Convention, with no candidate having enough pledged delegates to get the nomination on a first (or even a second) ballot.

    THIS COULD BE THE BEST THING WE COULD HAVE, given the way all the Non-Romney candidates keep imploding. The switch to proportional delegate awards in primaries after April may ensure an open convention, IF all or most of the current crop of candidates stay in the race until then. If they all stay on the ballots in all the state primaries, then it is almost assured.

    I hope Rubio is paying attention.

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

    …is this excerpt: “more private-based because of the nature of how it works. Essentially every citizen directs a percentage of their income towards an HSA (similar to how private SS accounts would work)….”

    The HSA [which was a "MSA" when first proposed to RR by George Ross Fisher, III, MD in 1982] is inherently VOLUNTARY.

    You would have “EVERY CITIZEN” be forced to participate.

    This may be “more” of something that remains inherently unconstitutional.

  • bzip

    Look, Newt himself has clearly stated over and over his support of the mandate even recently and in his own article suggest death panels, rationing of health care – how are we not suppose to think it is “possible” Newt might do anything along those lines:

    Across The Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right (by Newt)
    http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

    Gingrich Supports ‘Variation’ on Obamacare-Type Health Insurance Mandate

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    His stint with the SBC can easily be seen as a time of rebellion against what he was formerly taught. The Lutheran and Catholic churches have much more in common than they don’t.

  • hls87

    His tenure as Speaker did nothing to change the disasterous course we’ve been on since the New Deal. There was never a balanced budget, only the illusion of one. The national debt continued to grow throughout the Gingrich years as we borrowed from various trust funds. First the tech bubble then the real estate bubble gave us a false sense of fiscal security. Meanwhile the monster that FDR and LBJ created just kept getting more and more destructive. The government spending curve sloped steadily upward.

    Welfare reform made some marginal changes in the most politically vulnerable entitlement programs, but it didn’t change anything fundamental. When Gingrich took over as Speaker we had an unsustainable government committed to solving the problems of life on behalf of the people. We had the same government when he left.

    Gingrich has spent his entire career advocating that sort of government., hence his embrace of the individual mandate and various other apostasies. He is an integral part of the problem; he isn’t a plausible candidate to lead us to a solution. In fact, nobody with significant ties to Congress is a plausible candidate for the the GOP presidential nomination this year. We have to look outside Washington for our candidate and primary voters are smart enough to realize that.

    Talking about Gingrich is a waste of energy, He’s just the latest in a long line of distractions. His polls will crash, he won’t win anything and his candidacy will fade away.

    The time to get serious is fast approaching.

  • iidvbii

    Accomplishments over the last ten years. Can you please list three significant contributions Newt has made in the last decade. Please keep in mind we are looking for his contributions personally not just “supporting” someone else’s labor. I am curious to see what you come up with.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Now it’s only unforgivable if it happens more than once? And death bed? C’mon, are you still trying to spread that story? At least be honest about your critique.

    You will find trouble here for your support for a third party vote. We’re here to elect Republicans.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    There’s no evidence whatsoever that we’re headed for an open convention. And Rubio? He’s been a Senator for what, a few days? I can barely see a case for him to be the VP selection, but certainly not President.

  • littleatlas

    All you see is the “crap” in people you don’t support! You are part of the problem infecting our country today! You don’t analyze, all you look for is dirt (which may not be true) on people you don’t like. You are not looking for what is best for the country…only to support your person by putting down the others. That is how the democrats operate, so I think you are a liberal playing their pathetic games. If you are a doctor, please check into the “psyc” ward…you need help! I do medical research and analyses is essential to my work. I have to look at the positives and negatives, then build on the positives in order to reach my goals. Newt’s positives far out way the other candidates if you make a fair evaluation. These are crucial times for our country and Newt is our best hope to turn things around. I lived through the Carter/Reagan days and watched Newt lead this country to greatness again when he was Speaker of the House. Erick, it is vary obvious who wears the pants in your house…your wife has influenced your reasoning…move past Perry!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Yes, because conservatives hate balanced budgets, budget surpluses, low unemployment, and welfare reform. I can see why you’d think he has no results.

  • PubliusII

    You are certainly right that Newt would run against Obama, not Clinton. Of course, I devoutly wish for Obama to be defeated.

    But defeating Obama is only the start of the battle, and may actually be the easier part of it. The hard part would come when the new Republican President takes on the corrupt, and bipartisan, Washington Establishment, which must happen if we are to get the reform our Nation needs. And this is the exact point at which Newt has sinned in the past and seems to have weakness of character. Has he truly reformed himself?

  • Common_Cents

    Ok, fine. That’s all I wanted to hear.

    As far as “Perry=Bush”. You call that nonsense? We are talking about the lame stream media here and the vicious left. Do you really think they WON’T blast “Perry=Bush” 24/7? Really?

    We know the differences, of course. We know Bush will be looked on much more kindly by history, but it will take a decade or two.

    but, cmon, it’s going to be the left’s main parry on Perry. Millions will have “Perry=Bush” bumper stickers, it will be drilled into peoples heads like they did w/ “bush is dumb” meme.

    Obama would be drooling to get that matchup. Why? Perry is the most likely candidate (who has possibility of nomination) that would wake up obama’s base.

  • blarman

    If we’re willing to forgive Gingrich, wouldn’t we similarly be willing to forgive Perry? Or Cain? Or Romney? Or any of the candidates, really? Why is forgiveness limited to only one candidate?

    I’m for ANYONE BUT A LIBERAL!!! And while I don’t consider Newt or Romney or Gingrich a true conservative, I’d take any one of them over Barack Hussein Obama.

    Stand behind your candidate. Vote for whomever you think will be best. But be willing – when the time comes – to support whomever gets the nominee, because noone can do more harm to this country with another four years in office than Obama.

  • shakes4life

    I will only vote for ONE person and that is Dr. RON PAUL…..he is the only one showing honesty, consistency and standing with we the people……all the others are now running from their past miscues and trying to tell people now what they think is politically correct to get the masses to believe them…..also the media is pushing anyone but DR. Paul that should tell you something RIGHT THERE…..WAKE UP AMERICA……NEWTER is especially a slime….surely your memories aren’t that bad…….look at this long list and then watch the video I provided….this is a MAN NOT TO BE TRUSTED……..

    Recall that Newt worked on the Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1968 while a graduate student. With that background, we should at least look at some of his record (excerpted from a Free Republic post):

    04/02/1987 ? He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)
    10/22/1991 ? He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    03/??/1993 ? He was ?passionately in favor? of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
    11/19/1993 ? He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 ? He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    08/27/1995 ? He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
    01/06/1996 ? He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.
    04/25/1996 ? Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
    04/10/1995 ? He supported Federal tax dollars being spent on abortions.
    06/??/1995 ? He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.
    06/01/1996 ? He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
    09/25/1996 ? Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
    01/22/1997 ? Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
    11/29/2006 ? He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a ?serious debate about the 1st Amendment.?
    11/29/2006 ? He called for a ?Geneva Convention for terrorists? so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
    02/15/2007 ? He supported Bush?s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
    04/04/2007 ? He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
    04/17/2008 ? Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
    09/28/2008 ? Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
    10/01/2008 ? Says in an article that TARP was a ?workout, not a bailout.?
    12/08/2008 ? He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
    03/31/2009 ? Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
    10/16/2009 ? He angered conservatives by endorsing super liberal Dede Scozzafava.
    07/30/2010 ? Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the ?Axis of Evil?.
    08/03/2010 ? Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.
    11/15/2010 ? He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals
    12/02/2010 ? He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.
    12/05/2010 ? He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
    01/30/2011 ? He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
    01/30/2011 ? He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
    02/02/2011 ? He says we are ?losing the War on Terror?; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War
    02/10/2011 ? He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/13/2011 ? He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
    02/15/2011 ? His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating ?a new endowment for conservation and the environment.?
    03/09/2011 ? He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
    03/15/2011 ? Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
    03/19/2011 ? He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
    03/23/2011 ? He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
    04/25/2011 ? He?s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
    05/11/2011 ? His campaign video said that he wants to ?find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.?
    05/12/2011 ? He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
    05/15/2011 ? Said GOP?s plan to cut back Medicare was ?too big a jump.?
    05/15/2011 ? He backed Obama?s individual mandate; ?All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.?
    05/16/2011 ? He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
    06/09/2011 ? His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
    07/15/2011 ? His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
    08/01/2011 ? He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
    08/11/2011 ? His recent criticism of the United Nations is undermined by a long, long history of supporting it.
    09/27/2011 ? He says that he ?helped develop the model for Homeland Security?
    10/07/2011 ? He said he?d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.
    11/12/2011 ? He advocates assassinating Iranian scientists and covert war with Iran.

    Please view and circulate…..NEUTER THE NEWT…..

    The Real Newt Gingrich

    Video: 33 minutes

    http://www.jbs.org/commentary/the-real-newt-gingrich

  • streiff

    if you really do medical research you know it is also important to know what doesn’t work and not waste your time replicating work. This is where rsklaroff is coming from.. For a lot of people, Gingrich’s personal and ethical lapses are a deal breaker. Insulting them doesn’t make your POV stronger and it will inevitably result in you being booted.

  • hls87

    Yes!

    It is quite possible to have been even more consistently conservative than Newt has been for the last 30 years and still be incapable of leading conservatives where they now have to go. We have never seriously tried to turn away from progressive government. Throughout Newt’s career, even during the Reagan Revolution, we have been content to work within the progressivfe paradigm.

    Now that paradigm is crumbling and conservatives have to break new ground. We have to start the long arduous process of dismantling what the progressives have constructed over the last century. Newt Gingrich is a creature of the progressive century. He can’t transcend it. He certainly can’t lead the process of undoing it.

    Newt may have been the best we could do in 1994. In 2012 we have to do much better. If we don’t, America is doomed to decline and eventual collapse.

  • circlegranch

    www.americanthinker.com is carrying this article written by Stuart Schwartz, a professor at Liberty Univ. in Lynchburg, VA.

    In reading the article, I was heartened by Schwartz’ ability to see what many of us see. He details the personality, past record and current agenda of Gingrich with great clarity and informed discernment.

    Then, the point I’ve been making about weak-kneed conservatives and Christian values voters that have turned a deaf ear is underscored. Schwartz ends his column by writing, in essence, that while Newt has plenty of concerns that normally would give us great pause, we can find some comfort in knowing at least he’s better than Obama.

    No mention of the need to be firing up, refusing to settle and re-starting the conservative grassroots locomotive toward winning the White House and Senate with staunch, constructionist conservatives. No, Mr. Schwartz turns yellow also and throws up his hands in feigned despair and follows the herd mentality of its o.k. to settle. 75% of us don’t want Romney, Newt’s a hard pill to swallow, BUT, anything is better than Obama. No worries. It’s all good.

    God help us, one and all.

    As for Common_Cents challenging bzip to put a hand on the Bible and swear, with all due respect, that’s the job of the president and Congress. It is THEY that must swear allegiance to our Constitution and laws. Citizen journalists such as bzip and common patriots such as myself, don’t need to swear to anything. What we are doing and what our job must be, is to vet our candidates, make sure we know all pertinent and relevant information about them, and then be confident that the people that are required to place a hand on the Bible and solemnly swear are people we can trust and believe. This is our moment in history to heed the call to come forward and with boldness, be unafraid to ask questions, to research and report. We have to get this one right. We, as engaged citizens, don’t need to put our hand on the Bible nearly as much as we need to open it and read.

  • shakes4life

    Ron Paul: A True Republican
    Gary C. Huggins – 20 November 2012

    There is a faction within the GOP that points to Ron Paul’s libertarian views as a basis for the erroneous claim that Paul is neither a Republican nor a conservative. This is absolute nonsense. There has always been a strong relationship between libertarianism and conservatism.

    In an interview with Reason Magazine in July 1975, prior to his second candidacy for the GOP nomination, Ronald Reagan, the icon of conservatism, stated, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”.

    He further asserted, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is”.

    Reagan confidently added, “I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

    Reagan clearly understood and acknowledged the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism.

    The following passage is an excerpt from Senator Robert Taft’s book, A Foreign Policy for Americans. The book was written in 1951, during the height of the Korean war. Taft, who earned the nickname, “Mr. Republican” was the chief ideologue and acknowledged leader of the conservatism of the Republican party from 1939 to 1953. He led the Conservative Coalition against Roosevelt’s New Deal, believed in a strong national defense, opposed the draft and alcohol prohibition.

    Like Robert Taft, Ron Paul is the only candidate that advocates a true Republican foreign policy. Here is an excerpt from Taft’s book along with a link to the full text:

    “War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not interfere according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country.”

    Senator Robert Taft, A Foreign Policy for Americans, 1951
    Full text available here: http://mises.org/books/taft.pdf

    There are a few old-school Republicans, like Cal Thomas, a Fox News commentator, conservative columnist, and syndicated author, that can actually recognize a true Republican when they see one. During the 2008 GOP primary, Cal Thomas correctly noted that:

    “The only one behaving like a real Republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won’t get the nomination because too many Republicans are into handouts and redistribution, just like Democrats.”

    Cal Thomas, January 17, 2008 Commentary
    http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2158

  • Scope

    Here is an article which clearly points to Gingrich’s long time advocacy of “socialized” medicine, up to and including his support for “end of life” or “death panel” government interventions to not provide end of life care to those who are nearing the end of their lives.

    Honestly, the more you read about Gingrich’s past liberal positions on health care, he actually is to the left of even Romney with respect to this issue.

    I also understand that he in recent days said, in an interview, that “the facts aren’t in, in order to determine if Global Warming is man-made.”

    For all those here at RS, that have now jumped on Gingrich’s bandwagon, where you you all when Gingrich was polling at 4-5%? I don’t remember many coming out in force in favor of Gingrich.

  • TSquared

    over at Free Republic then. Try posting a story about Cain that does not cast him in the most favorable light and see what happens. Or, post a story that cast Newt in a favorable light then watch. Sometimes I’ll do one or the other just for the entertainment value. It’s like throwing red meat into a tank of piranha just to watch them feed.

    You may be suffering blindness due to your education. When evaluating what appeals to the masses, you may be placing too much emphasis on the substantive and too little on the superficial. You’re a Doctor right? How many of your patients do you think spend a lot of time down in the weeds of policy?

    What I’m telling you is – it doesn’t matter if Perry has the greatest ideas since sliced bread. It doesn’t matter if Perry is viewed as more conservative. What matters most is the perception of Perry. Perry has the same problems as Cain, to a lesser degree. When Perry is presented with various questions – you can just see the Rolodex of prepared answers spinning in his head. It’s clear that Perry hasn’t given the world much thought beyond the boundaries of his state. It’s like Perry got woken up in the middle of the night, but instead of being told that cows are on the loose, he was told “Hey man you got to get up and go run for President.” The former doesn’t requires any prior contemplation or preparation about the issues. You simply go out and round them up. The later, on the other hand… Another thing that is getting old about Perry – like Cain’s response to everything and anything is 9-9-9, Perry’s is “Texas”.

    In general – I think that most folks are willing to go with a candidate – even if they don’t agree totally on every issue – as long as the get a good feel about the guy/gal. That “feel” can be the product of some of the most nebulous and superficial things. If many feel that the candidate has a wealth of experience, has ideas (even if they are not in total agreement with some), is articulate, can be an effective champion of their cause in general, and appears competent and capable of getting things done, then those things will weigh heavily on their decision. If you ask people why they support a given candidate – often they will not be able to formulate a coherent response. But they just know instinctively – they have a feel about a candidate. This is where Perry has done himself a lot of – and perhaps irreparable – damage. I said the other day that Perry has received a vote of No Confidence. Currently, I don’t see any evidence that that has changed. I’ll say again – Perry could have the greatest policy proposals of all time. It won’t matter a wit if he can’t sell them.

    I personally can’t get comfortable with the idea of putting Perry in the general and, at best, thinking to myself “come on man – spit it out” every time he speaks, and at worst, keeping my fingers crossed that he doesn’t experience another potentially campaign ending implosion every time he get’s up on that stage.

  • iidvbii

    since he claims all the credit for the accomplishments of his period it is only fair he should answer for the failings as well.

  • timmycrw91

    Romney?? Gingrich?? Why don’t we throw McCain in for good measure too? I have a sense of humor. But seriously, we as conservatives have come too far to acquiesce to the Romney’s, Gingrich’s, and Paul’s of this campaign. Not even gonna mention Huntsmann (ooops! I just did :-0 ). A solid conservative, flaws and all, or bust. Otherwise, what have we been fighting for? If it’s Romney, Gingrich, or Paul, it will have been for naught.

  • Common_Cents

    I don’t see the coverage as some media conspiracy or influence. Blaming the big talkers? We need to wake up to reality. If your product isn’t selling, you can’t blame the customers for being dumb, or your distributors for not doing their job. It is up to you. I don’t see Perry blaming anyone, but his supporters do. Reality is, he is not getting traction, I am asking why. Something needs to change for him to make an advance. Blaming does not help the situation.

    Why aren’t those supporters out now beating the bushes for Perry? He needs to get some momentum going now.

    Bachmann was out early and got some attention, cept she was a placeholder for a Perry.

    Cain earned the surge with a fresh approach. things haven’t turned out as advertised but he earned his spot in the hot seat.

    Gingrich got near zero air time early on. The debates and media set up Perry vs. Romney, gave them most of the time and focus, put them at center stage. The only exposure Gingrich got was reports of his campaign was over. He earned his surge by consistently doing well in debates, the best on the stage by a long shot over the entire series. People started catching on to Gingrich over his several consistent stellar performances, not really as just a default from others failures.

    Perry came in on top, with too high expectations, and his flub really hurt. He’s got to run the table to overcompensate for the poor first impression. You have to shake a lot of hands to overcome poor national performances in front of millions. that is just a fact. I wish he’d go to toast masters. A national race is much different than a state race. One candidate just cannot do it solely on the ground in so many states. He needs positive national exposure.

  • westcoastpatriette

    are faltering.

    Just what do you think the primaries are for, anyway? You label Dr. S. a phony because he endeavors to give factual accounts of each of the candidates record and then does a comparative analysis of the same?

    To deny the “negatives”–as you advise–is a foolish way to determine who you are going to vote for. Your support for Newt would appear to many as the more foolish, phony conduct. To the contrary, Dr. S.’s research and analysis are very sound and they do include rating Perry’s negatives. I would listen to him before I would listen to you.

  • bzip

    Thanks circlegranch for the article and summary.

    Newt has a huge problem, far more over reaching than any of Romney’s issues. As some pointed out, if we are going to forgive and forget about Newt’s problems then why not for everyone else. Netw has the biggest, longest most damaging list of problems out of all of them.

    As far as CommonCents he/she is nothing more than the typical blinded voter who is clearly part of the problem and why we end up with some many disastrous officials.

  • iidvbii

    What accomplishments can either Ryan or Rubio point to that qualifies either to be president?

  • shakes4life

    If you agree with the way Freddie Mac screwed America, Vote for one of their lobbyst’s – Newt Gingrich.

    If you think you aren’t paying enough taxes and you don’t care if your
    president knows anything about foreign policy, vote for Herman Cain.

    If you think that your daughter’s body is owned by the state and they
    can force dangerous vaccines on her for sexually transmitted
    diseases,and you thin……k illegal immigrants should have a free education paid for by American taxpayers – vote for Rick Perry.

    If you like Obama care, vote for its founder – Mitt Romney.

    If you like a cheerleader
    instead of a REAL LEADER and someone who thinks your privacy belongs to
    the FED by extending the Patriot Act vote for Michelle Bachmann.

    If you think we just haven’t killed enough muslim civilians or American
    soldiers and you think we should kill more of both, vote Rick Santorum
    (or any of the above).

    If you love freedom and agree with our founding fathers – vote Ron Paul.

    ~ Forest Allbee

  • ayhr86

    she is the only candidate that never poked an eye at conservatives

  • wonkish1

    He launched the Drill Here, Drill Now, and Pay Less campaign out of AS that was probably the earliest BIG catalyst for sparking the campaign for offshore drilling.

    His AS ads against McCain Kennedy were a very big component in killing the bill.

    The first TARP bill out of the house was likely defeated because Newt was the only big figure railing against the bill(granted he reluctantly gave into the second improved bill, but had he not stood up the first bill would have likely passed and the 2nd was going to pass no matter what).

    You may not know this, but there is a good chance that your states GOP platform has numerous planks from Newt’s Platform of the American people.

    But ultimately what I’m referring to when I refer to his work is the intellectual groundwork Newt has laid in policy. His speeches, books, etc. that he’s been making over the last decade is creating a new generation of Paul Ryan types that are armed with so much knowledge on policy issues and creative ways of arguing them that once this group makes it way into the political world the GOP will be a very, very powerful force.

  • medicineman

    Robert:

    As mentioned, there are warts..Newt was a substantial PART of moving Clinton to the center…IMO…I have listened to his explanation of the “mandate”, and it was more of an inticement to get the people making over 75k choosing not to carry insurance sticking the hospitals with the bill. Now this was also backed by the Heritage Foundation for which most of the the ideas I agree with.

    I was a Perry supporter until he was unable to make the jump to the big stage. Like his record, (and he was hitting .350 in AAA ball, but is a little under .200 in the bigs) If we are looking between Newt and Mittens…..Newt > Mittens..

  • littlehouse18

    You hit the nail on the head. Newt is not electable and to me he has not demonstrated executive ability, no matter how high his IQ. He simply does not give the inpression of understanding how ‘ordinary’ people think. There’s just something lacking in his social skills, a lack of tact and maybe not grasping how he comes across. Not to mention the character issue. Another diary this morning suggested that he gets so easily bored that he jumps to the next interesting thing without accomplishing his original goal. This is troubling to me.

    I believe that Romney likewise does not have great social skills. But at least he does have proven executive skills from his business background, and I believe that he will follow through on goals. Also, his personal life is apparently very clean, and that is important to many, including myself. I don’t understand Erick’s preference for Newt. Although I remain pessimistic about Romney’s chances to win the general, I think they are higher than Newt’s.

    Still praying for Perry to turn it around.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It’s sort of a play on words…

  • logicalpositivist

    Newt, as much as he loves America (and he does), he loves himself even more. When Newt was invited for a personal audience with the president during the government shut-down of 1995, Slick Willy would make sure that the Time magazine that had Newt Gingrich on the cover (the “man of the year” issue seen here: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19951225,00.html) was always on top of the coffee table, where Newt could see it.

    It was a great negotiation tactic: appealing to Newt’s ego. Clinton got almost everything he wanted from that negotiation. It made Newt look purchasable to many conservatives and crippled Newt’s plan to run for president in 1996, which, by the way, was Newt’s greatest incentive for creating and implementing the Contract with America reforms.

  • wonkish1

    You just crossed the line buddy!

    No results? That man has delivered more for us than probably any living conservative politician in this country. And just because you are candibot POS that will say anything(truthful or not) to tear down someone other than your candidate doesn’t mean I’m going to sit idly by and watch pull crap like this.

    Maybe next time you should get a clue! And realize that you don’t have to make up crap to take down the work of someone we all a lot to just so your candidate looks better by comparison.

    Your pathetic! And if you don’t want to be treated like the D-Bag you are then maybe you should start focusing at least on what you think Newt lacks in a good candidate instead of attacking the work of someone who has done more for our movement than you’ll do in 50 lifetimes.

  • annie54

    Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. Rick mentioned Tom’s “Back in Black” plan during Chris Wallace’s interview, so I thought the good senator would pick up on that. I think I will drop him a line.

    Coburn’s “Back in Black” plan has $9trillion in deficit spending listed. A lot of time was put into that plan and it could, actually, be used as a guide. Perry should be complimented for mentioning it during the interview.

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

    …but is easily distilled.

    I oppose the Individual Mandate he espoused in the 20th century AND he has yet to repudiate either what he said/wrote in the 1990′s nor what he has written during this millennium.

    And, yes, this is a pivotal concern because of his overt reliance upon Big Government.

  • logicalpositivist

    On some pretty major issues.

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

    …as was specifically attributed infra, and I care not with which you agree/disagree; the aggregate is problematic.

    THUS, either provide a cogent defense of his elitism/statism [assuming you may be identifying with him, channeling his personality, or otherwise functioning as a surrogate] or provide welcome surcease [assuming you may be able to recall fundamental Conservative principles, Constitutional limitations, or just good ol' common sense].

  • Tbone

    So what is your point.

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

    …so, please, stop with the ad-hominem distraction…and FOCUS!

  • iidvbii

    for ignoring the constitution and supreme court by a sitting U.S. president. If you have the time and inclination I would be fascinated to hear your justification for allowing Newt to determine what is and isn’t protected be the first amendment as well.

  • streiff

    despite you not liking it.

    None of this is to say that Gingrich didn’t nearly singlehandedly remove the House from democrat control, but his record as Speaker is checkered at best.

    There are no perfect candidates out there. Newt is terribly flawed on a lot of levels but that doesn’t mean he can’t give Obama a run.

    On another note, you haven’t been here long enough to earn the right to treat anyone like a douchebag. So threatening to do so is a tragic self beclowning that damages your credibility.

  • texabama

    Yes, I wish he had not misspoken, but that’s basically all it was. People of our generation who were able to drink at 18, but not vote until 21 sometimes have to reconfigure that in the memory banks.

  • kamiller42

    Oh… maybe not.

  • Tbone

    who sold out what moral values he may have had for a fresh piece of squeeze and a sack full of money.

    If he was such a great leader, why did he turn out so corrupt?

  • wonkish1

    All of Newt’s accomplishments are meaningless to you?

    Again I’ve made my self clear over and over and over again. Support who you want for whatever reason you want. I’m not here to persuade anyone into voting for any candidate. I’m not even decided yet.

    But what I don’t appreciate well is those that would disregard, downplay, and attack Newt’s past accomplishments and the work he’s done for us just so because they don’t want him to be the candidate.

    There is a fine line between attacking the candidate and attacking the person and his work. And far to many cross that line because they’ll say and do anything to advantage their guy in the primaries. If people come out of this thinking that Newt was some liberal Republican who presided over a bad tenure as Speaker then that would be one of the saddest things we did to someone that has done so much for us.

  • wonkish1

    Is that what your saying?

  • iidvbii

    and reagan in 1980. In fact most of Texas was democrat in the 80′s. Now we are the most powerful redstate. so whats your point?

  • Tbone

    in the profanity rules? I mean, that seems a bit childish.

  • andystone

    N/T

  • littlehouse18

    Once people get initially subsidized, how many will really have the incentive to improve their lot on their own to the point where they lose their subsidy? Human nature to me dictates that many will not, even if it is in their best interest in the long run? (Just like, fior example, the 99+ weeks of unemployment.) People just find it hard to give up “free stuff” and dependency.

  • Common_Cents

    How have the post gingrich speakers done in ushering in smaller government? In conservative pursuit?

    Hastert
    Pelosi
    Boehner

    I’d really love to know.

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

    …because it appears your vituperation is now multi-targeted.

  • kamiller42

    it’s the ones the liberals fear you will hear about the most. Perry is solid conservative and intends to dismantle the Washington machine liberals and some republicans love. That is a threat they can’t let stand.

    In regards to mistakes, for you viewing pleasure…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t4-AKcH3eC8

  • texabama

    He was trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. That’s what the hookups with Pelosi and Sharpton were about and why I’m not a fan. It was all designed to get along with the major Washington players. We don’t need another Washington “player”. We need both a broom and a good stiff scrub brush dipped in antiseptic.

  • streiff

    they aren’t running for president.

  • JSobieski

    However, if Newt had died in 1990, would the 1994 conservative revolution—as short and disappointing as it was, happeend?

    Would the races in 1994 have been nationalized as they were?

    Would there have been a contract for America?

  • JSobieski

    However, if Newt had died in 1990, would the 1994 conservative revolution—as short and disappointing as it was, happened?

    Would the races in 1994 have been nationalized as they were?

    Would there have been a contract for America?

  • JSobieski

    because we can’t go from mandatory public accounts to mandatory public accounts.

    Ergo we are locked into the status quo.

    BRILLIANT!

  • texabama

    I, too believe in spiritual transformations, but question how many one has in a lifetime. Newt seems to have a new one with each spouse. So is he merely co-opting the belief system of his significant other or is it really his belief system? Newt has been Lutheran, Baptist and Roman Catholic. While they are all Christian, they do have some major theological differences.

  • wonkish1

    As to the “first amendment” issue. All Newt suggested was that the federal government have the authority to shut down websites that are used by terrorists to plan attacks against the United States. Currently there are hundreds of terrorist chat rooms all over the internet. That is all he said. Do you consider that very unreasonable?

    And what is specific are you referring to in regards to the constitution and the supreme court? The individual mandate?

    Trust me a lot more conservatives than you think were at least luke warm to that idea than you think.

    Prior to ObamaCare there were tons of Arch conservatives that were supporting the individual mandate. Think about it the Heritage Foundation isn’t exactly a liberal entity.

    And there argument goes, “If the government can force a private entity to provide a service(charity care) then the government can force the public to buy health insurance.” I don’t agree with that. And I don’t agree with Newt’s past support of it, but from a purely policy perspective the individual mandate does solve the charity care problem(and adds a couple other issues).

  • texabama

    Wish I could have put it that succinctly.

  • annie54

    during some of his plain talk to the citizenry, he will make some ittsy bittsy gaffes that the MSM will try to make mountains out of; however, I will take plain talk any day rather than what Romney and Gingrich are coughing up.

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

    …who constantly appears bemused by my reactions.

    You summarize your analysis thusly: “I personally can?t get comfortable with the idea of putting Perry in the general and, at best, thinking to myself ?come on man ? spit it out? every time he speaks, and at worst, keeping my fingers crossed that he doesn?t experience another potentially campaign ending implosion every time he get?s up on that stage.”

    You base this on the view that he has suddenly been thrust into this race, notwithstanding the obvious need to invoke his Texas experience when discussing what he would envision America to become [as detailed in Fed Up!"].

    I am reluctant to swallow the MSM/LSM/ELM narrative about Perry, particularly when noting that he would dismantle D.C. like Mitt/Newt wouldn’t. That’s why I assumed [after his initial rise/fall] that tt will take awhile for his narrative to become appreciated by the electorate for the welcome approach that many on RS have detected.

    For sure, I’ve wanted to spit-out answers reflexly, but I have grown to enjoy the way he conveys some of his thoughts. And I can’t say that my patients mind my digressions into policy [in medicine or in government] so, metaphorically, it ain’t so bad that he is poised to discuss States’ Rights regularly.

  • kamiller42

    Why would someone leave Cain because of the 13 year affair accusation and go to twice cheated, thrice married Newt? Newt?! With Newt, it’s not an accusation; his infidelity is fact.

    I was a Cain supporter when he first came arrived. Those leaving him now because of the affair accusation need to find policy reasons to leave him or find a candidate better than Newt to support.

  • JSobieski

    Has any currently living elected official done more to move DC in a more conservative direction than Newt?

    If people admit that is answer is no, we can get to the questions below.

    Did Newt blow it in a lot of ways?

    Yes.

    Is Newt likely to blow it again?

    That is the real question in my view. Voting for Newt would be gamble. It could pay off big, or it could be a disaster.

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

    as is illustrated, for example, by my exchange with the Wonk.

  • littlehouse18

    So that is probably what came to mind. Also, Nov. 12 probably came from Nov. 2012. It’s really just a little slip, but after everything else, it hurts.

    I keep hearing that Perry has had recent back surgery. Standing up for two hours in a debate must be a killer. Plus there is the issue of medication. I would really like to hear from the Perry campaign as to whether his medical issues are affecting him. If that is the case I think voters will understand.

    This does not seem like the same guy who announced so vigorously in August.

  • jqcitizen

    Given this Country’s governance since Gringrich left the House of Representatives one would do well to take a look at his accomplishments during that period. No politician, other than Regan, even approaches his accomplishments. During that time he took flack from both his party, the Democratic Administration, and the democratic party, the liberal press, and yet he accomplished much of what he promised.

    Does he have personal and political spots? Yes, he does, but he has had years to re-access both his personal, his religious, and political life. He has been involved with organizations such as The Heritage Society and American Solutions where the primary purpose has been to study the the problems facing our society and economy. I believe this effort has given him the insight necessary to lead this Country. His knowledge of history, both the successes and failures, are unmatched by any of the current candidates.

    If you review his life, I believe that you will find and individual who has mellowed, has demonstrate a growing faith in this Country and in our Lord and Savior, and feels that his primary remaining life purpose is to provide leadership and focus to help properly identify and address the social and economic problems facing America.

    For all Christians, myself included, we need to be careful with regard to the stones we cast and judgements we make.

  • wonkish1

    Evaluate him as a candidate, look at his record, positions, etc. and make your choice how ever you want. But there is absolutely no need to act like he hasn’t done a lot for the conservative movement in the past.

    These things can be mutually exclusive. People don’t have to go there.

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

    …by focusing neither on personal-matters nor on global-terms.

    You ask, “do you believe most people know candidates such as Perry and Gingrich have said to secure the border first, before anything else? Or do you think many who either support or oppose those candidates superficially believe they support ‘amnesty’- whatever that means?”

    I concur that code-words are problematic, but I also wonder how The Newt can propose creation of community-boards to assess ongoing immigration status. Does this not play into the “fire, ready, aim” personality-metaphor?

    You conclude, “What I do oppose, because it is destructive, is lightweight propaganda devoid of facts and poo-flinging by someone, simply because they support another candidate.”

    I concur, and that’s why I constantly attempt to reference my analyses.

  • texabama

    from the Catholic church, but I don’t know that I would say they have more in common than they don’t. There are some major differences especially if you start looking at the various Lutheran synods.

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

    …so let’s not be overly judgmental. If Rick batted 200 during the fall, know that he’s improved [and has issued quality position papers in the interim] as winter approaches.

    Also, the assessment of batting-average must include on-base-%’age, and this is where Perry shines; recall how everyone co-adopted his “zero-based foreign-policy budgeting” and “secure Mexican border as national security issue” postures [except Bachmann and Paul, respectively] during the recent debate.

  • streiff

    it is you.

    The poster you were responding to presented a pretty fair synopsis of Gingrich. I’d even agree that Gingrich’s contributions to conservatism largely ceased after he was deposed as Speaker.

    This doesn’t mean you can’t support him, it just means you can’t require the rest of us to join the Ostrich Brigade.

  • littlehouse18

    That doesn’t tell us if he still believes in AGW or not.

  • wonkish1

    Just because I defend Newt the man doesn’t mean I’m a lock for Newt the candidate. I get this distinction apparently all of the candibots around here don’t.

    I’m actually quite content with quite a few of the candidates actually including Perry.

  • parkfairfax

    He was not saying you have a responsibility…he was saying it should be “required.” That is a HUGE difference.

  • hls87

    Gingrich has never done anything to change the direction of the federal government and that direction is leading us straight to the edge of a cliff. These are facts. They remain facts however violently you attack them.

    In fact in all his bloviating, both written and oral, Newt has never demonstrated so much as a glimmer of understanding that our culture is dying because our government is pursuing the utopian goal of caring for the people. He is a creature of the Washington status quo and almost the last person on Earth capable of engineering serious changes in it.

    Gingrich had his chance. He muffed it. He dabbled for a few years, decisively lost the PR battle with Bill Clinton and then retired to cash in as an influence peddler. This is not the resume of a potential President. Pretending otherwise changes nothing.

    Newt’s political career is long since over. The 2012 campaign is like a Monkeys reunion tour — It has some nostalgia value, but that’s all it has.

  • thosjefferson

    I can’t believe we’re seriously considering nominating Newt Gingrich. Sure, he has some good ideas among the thousands of ideas he’s spouted, but he’s had plenty of bad ones (and not just his couch time with Pelosi).

    But do we really want a nominee who has made millions of dollars lobbying? I know he parses the term in a Clinton-esque way so he didn’t technically “lobby” as defined by statute, but his clients in D.C. paid him millions of dollars to help them gain access to officials. IOW, he leveraged his position as former Speaker to profit from his government connections. He’s the ultimate insider. What sense does it make to excuse this because he’s “the conservative” insider?

    Gingrich represents the worst of the DC-centric elite in this country and nominating him would hand the election to Obama.

  • wonkish1

    1 said responsibility. I answered that one and then the issue of the individual mandate or can’t you read?

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

    …I’m not discussing constitutionality, primarily.

    FOCUS, please.

    ANSWER this, please:

    “You would have ‘EVERY CITIZEN’ be FORCED to participate.”

  • wonkish1

    I’m just pointing out that there is a line that goes to far in chastising those that have done a lot for us.

    And I would really like to see you make the argument that the conservative movement would be better off if Newt Gingrich was never in it.

    Don’t be obtuse! I’m just merely pointing that some people are going to far. And they are doing that **purely** because they don’t support him as a candidate.

    Now I’m still undecided, but the degree some people will go to attack another candidate is appalling. And your no better!

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

    …because, as Rick has noted [and this is c/w "stare decisis"] the system can be modified to empower the states in this regard [establishing a system of transferability].

  • wonkish1

    Into HSA accounts yes!

    And the difference between that and privatizing social security is?

  • tailfins1959

    You go where opportunity leads you. “Why not forgive Romney for living in Massachusetts”? That whole premise is silly. My bigger doubt about Romney was stiffing the Thanksgiving Family Forum. That was a big middle finger to Evangelicals. It was recent and deliberate. It makes me question what kind of judges he will appoint. Regarding the judge appointment topic: Would Newt appoint someone like Dede Scozzafava to the bench?

  • littlehouse18

    have been very enamored of Bachmann and Cain. I think this has come from a longing to show that conservatives are not racist or sexist ( I share that longing). But it has clouded their judgement. Now that Cain has imploded, they will be giving that up somewhat, although Sean was still defending Cain yesterday.

    The only reason I can think of for their gravitating to Newt is that they are so familiar with him.

  • wonkish1

    I have a life you know!

  • wacowboy

    too concerned about finding the “perfect” candidate who is the master debater, who has all the right stances on all the right issues, worrying about who is sleeping with who, trying to find the savior.

    the only reason he’s down is because conservatives hold his heartless comment against him. there’s no other logical reason. his record is good. his plans are good. his personal life is good. he is taking it to and will take it to B.O.

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

    …because I’m not dissing The Newt’s accomplishments.

    I’m drilling-down to his core-philosophy, and I’m finding him to be an elitist/statist.

    Now, if you please, answer my simple/repeated questions.

    Do you agree with imposing the Individual Mandate…in any form?

    Does not anyone who supports this approach necessarily endorse a version of Big Government that is anathema to True Conservatives?

  • littlehouse18

    nt

  • thosjefferson

    I’m all for repentance and forgiveness when it comes to personal life, but we’re not judging anyone when we consider the example Gingrich would set for the country. The facts he’s been married three times, that he cheated on his first wives, that he ran up the famous bill at Tiffany’s and took over a million dollars from Freddie Mac are just the beginning.

    Consider the contrast. Obama is a exemplary father and husband, who made his money by writing bestselling books. He’s an outsider to DC, having lived there only for a few years as Senator and now as President.

    Gingrich has the infidelity issues, made his millions through his government connections, and his entire career revolves around DC.

    They both have a track record of believing in government to solve problems, they both have careers centered on government, and they both have a steady stream of ideas that change often.

  • JSobieski

    Ie reform that involves anything besides passing it to the states?

    So we are locked in the SQ!

    BRILLIANT!

  • wonkish1

    How many times do I have to say NO for you to get it. I don’t support the individual mandate.

    On one policy issue sure! But do you believe in that Crack should be legal? Not trying to compare the two, but I’m just pointing out that one issue can’t make one person a conservative and one person not.

    And you aren’t drilling down to anything. You have asked me one question repeatedly and then don’t read the answer. And then you just post a bunch of crap that is designed to confirm your views of someone. You aren’t actually participating in a discussion at all. So I’m really starting to wonder if your really that bright of a chap or not.

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

    …or admit you refuse to defend your postures.

    ?You would have ?EVERY CITIZEN? be FORCED to participate.?

  • JSobieski

    go ahead.

    Jefferson wasn’t in favor of the air force, nuclear power, or the Internet either.

    W had some good ideas, and a lot of character and faith. What he lacked was the power of persuasion/communication.

    I support Perry, but to gloss over the importance of communication is a mistake.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • streiff

    Obviously I’ve done more than you but that’s beside the point.

    I have no intention of making the boneheaded argument you want me to make because I don’t believe it. I also don’t believe that Gingrich accomplished very much as Speaker after the first 6 months or so and I don’t think he’s helped the cause out a lot since leaving the House.

    None of that makes him a bad candidate it is just the way it is.

    As far as lines go, everyone is free to draw their own line. For a lot of folks, three marriages may be that line. Or working for Freddie/Fannie.

  • 1bunny

    awesome post I couldn’t agree more. I have been so disappointed in the TPM and what I now like to label as “so called conservatives” of the media and politicians. They seem to be afraid of speaking up for the true conservatives so they don’t lose their cushy jobs. How about standing up and fighting for this country instead of yourself. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Truer words have never been spoken and we need people to start helping this country or there won’t be one left.

  • TSquared

    … Perry comes off as if he has been suddenly thrust into the race. You can go around in circles debating if the Texas experience under Perry was really Perry’s doing, or Perry’s just being smart enough not to screw up what he was handed. Was Perry’s book ghost written? If so then how much of that book is Perry and how much of it is the ghost writer? But at then end of the day, those debates don’t matter. The perceptions of Perry by now has most likely been indelibly written into people’s heads. That’s why I made my original point. Hoping and praying for Perry’s resurrection at this point – in all probability – is pure folly ( I say probably because of the Huckabee and McCain experience the last go around – anything could still happen).

    Another note… You can’t just gloss over why people gravitate to certain candidates and not to others. I believe a lot of talking heads fail to put enough serious effort into trying to understand this – or they just can’t. I took my stab at it above. If I’m right, then my theory doesn’t bode well for Perry.

    As for enjoying the way Perry conveys some of his thoughts… We’ll we each have our taste, but for me Perry’s delivery is often cringe inducing.

  • JSobieski

    The records of actual conservative accomplishment are quite thin.

    Romney tried to block as much spending as he could in a Blue state, and had limited success. His one transformational change was a bad one.

    Cain helped defeat Hillary care.

    Bachmann says the right things but never actually moves the ball.

    Perry has done a great job in Texas, but that is kind of like evaluating a running back with an offensive line that is filled with Hall of Famers.

    In that last, Newt does have the most experience in actually moving the ball forward. He has also revealed a tendancy to fumble.

  • wonkish1

    Because unless your willing to say that the movement would have been better without him then you agree there is a limit to how much people should go when attacking him.

    And clearly your the type of shallow person that looks at everything in the paradigm of this candidate or that candidate and is incapable of crediting a person for any of his past successes and instead prefer to write them off because ‘hell that is what primaries are for’. They are perfect for people like you to lose any sense of self respect.

  • Scope

    and there never was a “surplus.” I love when some Republicans currently want to make it appear that Gingrich accomplished such lofty goals while Speaker during the Clinton years. I remember all too well when the presidential elections of 2000 were in full swing, the Democrats were touting Clinton’s balanced budgets and surplus, and the Republicans were out there proving over and over that the reason the budget appeared to be balanced was because of accounting gimmics used during the Clinton years, where some items were moved off budget, or put off into future years so as to make the budget appear to be balanced. Here are the facts of the Clinton budgets you can see from the information and charts provided, taken directly from government records, that the budget in reality and fact was never balanced.

    Yup, Gingrich was great with pushing for welfare reform during the Clinton years. That was a worthy achievement. Then Gingrich turned around and blew that gain with lobbying for, and pushing for the largest new entitlement legislation with Bush’s Medicare Part D program, that barely passed, but passed, no doubt because of Gingrich’s agreement and push that it was the “compassionate conservative” correct thing to do.

  • littlehouse18

    a lie which I believed for a long time. It has gone on so long that I think it will still have traction in the election. The thing is, Newt’s public persona lent credence to it! I find it very curious that he did not work hard to dispel it years ago. Sometimes you just have to address things – what was he thinking?

    A vote against the Republican nominee is a vote for Obama, a vote for the end of the American idea. Please reconsider.

  • shakes4life

    Found this link from a commenter at Ben Fulford’s site….this is something I do fear for the good doctor…..

    November 30, 2011

    Obama Issues Ron Paul ?Kill Order? As Russia Prepares For War

    By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

    The Federal Security Service (FSB) is reporting today that the ?secret letter? sent to Prime Minister Putin by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda contains a warning that United States President Barack Obama has issued an executive-level ?kill order? against US Congressman Ron Paul over fears this charismatic politician, who many believe could capture the Republican Presidential 2012 nomination, is about to expose to all Americans what can only be described as the largest mass theft in human history.

    According to this report, Prime Minister Noda first became aware of this ?kill order? after a private meeting with Obama at last weeks ASEAN Summit meeting in Indonesia when the American President expressed his ?unconstrained joy? over the toppling of the Greek and Italian governments in bloodless coups by EU banksters who installed to run these countries unelected former Goldman Sachs executives.

    Not known to many Americans is that the giant global investment firm Goldman Sachs put Obama into office by being its top donor and after winning the Presidency put so many of its former executives into the US government it is known as the ?Wall Street Cabinet.?

    The reason for Goldman Sachs, and other top American and European banksters, putting Obama into office, this report continues, was to loot the Americans taxpayers of an estimated $100 Trillion?nearly $30 Trillion of which went directly into the pockets of international banksters around the world and another $70 Trillion in lost home values, stock portfolios and pensions funds.

    The main conduit of this massive theft was the US Federal Reserve System which during the 2008 Financial Crisis secretly doled out, without the American peoples knowledge, over $16 Trillion to European banks and companies and another nearly $8 Trillion in ?secret loans? to the largest banks in the United States.

    Causing Obama and his bankster allies to fear Ron Paul, this report continues, is the Congressman?s ability to hold US Congressional hearings on the $8 Trillion in secret loans to the largest banks in American without the public?s knowledge exposing this largest theft in human history and laying bare for all to see the total criminality of their entire elite political, financial and corporate class.

    Though the US mainstream media has virtually ignored Ron Paul?s candidacy the American people themselves appear to have broken through this deliberate government ordered blackout of his Presidential run as evidenced by his rise in the polls in the first campaign States of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which should he win them all would assure him the Republican nomination.

    The fears Ron Paul is causing among Americas elite classes appear to be justified as he recently likened the US Federal Reserve System to ?drug addiction? warning that the deception it has foisted upon the public will lead to the destruction of the United States.

    Ron Paul further warned the American people this year that their nation was becoming a ?police state,? called for the impeachment of Obama for ordering the assassination of an American citizen without charges or trial, and stated that Obama had violated the War Powers Act over his actions against Libya.

    Ron Paul?s fears of a police state America being ruled by a dictatorial tyrant were confirmed yesterday when the US Senate, in a 61-37 vote gave, for the first time in history, the power to the US Military to hold citizens without charges or trial indefinitely by passing a bill that was written in secret and never openly debated.

    So frightening is this new law that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the days prior to its passing warned, ?The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president?and every future president ? the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.?

    Most ominous in this FSB report is its stating that the ?assassination regime? ordered against Ron Paul by Obama may already be underway as one of the US foreclosure fraud whistleblowers subpoenaed by Ron Paul to testify before the US Congress named Tracey Lawrence was found ?suicided? yesterday in Las Vegas.

    The destruction of anyone found opposing the Obama regime and its bankster backers was, also, brought into sharp relief this week by the smearing by mental illness allegations of one of America?s top heroes US Marine Sergeant Dakota Meyer, who in September received the Congressional Medal of Honor from Obama (who called him one of the most ?down-to-earth guys that you will ever meet?) for saving the lives of 36 of his comrades, but after he alerted the press that his employer defense contractor BAE Systems was selling high-tech sniper rifles to Pakistan that are being used to kill America Soldiers was labeled as a ?drunk and mentally ill.?

    So concerned has the Kremlin become about the growing American fascist police state it caused General Nikolai Makarov, Russia?s top military commander, to issue a warning to the West last week that the Motherland was fully prepared for a nuclear World War III and which prompted the Obama regime to state that it would immediately cease observing their arms treaty with Russia.

    To if the American people will be able to rally around Ron Paul before he is assassinated by the Obama regime it is not in our knowing, other than to note that in a country where every public demonstration ? however peaceful and orderly it might be ? is ordered by their authorities to be treated as the equivalent of a prison riot, where the former police chief of Seattle blamed the militarization of local US police forces on Obama?s Homeland Security Department, and where the media is described as being nothing more than a ?lapdog? for Obama and his bankster allies, the likelihood of these people escaping the worst horrors to come do, indeed, seem inescapable.

    http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1542.htm

  • streiff

    Because unless your willing to say that the movement would have been better without him then you agree there is a limit to how much people should go when attacking him.

    This makes no sense.

    Your second paragraph is similarly nonsense unless you are implying that critical thought is not permitted for conservatives.

    A word here. The next time you insult anyone, directly or indirectly, you will stop posting here. I’ve put up with your general churlishness for as long as I intend to.

  • JSobieski

    I believe that the deficit (not the debt) did actually go to zero at one point, but that doesn’t matter.

    lets just say that Newt’s time as speaker represented the most effective time in several decades in attacking deficit spending. I don’t think that statement can be factually challenged.

    Shorthand comments like amnesty and balanced budgets are just that—shorthand comments that can be innaccurate in certain ways.

  • 1bunny

    on this link you provided ‘Gingrich Key Votes’ he voted a lot the first year in office (1993) and as time went on he voted less. I counted aprox. 210 times that he did not vote. I did not count all votes just not voted. If you look at the voting record it looks like he got bored and checked out. This reminds me of BO voting present.

  • wonkish1

    All I’m looking for is a basic level of decency.

    The man has done a lot for us. You can acknowledge that and still then find fault with his divorces, past positions, judgement, past mistakes, etc.

    But when people act like Newt has done zero for the conservative movement they deserve to be called out on it.

    Or would you just prefer that once someone becomes a GOP candidate any positive work they’ve done in the past should just be thrown out the window for the political expediency of preventing him or her from being the candidate?

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

    …how do I embed videos, as you have done here?

  • jaykali

    I worry about his ability to win the general and sure he has some of the same flaws as Romney but conservatives don’t HATE Gingrich like they do Romney.

    I have been persuaded that conservatives don’t like Romney. Evangelicals and other socons don’t like him either bc of his mormonism. Romney’s fatal flaw is not flip flops, every politician has those. His flaw is the same as John Kerry, he’s just too much of a robotic slick generic politician. He always says the most careful, poll-tested, focus-grouped political statement in response to any question.

    I have thought that even with his flaws his polling looked good enough to beat Obama. That still might be true. I just don’t think he can eclipse the 25% polling so his worst enemy is the conservative vote coalescing around 1 candidate, and the current leader for now is Gingrich. There is not much time for another candidate to emerge. I bet Pawlenty really wishes he had hung around longer, I think he would have had at least 1 shot at surging.

    Anywho if Gingrich can not do anything stupid like criticize Paul Ryan then maybe he can be the main challenger. Romney basically needs the conservatives to split their vote, right now that’s not happening bc Gingrich is on the rise. I don’t think there’s time for a new surge bc a) we’re out of candidates b) calendar time. So Gingrich is the last hope.

    I don’t think Gingrich is the savior but I do like a couple things a) He can debate and attack b) Hopefully money will pour in once he is established as THE anti-Romney c) He’s good on the stump d) conservatives like what he says, he’s the “ideas” guy e) He was in charge in the Clinton ‘golden’ years.

    He’s got a lot of problems too but if it is Gingrich, I do think conservatives will rally around him. And he is smart like a fox. What I like ab Gingrich too is that he has foreign policy experience which means he doesn’t need a ‘cheney’ type to run as his VP, he can go young and get the very exciting Marco Rubio. That would have me very excited.

  • ceili_dancer

  • streiff

    you use a utterly childish “Bull$hit” in a comment title, which means you think we moderators are stupid or that you are so clever you’ve found a way around our rules. Then you threaten to treat someone else like a douchebag. Then you call the guy who, at this point, would just as soon ban you as not “shallow” and demand that no one examine Gingrich’s huge flaws of policy and character you don’t really get to set the standard on “a basic level of decency.”

    You’ve received all the warning and consideration you are ever going to receive. The next comment you make that even irritates one of the moderators a little is going to result in you being booted.

  • Common_Cents

    But if you are going to scrutinize old baggage, it should apply to everyone. It’s pretty silly.

    Now you want to talk about new baggage.

    How are we going to counter this new baggage?

    “Perry=Bush”

    That is all the left is going to run on, 24/7, 365. It will be devastating.

    “Perry=bush” will be the one thing that will re-energize Obama’s base.

    old baggage against gingrich will not rally obama’s base. Pelosi couch moments won’t rally obama’s base.

    I’m not saying Perry=bush but obama, the left, the media will 24/7 365 until the voters mindlessly chant it.

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

    Noting his reference-site…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Fulford
    …includes this description of its host…

    “Benjamin Fulford (born 1961) is a journalist living in Japan. He is the great-grandson of George Taylor Fulford[1]. In the early 1980s he went to Japan to study at Sophia University. After receiving a B.A. from the University of British Columbia, he returned to Japan in the mid-1980s to pursue a career in journalism. He worked in Japan as a correspondent for Knight Ridder, the International Financing Review, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun English edition, and the South China Morning Post before moving to Forbes magazine, where he was the Asian Bureau chief from 1998 to 2005.[2] After leaving Forbes he wrote a series of books in Japanese. He conducted an interview with the reclusive David Rockefeller in November 2007[3] .

    “On July 14, 2009 the Tokyo District Court awarded American broadcast journalist Steven L. Herman more than Yen 1,700,000 (115K euro) in the civil libel case brought against Fulford and his publisher (Herman vs. Fulford, Fusosha & M. Katagiri).[4]

    “After the 2011 T?hoku earthquake and tsunami, Fulford claimed on Japanese television that “[t]he American government in cooperation with [the] Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers, and other powerful groups, they are planning the eruption of Mt. Fuji Volcano. The earthquake and the tsunami was March 11th, 2011, 03.11.11. The Mt. Fuji Eruption they are planning is for April 11th, 2011.” Fulford attributed the earthquake, tsunami and his predicted eruption of Mt. Fuji to HAARP, a scientific facility used by physicists to research the upper atmosphere.[5][6][7]”

    Do we really want RS glutted with this stuff?

  • tnguy

    The repeated mantra (often on both sides of the political arena) is that voting against “X” is a vote for “Y”!!!

    No, it isn’t. Only if I go to the booth next November, and push the button for Obama. More than likley, I’ll vote for some unknown or write someone in. If that is the case, it won’t count as a vote for Obama unless the machine malfunctions.

    At least try to make the case that it’s a half-vote for Obama.

    Regardless, the notion is idiotic and is what has us in this position to begin with. We’ve sullied the republican and conservative name with big gov’t candidates – like the 2 leading now – to the point that it’s often difficult to paint distinctions. We can’t genuinely try to convince people to try to vote against a big gov’t juggernaut, when that’s exactly what Republicans are about to nominate.

    A vote for Gingrich/Romney is just a guarantee that the gov’t will continue to grow in scope and power. Probably at a slightly slower rate than in would under Obama. Personally, I have no interest in casting such a vote. I’ll only vote for the candidates who I trust to try to implement dramatic changes in the opposite direction.

  • funwithknives

    are a mind reader,of sorts. Each and every time I witness Mitt discuss anything, these are MY thoughts and feelings .
    Does he have the loins for this long-haul? {and It Will Be Looong ,10-4?} An Objective thinker would have to wonder given his track record.
    I watched Mitt on Bair’s program last night and he had a little of that “deer in headlights ” look about him. Didn’t seem he much cared to address some of his specific histories. Troubling,NO??

  • jimmyneutron

    like some other candidates is not really a ‘conservative’. In other words his first instinct, when he sees an issue, is not to find a conservative solution. His first instinct appears to be to look for a government led solution – top down leadership.

    President Reagan was a conservative at heart. When he saw a problem he also saw conservative, limited gov’t solutions. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell which candidates, if any, have the same tendency.

    Thus, it appears to me that what we need to do is to find the candidate with a working knowledge of conservatism who will be willing to be led in the right direction by his/her base (which will consist of those of us who have conservative convictions). I believe Mark Steyn spoke of this recently.

    I have very little hope and see very little evidence that a Romney or a Gingrich will listen to us or that they will adopt a conservative agenda.

    On a related, yet different note, I would be happy to see the current debate format scrapped and replaced by debates of the Gingrich/Cain format, moderated by real conservatives. Give each candidate the chance to explain in detail their thoughts, plans, etc on a variety of issues – no personal attacks allowed.

    Finally, how do I post a diary or obtain permission to do so? I can not find a button on the site to do so and noticed that the ‘Edit’ button on my profile page is grayed out.
    Thanks

  • edintexas

    Getting to know a politician through his writings, when he has a track record, is not exactly the smartest thing in the world. The writer controls exactly what impression is given. Actual actions, speeches and votes are another matter.

    Newt has voted for gun control (the Crime Control Act of Clinton and Sarah Brady). Newt has advocated an individual mandate to purchase health insurance for about 2 decades. Newt also has other ideas in the health care field which tend toward the government controlling the issue. As an example, Newt has consistently advocated for the government to require that all medical records be computerized in a system determined by the government, and mandated by the government. Given the government’s inability to keep classified data from hackers and thieves, I’m not at all in favor of my medical records being on a computer system in the control of the government. And that isn’t to mention the idea that various government agencies might eventually be given authority to peruse the files on fishing expeditions.

    Newt strongly supported D. Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election. When the Conservative Party ran a conservative candidate, who was obviously beating Scozzafava, Scozzafava quit the race and supported the Democrat – but late enough to siphon off mail in ballots from the Conservative.

    Newt supported Charlie Crist in FL for the Senate. After it became clear that Crist had no chance to gain the Republican nomination and Rubio was the clear winner, Newt dropped Crist for Rubio. At least he learned something from the NY-23 race.

    When Newt was Speaker, he allowed Democrat committee staffers to remain in staff positions which should have gone to Republican staff. On the Appropriations Committee this resulted in the Democrats having 85 staff positions to the Republicans 69, an effective control of the staff work for the committee. As the staff do all the grunt work, and write most of the bills which are introduced, do you think it is wise to have a President with a record of allowing Democrat appointees to remain in place?

    And finally Newt was in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory before he was against it. That ought to be enough to warn us about Newt’s alleged super intellect.

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

    …then you are concurring with ObamaCare…and all its trappings!

    Even if the SS-law is ensconced within society, it can be changed. Applying an Individual Mandate to health insurance isn’t, and it should be opposed.

    apples/oranges, federal/state, old/new…many distinctions with differences

    if you are grasping to rationalize-away your posture, don’t seek support from me!

  • Scope

    It really is depressing to see that all of the work of the Tea Party conservatives for the last three years seems to have dissipated in the air. Not only were the liberals outraged at the direction the conservatives wanted the country to go in, but unfortunately the elite R’s in Washington promised to marginalize their voices as well. Now we have Obama lite I, and Obama lite II leading in the GOP polling. To add to the insanity of this primary season we have Cain supporters running away from a serial adulterer, and one who has no experience or qualifications for the office of POTUS, to another serial adulterer, that has a long record that includes everything we have been fighting against.

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

    …SS reform that yields privatization [of a very small %'age, it may be recalled] is an incremental step in the right direction.

    This contrasts with the following from the Wonk [wonkish1 (Diary) Wednesday, November 30th at 11:56AM EST] who admits:

    “I Would Be De Facto Converting Their Medicare Payroll…into HSA accounts, yes!”

    This blogging process yields, following careful querying, startling realizations.

  • wonkish1

    But at no point am I trying to prevent people from looking at the flaws of Newt, I’m just asking that people not be willing to throw everything the guy has done for us out just because they see it as politically expedient in taking his candidacy down.

    What is one to think when they respect the work the man has done, but is uncertain about whether or not he deserves the candidacy? Am I the only one that sees that distinction?

  • streiff

    nt

  • wonkish1

    I’m genuinely curious.

  • tomatin

    between Newt and Romney.

    Newt despite the distortions we are hearing now has a true conservative record in office to run on while Romney does not.

    I put little value on what candidates say our of office or frankly what they say during campaigns. Yes I want them to have conservative agendas but what tells me if they can be trusted to pass conservative agendas in office is there record in office.

    Romney has completely zero record on passing conservative legislations. In fact he passed the liberal agenda in MA as governor.

    Newt with the obstical of a Dumbocrat president passed a conservative agenda. Sure he didn’t pass everything he wanted but he was obstructed.

    Let me repeat I like Perry first but if Perry is not given a serious second look Newt is way better than Romney.

  • edintexas

    I’m not sure which you are forgiving. I forgive him his foibles in his personal life (God will have to forgive him for his sins). But there is no forgiveness in me for his previous actions and positions in favor of bigger government. He is a statist, just nowhere near as far Left as Obama. When he had a chance to cut government, he passed the puck (it is winter, hockey analogies are acceptable). He had an opportunity to vote against greater gun control, and he voted for the bill. He’s against Obamacare, but for the government’s power to mandate individual commercial transactions by the government.

    As a Conservative, Newt is a Sheep in Wolf’s clothing.

  • tomatin

    This is typical Ron Paul crazy conspiracy theory stuff.

  • wonkish1

    Half of what your saying makes no sense at all. Its just rambling.

    I have said over and over and over again I don’t agree with the Individual Mandate. I support the end of uninsured treatment to handle charity care. They are completely different positions.

    I’m not rationalizing anything its you that are avoiding any argument and are just labeling me as “agreeing with ObamaCare” when its not even close.

  • tnguy

    Gingrich’s numerous infedilities do not disqualify him from genuine repentance and forgiveness, but for many people, they do disqualify him from holding the highest office in the land.

    Personally, it’s his near lifelong devotion to big government that makes him a non-starter for me.

    He simply can’t be trusted. He sat on that bench with Nancy Pelosi. He can’t be trusted to not push cap and trade. He advocated for gov’t healthcare. He can’t be trusted to kill Obamacare. More than likely, he’d try to reform it, to put his own stamp on it. He. Can’t. Be. Trusted.

    Not a difficult position to understand. The difficulty is in understanding how people can throw away their principles because “Hey, he’s got to be better than Obama.”

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

    …for you [and The Newt"] would be buying into the Individual Mandate.

    ?I Would Be De Facto Converting Their Medicare Payroll?into HSA accounts, yes!?

    People would be forced to pay [indirectly] for a private product/service, the gravamen of the legal assault on ObamaCare.

  • tomatin

    So when Paul lives can we tag this one as another delusion.

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

    …Do You Support The Individual Mandate?

    and

    …Do you deny the intimate relationship between BIG GOVERNMENT and imposition of The Individual Mandate?

    [I keep asking, you keep diverting]

  • lucasblack

    Newt built up his support the hard way – by convincing voter after voter with his ideas and presentation during the debates. People never projected their wishes onto him like they did with Perry and some of the others. And that’s why the Newtmenum will last – it’s not some ephemeral surge that will go out with the next tide.

  • wonkish1

    I’m looking forward to hearing this.

  • angryguy77

    I’ve heard him on several talk shows saying he was wrong for taking that position.

  • wonkish1

    How many times are you going to keep asking the same question?

    Or are you just incapable of asking something else?

    Or are you just trying to ask it enough times to get the answer you want?

  • wonkish1

    How many times do I have to say NO for you to get it. I don?t support the individual mandate.

    On one policy issue sure! But do you believe in that Crack should be legal? Not trying to compare the two, but I?m just pointing out that one issue can?t make one person a conservative and one person not.

  • wonkish1

    How many times do I have to say NO for you to get it. I don?t support the individual mandate.

    On one policy issue sure! But do you believe in that Crack should be legal? Not trying to compare the two, but I?m just pointing out that one issue can?t make one person a conservative and one person not…

  • wonkish1

    How many times do I have to say NO for you to get it. I don?t support the individual mandate.

    On one policy issue sure! But do you believe in that Crack should be legal? Not trying to compare the two, but I?m just pointing out that one issue can?t make one person a conservative and one person not.

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

    …because the available column-space is shrinking]

    “People would be forced to pay [indirectly] for a private product/service, the gravamen of the legal assault on ObamaCare.”

    It’s best to deal-direct! [There's too much government, baseline.]

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

    …because you assert a policy…

    “I don?t support the individual mandate.”

    …and then inset an exception…

    “On one policy issue sure!”

    Thus, there is at least one circumstance when you would accept it!

    Please specify/clarify….

  • wonkish1

    So are you going to answer *my* question since I answered your questions for you?

    Or is that to much to expect?

  • lucasblack

    Perry gets blown over by a stiff breeze and is hopelessly gaffe-prone. I consider that his campaign has been horribly incompetent.

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

    …he hasn’t repudiated the lingo in his books!

    [usually, he hearkens back to the 1990's and Heritage, an off-putting approach]

  • geoph

    Responding to paragraph 1: Well, I’ll try to leave personal religious beliefs aside and stick to the politics.

    P2: I don’t grasp your point here. Yes, Newt is problematic for me. Would I prefer other candidates would have entered the race? Yes, but I can not choose someone who is not running. The OP’s question was (as I inferred) can we overlook his shortcomings?

    P3: His accomplishments lacking permanence is undeniable. As far as his path over the last two decades – again, I did not begin (nor am I yet) a full Gingrich backer. I began with, and still do, support Bachmann. However, Perry’s announcement stalled any momentum her campaign was gathering. I do have my doubts that after leaving the House, Gingrich was in much of a position to advance any kind of agenda – if that is what you meant by a more ” principled course”. ?If he were in such a position, he never would have been replaced as Speaker.

    P4&5: Really? That’s not my recollection at all, and it would appear that an historical review of circumstance would bear me out – however, I understand everyone has unique experiences that create their perspective.

    P6: I believe that difference is what the OP was hoping to reveal.

    P7&8: i do not know if this alters your response, but I should have been more clear. I was speaking to the much broader field than our Presidential candidates, who are actually being vetted fairly well (thus my ?’Liberals are unable to surprise us with Newt information’ comment, and perhaps may even insulates him to a degree of foot-in-mouth pushback). ?This is also where I was going by referring to Ryan (via his failure to engage in the debate that was raging while he worked on FY 2012, which helped create the environment to defeat the spending control agenda) and Cantor (through his ultimate support of debt and CR legislation). This ‘overlooking failures of everyone else’ extends to every individual who has not represented the driving force of fiscal responsibility that appears to have been the catalyst for their election in 2010. This can be extended to encompass their support of big government by failure to ‘starve the beast’ known as ObamaCare as promised ?(Bachmann/leadership), but rather support fully funding it over the past year (Boehner and CRs). This taint does not only lay with those in office, but with those voters who fell silent and allowed this misrepresentation. Finally my reference to 22 Congressmen is for those who voted against The Budget Control Act of 2011.

  • wonkish1

    They are the answer to each of them.. And now I’m noticing you made a very slight change to question 2 since the last time you asked it.

    The answer is No I don’t support the individual mandate.

    And in regards to first way you phrased that question before I wouldn’t define a person as a conservative or not if they had 1 or even a few “Big government” ideas like the individual mandate.

    But yes I think the individual mandate is a big government policy. But if someone were to support and be very conservative on everything else I wouldn’t call them a Big Government Republican. They have to favor a lot of those types of proposals to be labeled as such.

    Does that answer your questions?

  • lucasblack

    It’s become a theme – he talked about the New Hampshire ‘caucus’ this morning. Once you get that sort of reputation, it’s almost impossible to shake.

  • lucasblack

    That line about Perry achieving ‘dominance’ gave me a good chuckle. As it stands now, he is going to turn out to be a bigger flame-out than Lazy Fred Thompson; something I didn’t even think was possible. I’ll swallow him if he somehow reverses his fortune, but a Tom Delay clone is just about the last one I want to win the nomination.

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

    …and, thus, I have belatedly responded.

    Now that this issue has been cleared-up, perhaps you may wish to rationalize your objection to the Individual Mandate with the posture adopted by The Newt in his two books [quoted supra].

  • geoph

    Again, there is a difference between do i support Gingrich and could I support Gingrich. If it becomes a two man choice, I CAN plug my nose and vote for Newt easily over Romney. If for no other reason, Newt has some achievements from his time in Congress. Romney, I can’t find any pretense of “Conservatism” in his past.

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

    …because it’s necessary to apply your analysis that of The Newt, as per the original query in this thread: “The Newt specifically endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two recent books: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].”

    You allow for an aberration, we’re all human….

    BUT

    This is a well-considered political philosophy, and the implications regarding Big Government are UNDENIABLE!

  • bzip

    More Newt sins to forgive?

    Gingrich Gave Push to Clients, Not Just Ideas
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/gingrich-gave-push-to-clients-not-just-ideas.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

  • lucasblack

    Bruce Babbitt lost all of his early momentum because of his lousy debating skills. This isn’t about all about Perry.
    Having said that, he actually comes across as worse than Bush.

  • JSobieski

    ergo, you support Newt’s position

  • JSobieski

    very much the equivalent of converting SS into mandatory IRA-like accounts.

  • carolynr

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/99410.html

    While I realize that this has many Libertarian viewpoints…it is also right up Perry’s state’s rights issue. Perry ought to listen to this whole link until he has it memorized.

  • deevee

    Anyone who fell for AGW and goes along with all the “green” stolen from the taxpayer and ratepayers’ back pocket for ethanol and big wind boondoggle is disingenuous at best. But since he thinks he is so much smarter than the rest of us, he is really just evil.

  • gator_hoo

    The fact that you are trying to pull out Bruce Babbitt as relevant to anything at all shows the weakness of your point.

    By the way, nice use of the common liberal tactic of “you know, compared to current Republicans, X wasn’t so bad.”

    Newt is shamed by your support.

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

    …because reality-testing yields the conclusion [from my perspective] into NOTHING that is any MORE ‘mandatory” than that which already exists.

    That’s why I wouldn’t want to reinforce the present system, by following a model that would allow for the Feds to collect $ and then redistribute it [to insurers].

    The Fed does its job in as limited a fashion as possible, and then people can decide if/when they wish to purchase a supplement.

    Get it?

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

    …because I care not about the world as you describe it.

    Why?

    First, as was proven by ultimate rejection of ClintonCare, there was no established environment for this intrusion, and

    Second, this would have unabashedly empowered D.C. further.

    One must not allow principles to be besmirched by subterfuge.

    And, remember, the Perry-concept [using state-level retirement-$] has existing examples.

  • onemovoter

    You would be very surprised!

    What Gingrich Romney and Obama have in common

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-gingrich-romney-and-obama-have-in-common/2011/11/28/gIQAvh595N_story_1.html

  • reggie182

    he thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us. What proof of this do you have exactly? Yes, he’s confident in his ability to solve problems and argue for political positions, but I don’t see how that is reasonably seen as thinking he’s smarter than anyone else, and I certainly don’t see how it makes him evil.

    It seems to me if one particular candidate in the field was stupidly called “evil” (I won’t say who it is because it’s too obvious) by someone on this board, they’d likely be banned.

  • lucasblack

    The first line in the post I was responding to said that this was the first year people harped on the ability to debate as being important. I just pulled out the first example I could think of where bad debating skills helped deep-six a candidate. The fact that Babbitt was a dem is immaterial – the only comparison I was making between him and Rick Perry is their lack of debating skills; they are miles apart on the issues.
    As for comparing him to Bush, that’s a fair comparison. And obviously the majority of the GOP electorate feels as I do because he’s doing so badly in the polls. Don’t blame me for Perry’s lack of ability to communicate his points.

  • streiff

    obviously Newt isn’t evil. That is just hyperbole. He also doesn’t think he’s smarter than the rest of us, he knows it for a fact. I can tell you that from having spent some time with him close up. That isn’t a bad thing, in fact it is mostly true, but it makes him more likely than others to discount opinions he doesn’t agree with.

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

    …I would like to invite Wonkish1 to respond to this new thread…recognizing the Guiness-length of its predecessor.

    We were getting a bit squished physically, and [to me] Wonkish1 was becoming a bit squished emotionally. Meanwhile, he was being aided/abetted by JSobieski, but I have no problem handling 2:1 odds. Others were perhaps bemused by the byplay [sometimes akin to simultaneous-chess]….

    Thus, clarity is in-order.

    I was busy attacking The Newt for having endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

    The discussion had digressed into SS, try as I might to remain on-topic ["on-thread"..."on-subthread"?] In any case, Wonk disavowed personal endorsement of the Individual Mandate, and we were JUST AT THE POINT when he was going to be invited to rectify formally his stance with the above-quotes.

    Wonkish1?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The Missouri & Wesleyan synods are only a fraction of the numbers of the ELCA. That’s how close they are that they could even have such discussions.

  • edintexas

    I’m not sure what that is. If it is expecting that you will do everything possible to get your constituents desired agenda (which certainly should be the same as yours, else why did they elect you), but that it will take a while to get everything, that’s OK.

    If a healthy level of expectations is to expect failure, and then move on to the next thing – that is something else again. I think we have too many Republican politicians who at least walk very closely to the line separating the two, and some who definitely fall into the latter group.

  • avgjo

    my post? In the very one you responded to, I mentioned 3.

  • ripusa32110

    When someone has to apologize and backtrack as much as Newt has done in the past and present, you can clearly bet he has meant every word he has said and the apololgies are meant to deceive real conservatives.

  • edintexas

    I’m not sure who is saying that Newt was run out of DC. Run out of the Congress is not the same as not being and elected, or appointed, official, or otherwise being involved with politics on the federal level. Newt has been involved with politics most of the past couple of decades. He just didn’t hold an official position.

  • edintexas

    “…not being and (sic) elected…” should be “…not being an elected…”

  • avgjo

    I misread your comment.

    I have heard it said that the ability to detect subtle sarcasm is a characteristic of a keen mind.

    Not surprisingly, I failed to detect yours. Again, I apologize.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    If Gingrich manages to win the nomination all of his past will be brought out by the smear machines of the left and he’ll be smeared to look a lot worse than Cain *might* be. I say might be because I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and am not as worked up into a froth concerning the allegations against him. It bothers me to have to say this but I think that Cain may have a better chance working through recently dug up muck attacks than Gingrich will have with his documented past.

    The same thing goes for Romney and Perry to a likely lesser degree.

    On the other, slightly more optimistic side there is a slim possibility that by the time the nominees for both parties are set the O, if he is a nominee (and not knocked by “anyone but O” syndrome hitting the dem base in their primary), may have ticked of his own side so much the msm fails to function for him as they have in the past…

  • avagreen

    this
    Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas.

    and this:
    “Gingrich would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously. He usually made us feel as if we didn?t have much value….”

    followed with:
    It became clear to him that Speaker Gingrich, House Majority Leader Armey and the rest of the Republican leadership were not what they pretended to be. They were revolutionaries in name only, content to take possession from the Democrats of the machinery of government and then run it virtually unchanged. That froze in place the system of pork barrel spending that young Woodrow Wilson described in Congressional Government more than 130 years ago.

    Remembering his arrogance at times and superiority at times in preaching to the mods, other candidates, the press, this is not what we need in the WH. We already have that.

    We need a President that will listen and respond, taking every opinion into consideration.

    The only person that fits that bill by past history is Perry.

    God help us if we get someone who think he’s above reproach, doesn’t keep promises ( as seen above in his manner of governing and to his past wives, his being so easy to switch support of ideas when it’s expedient)!!

    We already have that in the WH.

  • streiff

    1. because they were appalled at the utter incompetence of the Cain organization in dealing with the allegations and

    2. they had finally realized they had been played for suckers and needed someone to go to that they hadn’t already rejected and Newt was it.

  • edintexas

    What part of “…Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"]..” did you not understand? Or perhaps you got so caught up in including Heritage and Obama, you simply forgot about that statement in Newt’s book? Or were you ignoring it?

    Care to speak to Newt’s support for the Clinton/Brady “Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994″? Along with several new Federal crimes involving the 2d Amendment, and new restrictions on citizen’s 2d Amendment rights, it may not have passed without Newt’s support encouraging Republican votes.

  • pj2012

    I’m a New England-er and a Rick Perry supporter to the end folks. Sorry… No Newt (don’t trust him, old Newt is still lurking), No Romney (had him as Gov, you get my point), No Bachmann (Gardasil made her retarded), No Santorum, No Ron Paul (not a fan of isolationism), No Huntsmann (although he is a likeable fellow), did I forget someone? Well you get my point.

    Oh did you read this on The DC…

    Concord, N.H. ? In a speech to New Hampshire legislators Wednesday morning, GOP presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry took a hard line on Wall Street, reaping thunderous applause from Republican representatives, near silence from the Democratic minority and a clamorous mixture of boos and cheers from an activist-filled gallery.

    ?We must no more tolerate an America in which Main Street is allowed to crumble while Wall Street financiers and beltway profiteers bill the taxpayers,? Perry declared.

    ?What is wrong in this country can be diagramed on a map,? Perry continued, ?with one straight line connecting two dots: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/30/in-speech-to-nh-lawmakers-perry-ramps-up-anti-wall-street-rhetoric/#ixzz1fDrhTiMQ

    Perry will do what he says… the others, not so much. This is why he has my vote to the end. I’m getting too old (56yrs) and too tired of the posers… I want a REAL person for president this time.

  • avagreen

    According to tricianc’s post:
    After one of his Family values speeches, he came home and told his 2nd wife he was divorcing her. When she asked Newt how he could cheat and still speak on Family values: ?It doesn?t matter what I do,? he answered, ?People need to hear what I have to say.?

    Do we need another man with a God complex in the WH? I hope the answer is obvious.

  • edintexas

    You obviously recognize that there was more than one quote, yet you appear to insist that you responded adequately to Newt’s support of a requirement (which only the government can impose, though illegally I believe).

    Oh, wait. You did ding Newt for supporting Heritage’s position. So I guess you believe Newt never believed there should be an individual mandate, he just wrote it in the book because it was Heritage’s position.

  • Scope

    New Gingrich Out-Greens Al Gore

    Have the Gingrich supporters read his book, referred to in the above link, where he advocates for the enviro-nazi policies of those like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club?

  • edintexas

    No.

    Not this Conservative. And I don’t care about his personal life, his sins (if any) are God’s responsibility to forgive.

  • avagreen

    Need some supporters over there to set the picture aright.

  • jaykali

    I think Perry already wasted his chance. I don’t think there’s enough time for him to rebound, he’s polling really poorly and is kind of a punchline.

    I think Gingrich has as much tape as Romney does on opposing positions but Gingrich doesn’t come off as a slick politician even though maybe he is one.

    But at this stage I can go for Gingrich. He has issues no doubt, but he’s got experience and can debate which is very important in politics today. You can have the best political experience, positions but if you can’t explain your message then you’re toast.

    I am just saying that with the big primaries coming up in January there isn’t any more time really for another not-Romney to surge. I would think this will be the last surge we see pre-primaries beginning.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    What’s my option, vote for Romney?

  • gekster

    Oh, wait. You let polls decide who to vote for.
    Never mind, ignore this post.

  • pj2012

    They’re just as vile and disgusting in their lies as the lefty bots…

  • sunshinek67

    Pathetic and demoralizing. Politico running a story about Iowan conservatives letter to Mr Family Values Vander Plaat’s impending “endorsement” of Newt Gingrich. I want to know how this right wing evangelical is going to reconcile this when Newter’s transgressions start the tabloid rounds anew, pictures, new revelations; more undocumented mistresses, children. And you know that a Gingrich nomination is going there too, so don’t kids yourself folks.

    Trailer trash 101 at the forefront of the Grand Old Party

  • JSobieski

    Fine. Just say it.

    The best way to reform SS is with individual accounts, not with state-level monstrosities.

    Portability is a big obstacle.

    People complain about not wanting to change jobs because they would lose insurance.

    You want to keep people locked in their states, because moving will cause them to lose their retirement income stream.

    BRILLIANT!

  • JSobieski

    Wouldn’t want to engage in subterfuge, would we?

    Wouldn’t want to let our principles be besmirched?

    I am surprised you support Perry, because frankly you have the same kind of world view that Bachmann has—talk tough, have no impact on anything, have no accountability for moving positive change forward.

    Conservatism is not about utopian i.e. perfect systems. It is about directionally correct transformation.

  • pj2012

    Freudian slip… I forgot Cain… me bad. No to Cain too.

  • bush_built

    Very few voters have watched the debates to date. Most voters are getting their information for the MSM. The former Speaker has no interest in earning votes one at a time. He is relying solely on the media spin in Iowa. I believe it is Perry that is going to win this primary one voter at a time because he has the personality that is conducive to retail politicing. I have personally met both. Speaker Gingrich has an arrogant personality that suffocates most common folk. Something about Perry resonates most everyone.

  • dajeeps

    Newt held office.

    In his book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman talks about putting up with certain things until what was once unthinkable, becomes politically inevitable.

    Newt was and is a creature of that slow process. Many of the things he supported in his nibble around the edges approach to big government, we did too. Some progress was better than nothing. And it was certainly better than Hillary Care. We also went along for the ride after Newt was gone. It wasn’t until recently we realized how much too little he did, and what a terrible mistake we had made not paying attention to what the Republicans were doing as they were going along to get along.

    Financial problems allow us to look at what happened back then with sober eyes. Gingrich made mistakes. But there was no way he could have done more than he did without the rest of us, meaning the whole country, going along. What he accomplished was difficult enough because the country as a whole wasn’t ready for more. I saw a laundry list in a diary posted last week of all the things Gingrich has voted for that today we wouldn’t like. But those things were things Reagan and GHWB signed.

    Hind sight is 20/20. And for me, the question becomes has Gingrich changed along with the rest of us? Dose he recognize error in the typical kinds of public policies from 20-30 years ago?

    I think the answer is yes. At least he reflects the change in his 21st century agenda. And because he stuck to his original Contract with America, I find his new agenda credible.

    Even more than that though, it is because of his success with the contract that I think he is likely the best person for the job after Obama has made such a mess of everything. It will take someone who knows what they are doing and how to get things done in DC to get it cleaned up, and get us back on track. We’ve already had amateur hour, and it doesn’t really matter how wholesome the desire to do the right things are, it doesn’t always translate into something tangible. That is why I am in the Gingrich camp after considering the other options.

  • iidvbii

    However the Newt Pelosi lovefest on the couch was 07 or 08 right ? That’s not exactly like dredging up 30 year old political endorsements. Freddie MAC was a decade concluding in 06 ? Again we aren’t speaking about another life here. While I don’t see Newt as the second comming of Obomney. I do have some serious concerns with his actions. The guy can talk it better than anyone in the field and frankly the party, but it seems that when the cameras are away Newt likes to play ball.

    As to Perry=Bush well its a bit of a stretch but if that’s the game well perhaps they should consider the fact that W polls better than Obama in the latest polls.
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/07/22/george-w-bushs-post-presidential-approval-rating-ticks-up

  • deVere

    In my opinion his current pose as a champion of the 10th amendment is ludicrous.

    I am supporting Rick Perry as long as he remains in the race. If it comes down to a choice between Romney and Gingrich, my vote will go to Romney, who is at least a decent human being in his personal life, and whom I trust considerably more than Gingrich.

  • texabama

    I don’t see how they reconcile female and homosexual clergy with the Catholics (some synods allow this) and no Lutheran church has a place for the Pope or salvation through works.

    What may seem close is the style of worship with its liturgy and creeds, close communion and infant baptism.

  • center77

    Newt joined them almost half the time. Newt called conservatives hateful and canibals. He said he is a Rockafeller republican before he termed Romney one. Newt is a fraud, period.

  • gator_hoo

    Here is your logic:

    I say that people are overemphasizing debate “skills” because the media is overhyping them. You respond by saying Perry lacks debate skills, and as evidence, you point to polls.

    So you are supporting your proposition by assuming your proposition is true.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I want to beat Obama.

  • littlehouse18

    You’ll be wasting your vote and hurting our chances of ousting Obama. I’m voting for the guy who at least has a chance of defeating Obama and stopping him from appointing more SC judges, entrenching Obamacare, destroying our economy, putting us in extreme danger with is foreign policy. etc. etc.

    I wish our choices were different but they’re not. Even so, Romney and Gingrich are a far cry better than Obama. And they love their country.

  • vangoghssister

    Newt is undoubtedly a brilliant man and a gifted speaker/debater and he is certainly a believer in American Exceptionalism. He truly loves our country and in his heart, wants what is best for America, but his proposals are the same as we have now, only packaged differently. His big ideas that sound so good on the surface are in fact, more big government. I’ve read several of his books and found myself saying “yeah, that’s what we should do!” until days or weeks afterwards when it dawned on me he believes the federal government should be the solution, not the individual states. That being said, I believe he would be an excellent cabinet member for our next president if his ego would allow him to accept such an offer.

    Gov. Perry is the candidate for me. I am not voting for debater-in-chief, I’m voting for the candidate that best represents my own beliefs. I think he would really shine in a debate with Obama if for no other reason than there aren’t 5 or 6 other people barking like seals to gain the attention of the guy with the bait bucket.

    On the other hand, I’d give almost anything to witness a debate between Newt and Obama. Just thinking about it nearly gives me the giggles.

    If it comes down to it, I will be able vote for Newt without holding my nose if it comes to a choice between him and Romney.

  • JSobieski

    Government spending as a percentage of GDP did better under his Speakership than any time since.

    But if you take the 10,000 mile view—we are all microscopic ants.

  • JSobieski

    The Newt quote at the beginning of the piece is clearly supporting a voucher/HSA system.

    Remember Newt got in trouble with saying that HCFA would rot on the vine because people would control their own health care accounts.

    Newt is talking about voucherizing medicare and medicaid, and “conservatives” are holding this against him now?

    Those ideas are core conservative ideas now—I wonder which DC politician first expressed an open embrace of them.

    This issue reminds of the SS discussion when directionally correct improvements are criticized because the critic finds any embrace of the SS as being unconstitional.

  • tomatin

    If we can make all healthcare like a voucher system sure. The mandate would not be as bad. But with the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities we have now with Medicare and Medicaid Obamacare just adds to that.

    One of my biggest problems with Obamacare is all the free market restrictions the law has too.

  • tomatin

    Strong on national defense is one of the three pillars of conservatism.

    Strong Defense
    Low Taxes/Less Regulations/Small Government
    Social Conservative

    Ron Paul fails on 2 out of 3

  • JSobieski

    and a similar chunk of the healthcare problem.

    A voucher system would actually save money. Vouchers and free markets = innovation.

    The only way to reduce costs without reducing quality is through innovation and competition.

  • wonkish1

    ***Are standardized benefits and community rating(end to pre-existing conditions).***

    The federal government is now in the business of designing what the minimum health care package is because otherwise companies would produce a very, very cheap little coverage plan to get around the mandate and tax. This standardization could very well end up killing HDHP plans(we wont know until HHS finishes their work of which they started a couple months ago).

    And community rating essentially socializes credit risk so that healthy people pay higher premiums and not healthy people pay lower premiums. But then healthy people don’t want to participate and the unhealthy no longer have any incentive to get healthier.

    So what holds these 2 very, very, very bad proposals together is the individual mandate. And since that is the most unpopular part of the package conservatives have latched onto that to blow up the plan altogether. The elimination of pre-existing conditions(while wrong) is popular so that is a dead end and standardization of benefits is to confusing to explain.

    The individual mandate is still bad, but it is a very, very distant 3rd when your talking about how bad the two pieces I explained at the top are.

  • JSobieski

    the court cases are heavily focused on that issue.

    Frankly, it would be easy enough to avoid the individual mandate through use of the tax code and have the exact same result.

    The government buys insurance for everyone (another step towards Single Payer) and raises your taxes accordingly.

    Bam—-no mandate, no Constitutional issue.

    The income tax really does effectively remove most Constitutional barriers to leftist policies. The ability of government to tax and spend is even worse than the bloated New Deal commerce clause.

  • JSobieski

    so all the candidates support “gov’t health care”.

    Newt supports voucherizing the existing system, a definitive conservative improvement over the SQ.

    Show me the candidate NOT in favor of gov’t healthcare (i.e. Medicare) and I will show you someone who won’t get 5% of the vote.

  • lucasblack

    I thought that the claim was that this is the first time that a candidate took a hit because of poor debating skills. That was why I brought up the Babbitt example, to show that this isn’t the case.
    I do not understand why you disagree that Perry is a poor debater when he has acknowledged this himself.

  • tomatin

    Exactly governent setting the standard coverage destroys the free market advantages.

    For example why do young people need as comprehensive coverage as older people. They simply don’t. Most can get by with catastrophic coverage.

    Your second point about community coverage is absolutely correct too.

    The mandate within the current Medicare and Medicaid system is bad but if you reformed Medicare and Medicaid with a mandated system where people get vouchers it would save trillions and letting insurance companies really compete would bring costs down as well.

  • wonkish1

    I take the approach of ending charity care instead of doing the mandate.

    You have to pick one or the other otherwise this huge problem of people utilizing healthcare they aren’t paying for lingers.

    So today the federal government mandates private hospitals to provide everybody treatment(that technically should be unconstitutional by itself). Well you either fix that by doubling down and mandating people get insurance or by ending the mandate that private hospitals have to provide coverage.

    The latter doesn’t stand a chance in hell of passing *unless* you can create a system that guarantees affordability. Well how do you do that without blowing a hole in the budget? Well we can look at Singapore(which is more private based than ours is). They basically have a “private account” system where a % of everybody’s payroll goes to an HSA account. They then provide a subsidy for all the poor young people in the country who can’t afford health insurance. Now eventually 1 of 2 things happens. Either the person starts earning enough to not require the subsidy or the HSA grows big enough where distributions from the account can pay for health insurance. Either way it practically guarantees people will be off government support by the time they start to get old enough to be higher risk.

    So in order to accomplish that you convert medicaid into a subsidy for private insurance model, you convert Medicare payroll into HSA private accounts, and you allow those accounts to grow to phase out Medicare.

    Then you have 100% affordability and you can then allow hospitals to refuse coverage to those that don’t have insurance because since they can afford insurance its there fault why they don’t have it. Once people can’t milk the system anymore they’ll start buying the insurance.

  • nathanalbright

    …McCain did spent a lot of time in the Hanoi Hilton, so for you to question his patriotism when he has given more to this country than most of us is rather biased and unfair. As far as I see it, McCain comes off more favorably to me than Newt does–both of them have some ethics questions (McCain with the whole Keating Five business, Newt’s with his lobbying and his perjury charge with the $300k fine), both were known to waffle a bit when it came to statism (McCain with his support of campaign finance report and his general willingness to serve as a moderating force to lower tension within Congress, Newt with his support of the “global warming myth” to increase government involvement, along with his lobbying for Medicare part D benefits, further increasing our unsustainable long-term indebtedness as a country).

    That said, I’d say McCain beats out Newt in patriotism as well as in a lack of intellectual vanity (a major sin of Newt’s). and a slightly better personal life (only one ex-wife as opposed to two). Newt has a slight advantage, maybe in his role in spearheading the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, even if he loses points for getting played like a fiddle in the Government shut down and in his role in the Freddie Mac debacle. So, all of that said, I’d still say McCain’s comes out ahead when compared to Newt. So I can’t understand why you support Newt so strongly while you hate McCain so much. For the record, I tend to support maverick outsiders, and I volunteered for McCain during the Florida primary in 2008.

  • wonkish1

    All I said was that his entire time in government has been him publicly bucking his party as much as he can and running to the papers. So yeah its quite fair actually.

    You do know that Rush for example beat on McCain more than any other Republican over all of the 2000s right? It was because it was deserved.

  • nathanalbright

    ….”It was just to make him look better. It was actually quite funny that his slogan was ?Country First? because for over a decade its been ?McCain first? and everybody else can go to hell.”

    That would be at least an implied attack on his love for his country (in other words, his patriotism). And to be honest, I have never listened much to talking heads and talk radio at all. Even though my first ever mention in a newspaper was defending Rush Limbaugh’s freedom of speech at the age of 11 in the local Greensburg, PA newspaper, I found listening to talk radio tedious because of all the idiocy and bloated egos. So honestly, I don’t particularly know (or care) what Rush has been saying the last decade or so, because I haven’t been paying attention.

  • wonkish1

    McCain did buck legislation purely for media attention. You saw it over and over again because he didn’t even have an argument as to why he was doing it. He would just same something like “lets not be extreme”.

    In this particular instance Rush was right McCain was a horrible wrecking ball for the GOP. He would do anything to increase his media attention.

    You can defend McCain all you want on here, but your not going to find many people on RedState that think that highly of the guy.

  • nathanalbright

    I personally thought at the time (in 2008) that it was possible to find some way of avoiding a possibly violent conflict between socialists and conservatives. I was not a participant in Red State at that time. In the intervening years I have seen the situation become more grim and I believe that such a serious conflict may in fact be necessary. As my mood is a lot more grim and less conciliatory than it was in 2008, my support for politicians and my criteria for them being acceptable in this particular time and situation has also changed.

    And you basically admit that you questioned his patriotism and consider his act purely selfish. There are better motives for his conduct, and I believe what is true of a great many of our Washington Republicans is that they act so craven in deals and compromises because they don’t want the US to be divided and because the socialists aren’t budging one bit. When we finally refuse to budge, I believe there will be war. I hope I am wrong but I am not sanguine on this.

  • wonkish1

    Just because he was torpedoing conservative legislation and sponsoring liberal legislation to boost his own image in the media doesn’t mean that he is an unpatriotic guy.

    It does mean that he has sold out conservatives, the GOP, etc. to boost his own image.

    But you can keep up with your lies if you want. Go ahead and lie and say that I “questioned McCain’s patriotism”, when I didn’t because that is what liars do.

  • nathanalbright

    ….and instead of admitting the truth you insult those who call you out on it. That’s what trolls do, wonky. And you are one.

  • wonkish1

    And then claim I’m not admitting the truth.

    You need to learn to argue better because you suck at it.

    And people that put words in peoples mouths are the trolls. Not the other way around.

  • JSobieski

    would be to change bankruptcy laws to give hospitals/docs higher priority against would-be free riders.

    For example, you could require that purposely uninsured people sign a document making their health care expenses non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Give people a choice, and let them live with the conequences. Additional options could include just having a certain amount of money in an HSA account.

    There are creative ways to address the issue. It is bad that republicans are so willing to classify these measures as an “individual mandate” simply to torpedo a candidate who is not number 1 on their list.

    I have a similar issue with how the word “amnesty” has been used against both Perry and Newt.

  • wonkish1

    I’m pretty sure that medical debt isn’t dischargeable in bankruptcy. The issue on that front isn’t whether or not its dischargeable its that there a lot of laws about what can and can’t be attached onto according to federal or state law. And it can be tough and costly to serve someone, go to court, win a judgement, and then try to attach onto assets and/or income. Especially when there are limits on how much people can attach onto income and its only W2 income(self employed, under the table, cash, etc. isn’t feasible).

    HSA accounts helps, but doesn’t solve. The only other way I’ve ever seen you address the issue of charity care is to do away with the requirement that hospitals have to provide care to the uninsured. The only way that is politically palpable is if you have a system that guarantees affordability. And the only way to do that without collapsing the budget(actually in fact reducing healthcare costs and impact on the budget) is HSA accounts taking over the Medicare cost problem.

  • chasvoice

    Newt Gingrich’s Skeleton Closet
    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-skeleton-closet.html

    The Real Newt Gingrich
    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/real-newt-gingrich-part-1.html

  • streiff

    say it.

    We’re not a billboard.

  • chasvoice

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/09/slick-rick-perry-fake-cowboy-fake.html

  • aesthete

    Who knew that God bestowed the ability to look into peoples’ souls onto low-rent would-be pundits?

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Here’s some of the things I found.

    “Perry wasn’t always the “gun slinging” Texas cowboy. Long before Perry created his phony macho image, he was a cheerleader at Texas A&M in the 1960′s.” [Not sure how this is an argument.]

    “Perry is not now, and never was, all that bright. His college transcripts are full of C’s and D’s. He received a “D” in Economics!” [Oh boy.]

    “A lifelong Democrat, Perry supported Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan in the critical 1980 election.” [Not true; see Perry's interview with PARADE.]

    Hmm, what else…

    “Big Liberal Media is promoting Perry!” [News to me.]

    “Perry is a dedicated internationalist who has attended meetings of the influential Bildeberger Group in Europe.” [See The Rick Perry Report's FAQ; they have an excellent article on this subject.]

    “In order to win Christian votes, Slick Rick shamelessly wears a false Christianity “on his sleeve”. His insincere public prayer spectacles call to mind a biblical warning from Jesus himself. Matthew 6:5-6:
    “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father.” [Public prayer itself is not condemned here; what Jesus is speaking against is praying for one's own glory, not God's. King Solomon, Moses, and Jesus Himself all prayed aloud and in public. If you want to criticize Rick Perry about this, better do the same for George Washington and many other figures in American history.]

    I’m detailing all this not to attack chasvoice, but for the benefit of others who may be reading these comments.

  • JSobieski

    http://michiganbankruptcyblog.com/2009/11/25/can-i-discharge-my-medical-bills-in-bankruptcy/

    Chapter 7 – yes
    Chapter 13 — treated like any other unsecured debt

    A medical bill is no different than a credit card bill.

  • JSobieski

    to sign a document that would make it easier for hospitals to collect.

    Abbreviated judicial proceedings.
    Awarding of court costs and legal fees.

    I don’t think changing the law on charity care is politically optimal. Better to seem like the heavy in collecting against people who game the system than in denying people care.

  • wonkish1

    I like that one!

    I’ll agree that ending charity care is currently a politically dead idea hence why I only suggested at the end of a complete restructuring of the system to one massively more efficient and guarantees affordability before even trying to end it.

    But your starting to come up with another way that is getting my attention. I think I might play with some of these ideas in my head here, but I’m liking what I see so far.

  • wonkish1

    Appreciate it.