« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Robert Novak, the Prince of Darkness, Wrote About Gingrich

When I write about forgiving Newt Gingrich’s sins and whether or not he has matured, it is stuff like this, not his personal life, that I am referring to:

THE READER’S DIGEST profile of Speaker Gingrich that I had been working on since October appeared in the April 1995 issue under the title “Will Success Spoil Newt Gingrich?” I am sure it was not what Newt had in mind when he gave me so much of his valuable time. The Gingrich profile and other Reader’s Digest articles still came out under the Evans & Novak byline as they had since we started writing for the world’s largest circulation magazine in 1981. Rowly and I were listed on the masthead as “Roving Editors,” producing four articles a year. The Digest was the most heavily edited publication we ever wrote for, but William Schulz, a conservative who ran the Digest’s Washington office, was the best editor I ever encountered and always improved my copy.

Schulz had less to do with the final nature of the Gingrich article than another conservative, Kenneth Tomlinson. A former newspaper reporter and longtime Reader’s Digest staffer, Tomlinson had headed the Voice of America in 1982–84 during the Reagan administration and returned to the magazine as managing editor, to become editor in chief in 1989 at age forty-five. Ken was much more intimately involved in what I wrote than his predecessors, always in a positive way. Even before Gingrich was sworn in as speaker, Tomlinson expressed to me misgivings about him. He urged me not to go overboard on Newt, and I was having second thoughts myself, starting with the aborted $4.5 million book contract.

Gingrich put the House on a backbreaking schedule to pass elements of the Contract with America that were mainly procedural. Was this revolution merely cosmetic? I thought Newt sometimes got entangled in the trivial, as in renaming the House’s standing committees. On Monday, December 5, 1994, nearly a month before the new Republican Congress was sworn in, I was addressing right-wing congressional staffers, activists, and lobbyists, giving an optimistic preview of the Gingrich Revolution when I got this question from the audience: “What would you say, Mr. Novak, if I were to tell you that half the Democratic professional staffers on the House Appropriations Committee are being retained by the Republicans?” “I would say it was an outrage,” I replied.

It was all too true. In addition to 35 Appropriations staff members allocated to the Democratic minority, I learned that 50 out of the 119 staff slots allocated to the Republicans were actually holdovers.

Novak, Robert D. (2007-07-10). The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (pp. 524-525). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

That was Robert Novak, the celebrated journalist and conservative commentator in his memoirs. But that wasn’t all Novak had to say.

I had thought Gingrich reached four rungs down the seniority ladder for [Bob] Livingston to get a conservative reformer ending this buddy system of appropriators, but that was not it at all. I now realized that Gingrich was not trying to break this closed circle but merely trying to get a younger, more competent appropriator than the old-timers ahead of Livingston in seniority. Livingston was keeping the Democratic staffers because he was an appropriator at heart. Four days after seeing Livingston, I came to total agreement with Ken Tomlinson that we had better hedge our bets about Gingrich in the Reader’s Digest article.

On that day, February 10, I breakfasted with Gingrich in the House Members Dining Room. He already had ceased to be the exuberant visionary who had so excited me after his 1994 election triumph. He seemed less tired than just plain bored with the workaday world of legislation. I noted speculation about Gingrich for president in 1996, expecting a routine denial. Instead, Newt said: “Well, wouldn’t you say that I had accomplished everything here [in the House] that I could?”

I first thought he might be joking. But he wasn’t. Nothing substantive had been accomplished in the 104th Congress—no tax reform, no expenditure reform, no welfare reform, no tort reform. Yet Gingrich was ready to move on, his attention span apparently exceeded.

Novak, Robert D. (2007-07-10). The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (p. 526). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

COMMENTS

  • omegamale

    Supports Individual Mandate
    Crusade Against Global Warming
    Wants to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Supports Amnesty

    Why does Gingrich get a pass on this but Romney is raked across the coals.

    You combine Newt’s policy mistakes with his incredible ego and then add a really DIRTY past, and you have an electoral disaster:

    Newt’s Closet

    http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#wife

  • bzip

    Let us not forget Newt’s support of Death Panels:

    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.?

    ?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.”

  • andystone

    Basically he got the impression from Gingrich, in ’95, that Gingrich was content with what was achieved already and was ready to run for President. It was obviously a false impression. Gingrich did not run for President, and welfare reform and a balanced budget would become reality just two years later.

  • craigbardo

    Newt is enamored of his own intellect. He is no more principled than Romney. Aside from his frequent dalliances to the left and strange (that would be apolitical strangeness) his eyes have caught my attention. Like no other politician I’ve seen, Newt gauges audience response as well as candidate response. Most at that level have awareness but Newt seems to be searching out what will win approval. It is frighteningly cynical because when the audience changes, so will Newt.

    How did we pass over Michelle Bachmann so quickly?

    Sarah was Palinized and conservatives sat by – Michelle was Bachmanned and we did nothing – Herman is being Cained and we’re back peddling

    Since Sarah isn’t getting in, Perry doesn’t have the goods and even if Cain is telling the truth, it’s looking unlikely that he’ll recover so why go to Newt or Romney, Bachmann is a solid conservative who will do what’s right.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    We have nobody to blame but ourselves. We have allowed this field to spring up. The time to cultivate good candidates starts long before the primaries. We get squishy moderates because election after election we fall for their Political Theater and believe their hype.

    Herman Cain flim-flamed everyone with his “999″ chanting.
    Gingrich is a master of “Conservo-speak” and has fooled conservatives for years.
    Romney thinks he can win on his good hair and the occasional Reagan quote.

    And so it goes…

    There’s a free candidate vetting service on line. It’s called RedState.com.

  • Spartan4Life

    When he was polling in the low single digits. Now that it looks like he might be a contender everyone is getting the heebie jeebies.

    Make no mistake. Newt is a Washington Insider. Anyone who was getting all romantic about Newt the reformer has not really been paying attention for the last 20 years. Maybe he has gotten some Conservative religion or maybe he hasn’t. But don’t be dumb enough to mistake him for something he is not.

  • streiff

    don’t you think the disastrous government shutdown had something to do with a decision to not run in 96?

    And Novak doesn’t take away an impression that Gingrich was content:

    Instead, Newt said: ?Well, wouldn?t you say that I had accomplished everything here [in the House] that I could??

  • falgore

    Parts of it are downright bad. It boils down to this: he is one of three viable candidates for the Republican nomination (Newt, Perry, Romney – don’t bother to try to convince me there are other viable candidates).

    The question we all have to ask ourselves is which of these three do we believe will REALLY take the steps necessary to bring our country back from the brink. It’s a leap of faith for any of the three of them.

    For me, I’ve decided that Newt has the best skill set and I have decided to believe that he has really learned from his past failures. I have left the door very slightly cracked for Perry to convince me he has the skill set and core beliefs to get it done. I have reached the firm conclusion that Romney has been running for President his whole life and will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get elected (incidentally I voted for Romney over McCain in the 2008 primary). I would gladly vote for Perry or Romney against Obama, but I’ve made the leap for Newt.

  • JSobieski

    My order of preference would be as follows:

    1. Good Newt
    2. Perry
    3. Good Romney
    4. Bad Romney
    5. Bad Newt

    Newt when on is game is a tremendous asset. Of course, like a lot of high publicity home run hitters, he strikes out a lot, and self destructs in other ways.

    Bad Newt, the self destructive sit with Pelosi Newt is clearly the worst of the 5 candidates. Heck, bad Newt could make Ron Paul look appealing.

    I support Perry because he is a safer bet than Newt, but I am surprised that more people don’t agree with my list above. Newt is like buying a high Beta stock, the return is potentially tremendous but you could also go broke.

    Good Romney is the 2008 Presidential candidate version. Bad Romney is the 1994 Senate candidate version. Bad Romney is better than bad Newt, but Good Newt is far better than good Romney.

    If I could ensure that Bad Newt would never take power, I would vote for Good Newt over Perry—but there are no such guarantees.

  • acat

    This is exactly the problem with Newt and Willard… if we knew which one would show up on inauguration day, the decision would be easy.

    Mew

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Novak also called Newt a Rockefeller Republican in reference to his serving as the Southern Director for Rockefeller in 68′. He was never a fan of Newt’s and wrote gratuitously about his flaws.

    Is this what its come down to; old quotes and past assessments of Gingrich?

    Maybe one day we can line up the positive assessments of our candidates…besides Perry.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and exactly why Perry is the wisest choice. Like you, I can’t figure out why more people don’t agree with this assessment…yet.

  • clowngirl

    You come across as actively campaigning against Newt and (by default) for Perry.

    Are you going to also look over Governor Perry with a fine tooth comb.

    But I do think it should be strongly taken into account that Governor Perry has been in a very different position as Governor of the reddest state in the nation than as Speaker of the House in the glare of the National Spotlight and having to contend with a Democratic Presidents In the past quarter of a century, Texas has elected a Democrat as Governor only one time for only one term.. Newt was the first Newt was as Speaker of the House in 40 years. To compare their records would be apples and oranges.

    It should be obvious, from Newt’s gathering momentum, that conservatives CAN forgive Newt. Dredging up every negative fact — or even opinion – about Newt from decades past can only reduce the probability that they WILL forgive him.

    I agree with what’s been posted elsewhere that while Newt has certainly made mistakes he seems to be being held to a higher standard than virtually anybody else. (perhaps because after the excitement of Republicans finally reclaiming the House, expectations were sky high)

    I get that Cain might be dropping out and if so you’d like his supporters to go to Rick Perry. But if that’s the case , why don’t you just endorse Perry or make the case for him, rather than going negative on Newt.

    If Perry can’t gain traction, then Newt may well be the only really viable non-Romney. What would be gained by dampening conservative enthusiasm. for Newt.

    And there is enthusiasm. Newt right now, for the first time has the highest positive intensity of any candidate among Republicans. His baggage is already out there, old news and thoroughly dealt with. He really has an excellent chance of beating both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama – if you manage to to take wind from his sails – the most likely beneficiary is Mitt Romney.

    It just seems like excessive negatively. Mudslinging rather than analysis. Dredging up old stuff on Newt isn’t going to make Perry look any more electable or quiet people’s concerns about him,. Why not try and build Governor Perry back up rather than trying to tear down Speaker Gingrich?

    You say you’re for not Romney but , right now, you’re not coming across as AT ALL supportive of the candidate who looks most likely to beat him..

  • clowngirl

    and peeved that you’re attacking my preferred candidate.

    Didn’t mean any disrespect and hope I didn’t word any of that too strongly. :(

  • streiff

    for Obama to bring this up? Great strategy.

    Bachmann, Perry, and Cain have all generated lots of enthusiasm at one point or another. Now it is Newt’s turn. He has a very checkered record and if he keeps the base enthused despite them knowing about his past he’ll be a much stronger candidate in the fall.

  • papabear

    One minor quibble, I think I would place bad Newt above Bad Romney. The way I see it, there really isn’t that much of a difference. Remember, 94 Romney told a group of supporters that they should elect him for the quid pro quo (the supporters would give Mitt a a huge boost in his political career – enabling him to run nationally. the squishes would get the wolf in sheep’s clothing [Romney] with his “Republican” proabortion(ish) views).

    Its a question of which traitor is worse …

  • JSobieski

    Bad Newt has a lot of Nixon qualities. Bad Romney is analogous to when Bob Dole said, if you need another Reagan I can be Reagan.

  • JSobieski

    Bad Newt may be a maniacal ego-maniac, but he would still be pro-life.

  • edintexas

    You don’t think giving almost half of your party’s dedicated appropriation committee’s staff positions (50 of 119 Republican staff positions), in addition to the 35 Democrat staff positions is not serious criticism? That left the Democrats in control of the committee staff (total Democrat 85, Republican 69). Since the staff do all the work and write virtually all the bills, you don’t particularly think this is a problem for a Republican Speaker. So tell us why you think we should worry about having a Republican majority, if we’re going to let the Democrats control the work?

    Not to mention this would not bode well for eliminating the political appointees of the current Administration from EPA, Labor, Interior, the NLRB, etc. You’d be OK with all of Holder’s appointees staying on in Justice? I’m sure this Administration will be working diligently to convert as many of the political appointees to career positions before January, 2013 (win or lose). But we don’t need an incoming Administration which is comfortable with leaving political appointees in place. Newt obviously was comfortable with that, but that is about all, in this article, that he was comfortable with as Speaker.

  • conservativeparrothead

    I believe that he has the necessary skill set and a track record in Washington. Look, I think we have to realize that if you want 1790′s Constitutional Conservatism, then go ahead and vote for Ron Paul. If you want someone who actually has DONE IT in Washington, meaning that yes Washington is a muddled mess, but this guy balanced the budget and got serious entitlement reforms passed, then he should be your guy.

    Am I more concerned about the couch or the fact that when the chips were down and cap and trade was being discussed in front of congress, it was Newt Gingrich who was there testifying against it, while Al Gore was testifying for Cap and Trade.

    I believe this country has a ton of major issues which need to be addressed, I believe that Newt Gingrich is going to be the one who is going to find solutions for these ideas, which will be conservative in nature, but actually can get done.

    Most importantly, he can take these ideas and articulate them to the American People in a way that I dont believe any other Republican candidate in 2012 can do.

    Is he perfect? No Has he made mistakes both professionally and personally? Yes. But as Ive said in many posts there are two things I believe:

    1. Ronald Reagan is the greatest President of my lifetime, if he were running for the nomination in 2012 with his record as California Governor and hollywood veteran, he would be picked apart by many on this site. But he was an ideas guy who could articulate. Was he perfect? No, Did he make mistakes? Yes.

    2. For the Record, as Ive pointed out, Reagan had a spotty record when it comes to legilsation and being conservative: tax hikes, spending, abortion and environment – moderate would be putting it kindly. I feel the same about Gingrich, when youve been in the public arena for 40+ years, you are going to make choices and votes which are not always going to be 100% in line with where you might like them to be.

    Health Care Mandate? It was the conservative choice in the early 1990′s, it was their answer to Hillarycare, not just Newt, but many conservatives. If Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry were in congress at that time, maybe they go the same way as Newt, we just dont know. After all, Rick Perry wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton applauding her efforts and telling her to remember the plight of the farmer in her plans, but nowhere in that letter did I see criticisms of her efforts to suggest that this was somehow unconstitutional and should be a state not federal issue?

  • tomatin

    Stop it right now I know you like Perry, I do too, but Newt is a thousand times better than Romney because of his record in congress.

    Newt accomplished allot as speaker. As much as he could with a Dumbocrat president. Novak cowardly does not list what Newt accomplished. The end of a big part of the Welfare State, the end of onerous banking regulations, balancing the budget. Not to mention what Clinton shot down. All he did to maintain a GOP majority in congress led to letting Bush achieve the biggest tax cuts in US history.

    I have some problems with Newt but not many with his performance as speaker.

    Sure Perry has a strong record as governer too.

    But the only candidate who can win that has a terrible record when governing is Romney, he does not compare with Newt by a long shot.

  • lucasblack

    Bachmann had her moment, but was acting like a rock star, not engaging with the voters but simply showing up to events, making a speech and moving on. She does not have the skills to win at this stage.

  • lucasblack

    Clearly, the mistake GIngrich made was putting Livingstone in that spot. Big him in the ass later when the guy back-stabbed him. I was much more impressed with his putting Kasich at budget. That did a lot more good.

  • reggie182

    in the 1990s while on CNN’s capitol gang. I remember him arguing with James Carville about Newt running for President in 1996, with Novak in support of the idea.

  • lucasblack

    I love me some Newt.

  • lucasblack

    Gingrich wants to be transformative. I think he’s a lot more likely to try and do big things. I’d rather take a big risk with a possibility of a big reward. I don’t send that with either Romney or Perry.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

  • lucasblack

    I don’t disagree with your opinion of Newt and I realize that it’s taking a chance with him. Where I do part ways with you is your opinion of Perry as I consider him virtually unelectable and about on par with Bad Newt. It’s taking a big risk with little chance of reward, so he’s off my list.

  • andystone

    But I don’t see a big hubbub about the first part either. Clerks and assistants do a lot of work, it is true, but it’s grunt work. There’s no reason to fire them, if they’re competent, just because they were appointed by the opposing party. Unless you’re a firm believer in the spoils system, of course.

  • andystone

    given the constraints. My point was that he didn’t exactly rest on his laurels.

  • lucasblack

    I”m a Newt supporter, but as the frontrunner, I think he deserves the most scrutiny right now. I think that’s fair. Perry is close to an afterthought in the polls at present – if he rises, I would expect the same level of scrutiny of him as well. I think Newt can take the knocks and he’ll face far worse from Obama.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    nt

  • Whacker77

    Bob Novak also supported Katherine Harris’ run for Senate in 2006. That was the topic of discussion on CNN when he famously walked off the set and uttered a profanity.

    I liked and respected Bob Novak. I think his work almost always expressed the viewpoint I had. He was a conservative cynic who was usually right. I think he accurately noted the problems of Gingrich right from the start of his Speakership.

  • andystone

    a front page diary about Perry preferring the over-21 demographic for the “Nov. 12th” New Hampshire “caucuses”.

  • johnt

    Did you like the reduction in the capital gains tax, the reductions in discretionary spending, reductions in deficits, etc ?
    C’mon, you’re a Tom Dewey man at heart, maybe his reincarnation in Huntsman, now fess up.

  • federalfarmer1

    The backslapping deal maker willing to sell out his conservative constituents for his buddies in big corporate America wanting cheap illegal labor without the hassle of everify, or mandates to sell more unnecessary vaccines, or free taxpayer money from Tef.

    All of these guys have a bad side. Good Newt has a much higher upside than anybody else.

  • tomatin

    You do realize the NRO is writing hit jobs on Newt so they can promote their pal Romney.

    Then people question whether the conservative establishment is in the tank with Romney.

  • federalfarmer1

    But I agree that conservative criticism is always good against republicans. And we should air personal scandals early.

    But that should be permitted for Perry as well. I don’t think I’ve read anything at all critical of Perry on the front page. It’s simply ostrichlike to think dems aren’t going to rake Perry over the coals for his crony capitalism in Texas, or for how he earned his millions, or to portray him as a stooge for big business.

  • oldlady

    as the person who a close friend of Newt’s once described. He described him as ”the man of a thousand ideas and the attention span of a two year old”.

    Don’t forget folks that the charges against Newt in the Congress were over a book deal. Yes, that’s right. Even then Newt was more interested in writing and selling books and speaking engagements than he was in the nitty-gritty of actually governing.

    Let’s face it. Both Gingrich and Cain got involved in this primary process as a book selling tour. Not as really serious candidates. They were both surprised when in the quest for the ”anything but Romney” ferver they started being taken seriously.

    Do we really want a guy in the White House who is more interested in talking about doing things than actually doing them??

  • federalfarmer1

    Newt is used to the fire. But we still should hold him accountable for the stupid things he did. I’m encouraged by the fact Newt admitted the pelosi stunt was stupid.

  • JSobieski

    I am quite consistent on Newt—think Anakin Skywalker.

    At his best, he rocks. At his worst, we will cry out for a Bob Dole clone.

    Perry has fewer “I can’t believe he said that” and “I can’t believe he did that” kind of ideological baggage. Thus, I don’t characterize there being a good Perry or bad Perry, just Perry.

    Romney and Newt are split into two for very specific reasons.

  • oldlady

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Governor Perry’s income last year reported to be in the $200,000. to $300,000 range?

  • streiff

    is that too much to ask

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/09/rick-perry-blind-trust-personal-finances-/1

    Perry reported that he holds 25 different stocks worth $108,000 to $319,000. The AP obtained the letter and his new disclosure report through an open records request.

    The AP says Perry’s report also lists eight municipal bond holdings and a money-market account worth more than $10,000. The governor owns real estate, which has been the subject of recent news stories about how he profited from land deals while in public office.

    Perry is worth at least $1.1 million, according to a previous AP story. That stands in stark contrast to Mitt Romney, Perry’s leading GOP rival, who is worth more than $190 million.

  • clowngirl

    This article basically says Newt hadn’t accomplished anything of note at that point in his tenure as Speaker. So….what? He did have significant accomplishments as speaker shortly after that. How is this particularly relevant decades later? Is this really the kind of baggage that sinks a candidate?

    The other post is mainly about Tom Coburn thinking Newt isn’t conservative enough. Is that really an argument Obama is going to be making?

    These posts don’t read to me like vetting. More like trying, at this relatively late date, to the focus on ideaological purity which is an area where conservatives prefer Rick Perry.

    In my view, it’s late in the game to be trying to stir up resentment against Newt when he’s polling in anywhere from 25-38% and Governor Perry is polling at between 4 and 8%. Ideological purity is an important consideration but it is not, and should not be, the ONLY consideration. In my view, it gets less and less appropriate to focus on as we get closer to casting votes.

    I also think that focus on Romney’s lack of discernable and genuine principles – valid as it is – has to some extent obscured many other weaknesses he has as a candidate and cast him as more electable than he really is.

    It’s fine if Erick prefers Perry or if RedState chooses to endorse him- but, as I said, I’d prefer to see a case for why Governor Perry is still electable then (what reads to me as) as negativity about Newt that doesn’t seem to serve a positive purpose.

    Like I said, it’s just my (biased ) opinion and you are free to disagree.

  • Common_Cents

    Is Gingrich going to repeat mistakes in this day in time? With a good chance of having an R senate and R house? With the tea party influence?

    We are in different day and times.

    Who can seriously say a President Gingrich will pursue cap/trade global warming in this day and time? or pursue whatever past issues that people have a problem with.

    Situations are also different.

    We should put Perry as Gov of MA during the same time as Romney. Would Perry be exactly the same? Assuming he could ever get elected?

    Same w/ Romney as Gov of TX, how different would he be, could he have gotten elected.

    We need some more rational thinking on both pluses and minuses of candidates UNDER TODAYS conditions.

    Past performance is NO guarantee of future results, that includes both pos and neg past performance.

    We need to apply TODAYS situation to the current candidates and who will be best for the future. Today is wholly different than last year, 5 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago, 15 yrs ago, and 20 yrs ago.

    Let’s get some intelligent discussion going.

  • 1bunny

    when he started running for president. He first had to dissolve the blind trust that he placed his money/investments in so that everything could be disclosed. Lo and behold he only has about 1 million dollars and the article even stated the investment firm running the blind trust was not so hot in making investments as Perry’s blind trust lost money. So not only is he not getting rich off “crony” capitalism but he also does not pass along inside information as the DC crowd has been found to do to enrich themselves. Also Perry unlike President Barack Obama, who has made millions of dollars from two books, Perry directed proceeds from one of his books to legal defense for the Boy Scouts of America and proceeds from the other to an Austin-based conservative think tank.

  • streiff

    the Obama administration is dumping the flip-flopper stuff on Romney, not for the general but for the GOP primary. They want a long contest and a weak candidate. They will use this stuff on Gingrich. In the general they will run on a lot of stuff relating to the government shut down, his ethics problems in Congress, and any number of statements he’s made.

    I tend to agree with you that the people who are going to Newt now, know the Heroic Newt of 1994 and it will be hard to disabuse them of that belief.

    The first votes haven’t been cast yet. I’ll be more amenable to the “it’s late in the game” argument after the game actually starts.

    Personally, I don’t know who Erick likes. In fact, most of us don’t really have a favorite at this point though we may have candidates we don’t like.

  • izoneguy
  • audax

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Texas

    “…Texas has elected a Democrat as Governor only one time for only one term.”

    Texas had Dem Governers such becoming a State until the Civil War. The first 12 Govs were Dems except for one “Unionist” and one “Independent” then 2 GOP Gov’s right after the Civil War. The next 27 Govs were Dems then Bill Clements -R, Mark White-D, Bill Clements-R, Ann Richards-D, then Bush and Perry both R. Lets face it the GOP has hadn’t a good run in Texas until Bush.

  • federalfarmer1

    But Perrys wealth will be an issue dems raise, so why not get it out early?

  • JSobieski

    I am just trying to be as fair and objective as possible. I think it really does come down to a risk assessment.

    A lot of the risks of Romney or Newt are mitigated if we R control of the House and Senate. But in that case, who is likely to be more bold as a leader? Newt. Who would be more likely to overreach and come crashing down? Newt.

    I have preferences, but I don’t have a strong emotional attachment to them. If we can get the Newt fans to acknowledge the risks and the Newt skeptics to acknowledge the possibilities, the center-right team can be a bit more like a team.

    I should also point out that I would prefer Huntsman over Romney.

    If we can’t have Perry, Newt, or Huntsman, I will still support whomever wins the nomination.

  • streiff

    you said

    It?s simply ostrichlike to think dems aren?t going to rake Perry over the coals for his crony capitalism in Texas, or for how he earned his millions, or to portray him as a stooge for big business.

    Yet Perry’s financial disclosure documents are public record.

    What you did was nothing short of deliberately lying. You may think it is cute. It isn’t.

    Perry’s net worth is close to average for a white collar worker his age, It is ridiculously small when compared to most people running for office. I hardly think his personal wealth will be an issue.

    Last warning. Ever. Do this again on any candidate and you are gone.

  • Tbone

    So, blame yourself.

  • irishgirl

    When I read that comment about only 1 Dem gov in Texas……I was about to state the facts here, but you beat me to it.

  • lucasblack

    I think Newt would agree that his record is fair game. He gets credit for the good things and has to explain the bad things. I see no indication that he’s running from his record.

  • Ausonius

    I heard recently on the radio an interview with former Congressman and columnist John LeBoutillier.

    He was very much against a Gingrich candidacy (he also dislikes Romney) and said: “He is NOT a Conservative! He’s a Rockefeller Republican.” Having served with Gingrich in the 1980′s in Congress, LeBoutillier adamantly said that he does “not want that guy in the White House.”

    LeBoutillier believes – and hopes – that some other candidate (possibly a non-politician) will appear in February or March outside of the “hold-your-nose” group now campaigning.

  • tricianc

    Is Newt pandering to Hispanics now?

    2006 paper: ‘Zero tolerance for amnesty’ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69432.html

    Mentioned in the above article, here’s Newt’s AEI paper from 2006 on immigration which is a far cry from the position he’s taking now.
    http://aei.org/files/2006/04/26/20060428_PATRIOTICIMMIGRATION.pdf

    While doing extensive research on Newt, I just keep shaking my head at all the positions he’s had for 20 years or more and now that he’s running for President, is “disposing” of them.

    Reminds me of this:

    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.”

  • mariagomez

    ditto.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    That includes;

    1- Commuting the sentence for Kenneth Foster

    2- The Texas ‘Hate-Crimes” Bill Perry signed which greatly upset social conservatives

    3- The controversy involving his Hickory Creek Drive home.

    4- Allegations of “pay-for-play” in Texas.

    5- Accusations surrounding the Texas Youth Commission.

    Not that I necessarily agree or believe these are issues. But at some point someone will mention them…

  • Scope

    Gingrich headlined a Global Warming event with Sen. John Kerry in July of 2007. Here is a part of the transcript from that debate-

    __________________________________________

    KERRY: I?m excited to hear you talk about the urgency ? I really am. And given that ? albeit you still sort of have a different approach ? what would you say to Sen. Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science? What?s your message to them here today?

    GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.

    KERRY: And to it urgently ? and now?

    GINGRICH: And do it urgently. Yes.

    If I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you?re a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you?re a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what?s coming next: which is bigger government and higher taxes.

    So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don?t want big government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kinds of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept this invitation and I?m delighted to be here with Sen. Kerry is I think there has to be a if you will a ?green conservatism? ? there has to be a willingness to stand up and say alright here?s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

    _________________________________

    Green Conservatism?????

    Gingrich also told O’Reilly in an interview a few days ago that the “facts” aren’t all in whether Global Warming is man-made or not. Yet, this man sits at the top of the GOP polling. Why?

  • circlegranch

    Both Limbaugh and Hannity have had rants today about being soooo upset that conservatives are nitpicking about the candidates; that we’re only helping the Left. We should not pick apart records, look at past comments, or vet them in any way. Just shut up and let the media do it for us, huh?

    Let’s rewind to the many, many times Limbaugh has said that we don’t have to settle for a moderate. How many times haven’t we been prompted to stand firm and make sure we elect a staunch conservative; this is the landslide victory year for Republicans; we don’t have to settle, he has often said.

    The criticism that certain Right websites are being too critical is nauseating. We have a duty to vet the candidates unlike these guys on the radio that play favorites with some and ignore others.

    I hope EE stays firm and committed to making sure the truth is revealed. Today, these guys on the radio are acting like we can just pick anybody and things will work out fine. Obviously, there is not a perfect candidate to be found; we aren’t asking for PERFECTION. We are asking for TRUE CONSERVATISM, A PROVEN RECORD.

    Sorry, Rush and Sean, you guys missed the mark yet again. In your minds, this election is all about who YOU want to win, just as NRO, Drudge, certain Congressional members and talking heads on Fox all want. Sorry if hearing what We, the People, want is so distasteful. Get over yourselves.

  • unsk

    You guys have it all wrong.

    Over the last twenty, the Republicans really have accomplished only three things:

    ? The Contract with American and the resultant cuts to government spending
    ? The Initial Bush response to the Islamic threat in Afghanistan and Iraq
    ? The Bush Tax cuts.

    The rest of the time the Pubs have been capitulating left and right.

    The Contract with America surely would not have happened without Newt. It was his idea and it was only accomplished on the back of his effort. For decades the control of the House was beyond the reach of the Republicans until Newt took it back.

    There would be no spending cuts without Newt. To say that Newt didn’t take it far enough is sour grapes. Who else at the time would had the stature and the guts to take it farther?

    None of what Bush accomplished could have happened unless Newt had taken back the House.

    Newt was the only major figure to stand up against TARP and the bailouts. And he was the only Pub to put forth a thorough plan to address the Panic of 08. Where was Perry? Perry still hasn’t come out with a clear program to fix our economic mess that he can explain to people, and don’t tell me about his position papers. Unless he can explain it succinctly on TV, it won’t matter.

    Sure Newt is in love with his own intellect, has had some personal issues, and has caved on some positions in the last few years. So has Perry and caving on positions is Romney’s stock in trade. But remember Newt had a target on his back for most of the last twenty years. He was the Left’s #1 bogeyman until Bush came along and then Sarah. It’s only natural to think he would have to soften his image and adopt the Bad Newt persona to stay in the game.

    But now he’s back on top, and I think he is the only one among the leading candidates who can lead our country back from the brink.

  • tyman

    I guess once an academic, always an academic.

    Scope, this is really depressing. I’m a Perry guy until the end, but to think that Gingrich wrote the forward to Fed Up!.

    Not that I haven’t seen this coming for years, but when you think about all of the people who have looked up to Newt. In some ways, that’s almost like finding out that Reagan was a phony.

    “here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system”. No wonder he was headed to be thrown out as speaker. I don’t want anyone in charge (conservative or liberal) with the mindset that they can solve the problem and individuals can’t.

    Go back and listen to Ronaldus Magnus’ speech for Barry Goldwater where he talks about the “intellectual elite”. Guess who thinks they’re part of that elite? I’ll give you his initials…Newton “Leroy” Gingrich.

  • gekster

    If you are willing to address his positives, be willing to address his negatives.
    It’s called a primary and it’s called vetting.
    If we don’t get it all out here and now, the Dems will get it out in Oct 2012.

  • Tbone

    Newt will be 70 in June, 2013. He is too old and he is too fat. Actuarially he will be dead before he can serve 2 terms.

    How is he going to lead us back from the brink lying in state in the Rotunda?

  • Kyle-MI

    I like it and still think many of its ideas should be implemented, but its most significant reforms died in the Senate. Government spending was not cut. The budget was balanced, but mainly through greater revenue because of the dot-com bubble.

    Now welfare reform is another matter.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    than work our way back from there and compromise on whoever wins the nomination. Then hold our noses and vote…or not.

    That way all the participants in this tom-foolery can stand in a circle-shoot after the election, blame each other for Obama’s reelection, express their woe over the future of the party, define conservatism to each other, say they were simply screening the candidate (while lending further credence to false meme’s responsible for the candidates defeat), further blame each other for the party’s division (and eventual irrelevance), blame each other for the country’s demise through fiscal insanity and finally prove the Republican Party is not the party of the future, but the party of the past. As in extinct.

    Yes, and we can also burn the word “compromise” from all the Republican books, because it is such a lost art and evil word solely associated with “squish’s” that it has lost its unique meaning.

  • johnt

    now John Boehner,the $8 billion cut man. Now, think, how does Newt look to you now, or for that matter the fastidious Erick, hmmm?
    Why do you deep thinkers Newt was criticized and weakened by his own delegation? Look at the above 3 names, your answers there, go along & grab what you can, liberalism light.
    The Repubs in the House aren’t interested in a conservative leader, so they go with the spenders and cavers such as above.
    Oh well, tomorrow will bring some more of the same. Maybe we can turn on somebody else, we’ll see.

  • rmacgilv

    Allow me to start by saying I am a big fan of you and Red State.I am struck by the amount of time you and other contributors spend attacking anyone who may win over Perry.If you would state outright that you are a Perry supporter I believe you would much better serve yourself.I believe all candidates should be vetted so we don’t allow another Obama to slip into the White House.I don’t feel Perry has a prayer in a debate with Obama and I really don’t see a road to the nomination for him.Pulling Novak articles from the past to attack Gingrich seems to be another attempt to support Perry at the peril of Newt.We all have our reasons for supporting a conservative who can beat Obama.I respect your beliefs but not your methods.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You must be new

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    …as I poop on the front doorstep!

  • rmacgilv

    Do you have something meaningful to say?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    I get your dislike of Rick Perry and your willingness to spread the boring, old RickState PerryKrishna meme, but otherwise, I tend to think you lack anything to your presence that inspires or even merits a meaningful response.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And if you threadjack again about Perry in a post about Gingrich I’ll ban your sorry account.

  • rmacgilv

    At least you’re consistent.Too bad Erick has to rely on the B teamers to respond to criticism.You use the ridicule card much as Alinsky would.Be proud.You keep deflecting,Jack.You obviously have nothing behind the curtain.

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

  • wacowboy

    Thanks for posting

  • federalfarmer1

    This stuff about Perry is all over huffpost, rolling stone, atlantic, frum forum, and other liberal outlets. Perrys financial disclosures show he made substantial amounts on real estate deals, many involving donors or rich businessmen. The line of attack dems will take on him is obvious. But it can’t be mentioned? didn’t you just write that all this old junk on Newt should be aired because Obama will air it anyway? But we should pretend democrats will just ignore perrys real estate deals and ties to big campaign donors?

    Im done talking about Perry, since everybody gets so hot and bothered by it and he’s polling behind bachmann in Iowa. But apply the same standard to Newt then, and quit posting old irrelevant garbage about him. Either this stuff should be openly discussed about all candidates or it shouldn’t.

    If you ban me ill it will just show you arent interested in a forum for conservatives to discuss the candidates in equal terms, and there is some kind of agenda to advance Rick Perry, regardless of how much harm it causes to other candidates. I’ve said openly Rick Perry is my number two guy after Newt. I don’t know how excluding folks like me helps rick Perry, but its your website. I’m not going to be some kind of sycophantic cheerleader for Rick Perry or the moderators here if that’s what is required to have posting privileges.

  • Common_Cents

    Perry had Arpaio in NH with him. Perry just did a hannity radio interview with Arpaio at Perry’s invite.

    Arpaio is a known birther, he has an obama birther task force investigating obamas legitimacy.

    Arpaio just attended an orly taitz forum.

    What could be WORSE than bringing the BIRTHER BAGGAGE into the general election against Obama?

    That is a total gift to obama.

    Perry needs to come out now and walk back the Arpaio tour and endorsement.

    Here is the radio interview with Hannity Perry/Arpaio

  • gekster

    That you choose to believe the leftys narative is your fault.
    That you fail to do your own reaserch and instead,
    choose to believe the leftys spin is your fault.

    Go over to HuffPo.
    There facts don’t matter as much to them as it does to us.
    And you won’t be missed. ;)

  • gekster

    Get over it.

  • bzip

    Thanks for the embedding, it’s always a beauty to listen to Rick Perry.

    Too bad Common Cents – You lost all your marbles with your common cents.

    Let me know how the ethic violations go against Newt while he is sitting on the couch having yet another affair with Pelosi while lobbying for more mandates.

  • Common_Cents

    I wasn’t aware of the change.

  • Common_Cents

    Obama will use this and it will be devastating.

  • clowngirl

    I said one Democrat governor, Anne Richards, elected in the past 25 years not in the whole history of Texas since it became a state.

  • bzip

    You just don’t get it. You are trying to sell some bad goods and I ain’t buying it.

    No go back and try to figure out how you can sell Newt’s baggage in the general election.

  • Kenny Martsolf

    Because Obama has all of the credibility needed to launch a “guilt by association” attack.

  • Ausonius

    Marcus Traianus is quite right: the quest for a perfect Conservative candidate will mean 100% failure.

    Ohio State has a new football coach, Urban Meyer, who stated that he left football because he had become manic about controlling every little factor in the lives of his team in “the pursuit of perfection.”

    He had become a Captain Ahab questing after the great white whale of something that does not exist.

    Perhaps Gingrich was a Rockefeller Republican, as LeBoutillier said in the interview mentioned above. But people do change: perhaps Gingrich is more conservative now, and perhaps it is genuine.

    We know he must be at least somewhat better than BIG BRObama! :)

  • Common_Cents

    it’s a simple yes or no.

  • clowngirl

    In the past quarter century, Texas has elected only one Democrat as Governor for only one term.

  • gekster

    It means no more than the Pastor who called Mormanism a cult.
    That was another non issue, that a few dim bulbs tried to turn it into something to use against Perry. You are better than that.

    Seams you are a few cents short today.

  • donald_24

    Newt Gingrich seems to be a big fan of Donald Berwick, whom Obama appointed to run Medicare:

    “Don Berwick at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has worked for years to spread the word that the same systematic approach to quality control that has worked so well in manufacturing could create a dramatically safer, less expensive and more effective system of health and health care.?

  • donald_24

    Gingrich also has radical views on drugs. He supports the DEATH penalty for anyone who imports large quantities of drugs. And the other day he said we should adopt Singapore’s drug laws. Singapre executes those who possess even small amounts of drugs.

    If the nominee, Gingrich will either have to defend those radical views or flip flop.

  • Scope

    are you have never ever posted the first link to any proof that you have on any Perry indiscretions. None. You choose to believe what you read from leftists sites. Yet, with Gingrich, there are articles, videos, speeches, and direct quotes from Gingrich, articulating his positions over the years, and that “proof” should be ignored.

    Farmer you say that Perry is your second choice, yet you rip him a new one every time you post. You are not an honest poster, you bring absolutely nothing of substance to the debate, and you have one goal which is- defeat Perry at all and every cost, even including making stuff up if that is necessary. That has been your only goal while posting here at RS.

  • bzip

    Buzz off – that is my answer.

  • runner12

    Do you mind citing a link for that? I do not think anyone would be supportive of such a Draconian approach.

  • Scope

    which is exactly why he has been seen as the man of a million ideas. He has no core principles to stop him from being all over the map with his “ideas.” Unfortunately, Gingrich’s ideas are far closer to Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” with respect to domestic policy, and his world view is “Green Conservatism.”

  • acat

    Fact is, there is a lot of waste, due to ass-covering, in the medical field.

    Doctor sees a patient, says “I’m 99% sure it’s nothing, but if I don’t run these tests and I’m wrong, I’ll get sued out of business, so to keep the insurance company off my back, go get these useless tests.”

    Mew

  • acat

    Context matters.

    I don’t have a problem with the death penalty for large-scale drug importers as their business model tends to get a lot of people killed – and we do tend to execute mass murderers. (at least, they do in Texas..Illinois, not so much) I’ll resist the temptation to say that it would put more Americans to work growing pot.

    I’d also like a cite for Singapore executing citizens for drug possession as their methods tend to be brutal but leave the citizen alive…

    Mew

  • donald_24

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=19950715&id=9WsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CS0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4870,4532486

    Q: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?

    A:

    I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they’ve done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’ If you’re serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we’re going to have drugs in this country.

    Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-drug-laws-entitlements-campaigning-yahoo-news-152936251.html

  • donald_24

    “Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Friday that he would ask Congress to enact legislation imposing the death penalty on drug smugglers, and he suggested that mass executions of people convicted under such a law might prove an effective deterrent.

    Mr. Gingrich, speaking to about 400 people at a money-raising event here for Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, said, “The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”

    “If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs,” he said, “it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children. I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/us/gingrich-suggests-tough-drug-measure.html

  • acat

    And for the record, I don’t have a problem with Newt’s position.

    Mew

  • donald_24

    http://www.aei.org/article/health/high-tech-cure-for-medical-mistakes/

  • avgjo

    Thanks!

  • acat

    Remember this one?

    Mew

  • donald_24

    In the recent Yahoo interview, GIngrich says that he still stands by his 1996 views.

  • JSobieski

    Many on the right agree with that criticism, including people like Paul Ryan, Coburn, and Mitch Daniels.

    The question is of course, what is the alternative?

    A lot of the ideas that Berwick talks about have their origins in the public sector. Given how doctrinaire Obama is, Berwick is probably the best we were going to get.

    1) He speaks out against the British system, which is what true statists want.

    2) Ideas like ACOs aren’t bad, and they have analogous systems in the private sector—which thought of them in the first place.

    He is a total dud on issues like HSAs, but Obama wasn’t going to put an HSA guy in that job.

    He also doesn’t understand how markets can drive innovation.

    All that being said, unlike many in the Obama administration, he actually has some interesting things to say.

  • acat

    but still significantly ahead of Obama appointing Berwick to anything of note.

    You’re “Live from the archives” today, aren’t you?

    Mew

  • Scope

    He has run around all over this site shrilly shilling for his boy Gingrich. For him, everything negative about Gingrich is to be ignored, don’t look or go there with looking at Gingrich’s record, it’s old news after all. He has done everything in his power to rip Perry a new one.

    Common Cents is a candibot if there ever was one here at RS. Please ignore him, he obviously thrives on trashing Perry, and does all he can to antagonize the Perry supporters. With the call out of candibots, I’m surprised that he has escaped most scrutiny.

    The best way to deal with those that have an ulterior motive is to ignore them. No one likes to be ignored, and the more you engage him, the happier he is. I really do have to laugh at his posting name, as it is hubris personified.

  • donald_24

    Gingrich also said on Fox News in 2009:

    “Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers — they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.”

    “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPmcgwd5vZ0

  • acat

    You sure you didn’t get so excited about discovering something new you posted without checking?

    And once again, I don’t see the problem with Gingrich’s proposal. You evidently have an objection, go ahead and spell it out.

    Mew

  • donald_24

    Executing drug smugglers will scare away indepenedent voters and even moderate Republicans. These are politically toxic views.

  • acat

    What about it do you dislike?

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    Like Andre Bauers unfortunate endorsement of gingrich? To my knowledge, not solicited or promoted.

    If that was front page newsworthy, don’t ya think a solicited, promoted endorsement of a known birther Arpaio of Perry is newsworthy?

    Arpaio is a known birther. Why would a Presidential candidate promote that endorsement? That is red meat for Obama to energize his base against the evil deranged Republicans.

    Just tryin to keep a little balance and consistency at RS is all. ;)

  • donald_24

    The Yahoo interview is from 2 days ago. And the YouTube clip is from 2009.

  • donald_24

    I’m against the death penalty. Govt. is incompetent and I don’t trust it to determine who is guilty and who is innocent. Look at all the people being released from death row because of DNA evidence. If it were not for DNA, what do you think would have happened to those people? We should be transitioning away from the death penalty, not toward it.

  • acat

    I don’t believe there’s been an across-the-board ruling on Candi-Bots yet, and I’m not sure Common_Cents would qualify anyway – s/he doesn’t seem to be here just to bash Perry.

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    This is the second time you have tried to recruit people to ignore my posts.

    Can’t you just be an adult and make your own choice?

    Why do you feel you need validation by recruiting others?

    I thought gang ups ended in jr high.

    I have always stuck to candidates and issues. Many responses have been targeted at me personally, and not debating candidates and issues. It’s no big deal, I’m a big boy but when people resort to personal stuff it reflects bad on RS and is not helpful.

  • avgjo

    Marcus Traianus’s posts on this thread.

    Your last comments prompted me to comment.

    I am split between Newt and Perry, leaning Newt, because in our current national infatuation with TV performance, Newt would kick butt.

    That said, I know Newt has lots of issues. I also know that all of the candidates have issues. But above all, I know that Obama’s issues are far greater than theirs!

    I ask my fellow RSers to bear three things in mind about Gingrich:

    1. He is a Republican. I recall several times on this site seeing people say (effectively) that there’s not a dime’s diff between dim and repub. I have seen them get (rightfully) flamed. I acknowledge that sometimes there’s only a dime’s diff, but it always comes down to this: at the end of the day, a Republican will defer to the clear will of the people.

    2. He has a massive ego and a sense of history. I believe this translates to someone who will do the things he says he will. Why? Because:
    (a) What he proposes is ‘transformational’
    (b) his legacy lies in ‘transformation’ and he knows it.
    I don’t like that America has gotten to the point of relying on hubris for a return to political leadership, but right now, I’ll take it. Later, we can work on restoring America’s spirit.

    3. Many of us, myself included, bemoan that GOP leadership is a bunch of sissies. The reason Gingrich is so hated by the left is that he fights. I believe many on the right hate him for the same reason (after all, it’d have been so much easier just to give Clinton everything he wanted). Americans want a fighter. Gingrich has fought back against the goofy moderators. He put that moron Piers in his place the other day. I believe this goes a good way towards explaining his surge. We’re tired of wimps like McCain, and like the Old West towns of lore, we’ll take a gunfighter with warts, who’ll get the job done, as opposed to the nice, clean pansy.

    I would have loved (and still would love) Perry to have gotten the nomination. He’s a fighter, and I believe he’s driven to want to transform America for the right reasons, unlike Gingrich. Perry’s biggest problems are (a) sometimes he’s too nice (not responding to the attacks early on) and (b) Americans now put style over substance. If he continues his lately good debate performances and gingrich falls, he’ll get the nom, IMO.

    We’ll see.

  • gekster

    Gingrich did not seek the Bauers endorsement.

    At least four candidates knowingly sought the sheriffs endorsement.

    That means that at the least four candidates didn’t see it as a problem.
    It would appear that only you and rwm see it as a problem.

    Now for the time being, I will do as Scope asks and Hintz rule you.
    (yeah, I said Hintz) at least until you get your common sense back.

  • Common_Cents

    Maybe a tad over by now, can’t remember.

    My goal is to defeat Obama w/ the best candidate we can field.

    I have said 50 times I’d appoint Perry President if I could base on his record, but in this country, he has to get elected.

  • Common_Cents

    .

  • acat

    Where do you see the problem with death penalties for people whose business model factors in the deaths of both customers and bystanders at the hands of customers?

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    It’d be nice to know who actively sought a birther’s endorsement.

    So now it’s ok for Redstate perry supporters to overlook a known birther being promoted by a major presidential candidate??

    WOW!

  • acat

    Yes, Sheriff Joe has issues – ask Becker. For every dollar Arpaio has saved the taxpayers by housing prisoners in tents, he’s spent at least that much defending against the never-ending stream of lawsuits.

    That said, he’s also seen as a hero by many who haven’t taken the time to really look at the results of his actions. His endorsement is a net negative to you, it’s a neutral to me, but – and this is key – there’s more of the bumper-sticker mentality types out there – and it’s a net positive to them.

    Mew

  • Scope

    you are in denial, or you have gone over to the liberal side of the argument with healthcare.

    Berwick wants the British model here in the US

    You can’t just claim that Berwick was against the British healthcare system because you obviously want it to be so. Berwick couldn’t pass confirmation because even Democrats wouldn’t support him. His radical healthcare policies and beliefs are anything but American. You can’t put your head in the sand, with your butt sticking up in the air, and say I don’t hear you. That would be unless the elderly are just to much of a burden to give end of life care to. Hope your parents and elderly relatives aren’t reading your responses here.

  • acat

    Take a walk. Go grocery shopping. Take the significant other out for coffee.

    Sheriff Joe’s a “ten foot car”. Looks like it’s something that belongs in a museum .. from ten feet away. Get closer, and the rust or not-quite-right paint or wrong-year mirrors get obvious.

    You and I see the problems. Not everyone does. The endorsement is obviously a net negative for you, but – you’re not a Perry supporter to begin with, and you’re vastly outnumbered by the bumper-sticker-mentality folk who like Sheriff Joe…

    Mew

  • oldlady

    If I understand correctly Bachmann, Santorum and Romney all were seeking Arpaio’s endorsement.

  • acat

    seeing problems with the current system and proposing the wrong solutions.

    Berwick clearly is in the latter group, J. Sobieski is in the former.

    Even if we repeal Obamacare, we have got to straighten out the problems that the Dems exploited to get Obama elected…

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    :)

  • Scope

    of those that sought the endorsement of Sheriff Arpaio as though you had no idea who was looking for that endorsement. I would call your positions “selective inattention” because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

    Bachmann, Romney and Cain also sought Arpaios endorsement. Are they “birthers?”

  • acat

    I don’t believe that some folk can be rehabilitated.

    I also don’t believe it’s right to ask taxpayers to pay for warehousing incorrigibles. If you choose to, that’s your right; perhaps we can arrange to transfer some of ‘em to you.

    Mew

  • gekster

    I believe Aaron posted some, you should your replys.

    Mitt Romney
    Michele Bachmann
    Rick Perry
    Herman Cain

    Do a search and find the links for yourself.
    It’s easy, do a search using “Arpaio endorsement sought by x”

    I stopped at four.
    I didn’t want to overburden you.

    And that’s it. Hintz rule till your head clears up.

  • Tbone

    He is just starting to get wound up and it is funnier than heck when he does.

  • Common_Cents

    I appreciate it.

  • Tbone

    From: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/02/16/poll-birthers-now-make-up-a-majority-of-gop-primary-voters

    “According to PPP’s survey, 51 percent of likely 2012 GOP primary voters believe that President Obama was born in another country (which would make him ineligible for the presidency). Another 21 percent say they are “not sure” if the president was born in the United States. Or to put it another way, 72 percent of the people who will be choosing the next Republican presidential nominee are either birthers or birther-curious.”

  • Scope

    Sobieski said very clearly that Berwick didn’t support the British system of socialized medicine. You can try to bring other arguments into the mix, and to dilute the conversation about socialized medicine, and what end of life care should be afforded to those that are “useless eaters” but to say that Berwick didn’t support the British system of socialized medicine is to insult the intelligence of those that do not share his philosophy. So, what middle ground would you support between elderly life and death? Would it be the cost, would it be that they don’t add value to the American citizenry, or maybe would it be that there are just too many elderly American citizens to keep alive? There should never be decisions about who should live and who should die, through lack of medical attention. Isn’t life more important than money savings to the Americans?

  • clowngirl

    “the Obama administration is dumping the flip-flopper stuff on Romney, not for the general but for the GOP primary. They want a long contest and a weak candidate. They will use this stuff on Gingrich. In the general they will run on a lot of stuff relating to the government shut down, his ethics problems in Congress, and any number of statements he?s made.”

    I was fairly young and not really paying attention when the ethics accusations occurred — are they really very serious? I read something that compared them to the frivolous ethics charges against Sarah Palin. Would you say that’s accurate? Also, wasn’t Newt aquitted?

    “I tend to agree with you that the people who are going to Newt now, know the Heroic Newt of 1994 and it will be hard to disabuse them of that belief.”

    Why would you even want to “disabuse” people of the notion that Newt once made a heroic effort? Even if that was his finest hour so far it’s still part of who he is and speaks to his potential for leadership. Should we be considering only the failings of candidates and not their strengths?

    “The first votes haven?t been cast yet. I?ll be more amenable to the ?it?s late in the game? argument after the game actually starts.”

    True enough. But it seems to me there’s more than one game. There’s picking the nominee and there’s making sure Miitt Romney is NOT the nominee. Seems to me that the most certain way to ensure outcome #2 is to beat Romney in all the early states. Newt looks well positioned to do that.

    So I feel like we should start getting behind Newt — but, admittedly, Newt was always my first choice anyway. Maybe I’d feel differently if it were Perry way ahead and Newt back in single digits.

    And I’m sure Erick’s lack of enthusiasm for Newt right now is far from a game changer.

  • clowngirl

    n/t

  • streiff

    but if you can’t tell the difference between opposing a candidate and a malicious lie you don’t have sufficient integrity to participate in the process.

    If I ban you it will be over your rampant douchebaggery not because of a candidate.

    And excluding people who have no compunction about deliberately lying makes the process better for everyone else.

  • Tbone

    know how to win elections. Duh.

    You see clowngirl, you think it’s because anyone could have won, a stupid assumption.

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

    The problem with ObamaCare is that the government is on the panel. I think the best system is the one with private insurance companies, the family and the doctor on the panel. More later

  • clowngirl

    and wouldn’t sign a law permitting concealed carry in Texas. Now, that’s probably an oversimplification but can you imagine it being political suicide for a Democratic President to refuse to sign a law permitting National concealed carry?

    My point was simply that Texas presents a much different political climate than Washington DC and it’s easier and less complicated to look conservative in Texas. Even George W. Bush, who did sign that concealed carry bill, didn’t pass a bill protecting the right to concealed carry in any state. ( and really, with 6 years of a Republican Congress, why didn’t he?)

  • clowngirl

    it spells out the point I was trying to make (apparently not very well the first time)

  • greyeagle

    I am sure that Newt would like these comments to go away. However, Seniors should be reminded. I sure won’t forget. Newt is too liberal for me and I think he would make a lousy President. I well remember some of his antics as Speaker of the House and since.

  • Tbone

    “Now, that?s probably an oversimplification…”

  • greyeagle

    This nothing more than the Perry trashing talking points that I have seen used by supporters of Paul, Cain, and Bachman on other so called conservative web sites. Perry has tried to keep illegals out of Texas, but Obama has refused requested assets to make this happen. E-Verify is only about 50% accurate. Some of the companies in TX use it. Gardisil was never passed by the Legislature and was never given, not 1 dose. Vaccines have to have a mandate for insurance to pay for them. However, ALL TEXAS PARENTS CAN OPT OUT OF VACCINES. Free taxpayer money from What and to Who? Frankly I am tired of seeing this same garbage and lies to smear a staunch conservative like Governor Perry, that I support. I do not mean to be rude, but your comments have just hit my last nerve.

  • deVere

    Personally I’m not in any doubt about that. The man belongs in jail, but that ship has long since sailed. The passage of time has rendered the issue moot in any practical sense.

    Global warming is a scam.. Thanks for saying that in plain English, Rick.

    Rick Perry is sometimes mistaken, as on the Texas “dream act” but clearly tries to avoid lying about important subjects such as the above.

    I have a genuine respect for Rick Perry, and think he’d make a better President than this country actually deserves.

  • greyeagle

    Most of the so called issues were promoted by the liberal media in Houston, Austin, Ft. Worth, and to some extent in Dallas. There was a problem at the Texas Youth Commission, but when he was made aware of the situation, he cleaned it up in a hurry. The Bureau of Prisons make the recommendations on what to do with sentenced criminals. Texas Governors have limited authority in these situations. Don’t remember anything much about the Hate Crimes Bill. There was some particular reason that he signed, just can’t remember.

  • federalfarmer1

    The government should have a mechanism to ensure the medicine it pays for has merit. Should taxpayers pay for ninety year olds to get new joints? I have no idea, but it requires reviewing the science, actuarial tables, and so on. Individuals and families can pay for it themselves if the government doesnt believe its warranted for taxpayer funds.

    Of course, best of all, get government out of the insurance business entirely.

  • donald_24

    So I assume you support the death penalty for tobacoo company exeuctives?

  • donald_24

    So its bad for the government to be on the deat panel, but ok for Cigna and Aetna to be on it? Really?

  • center77

    in the spoils system, and passing in to friends he will need later. Newt is more of the same insider stuff we need to rid, not elevate to the top spot. This is just bizarre, Newt, really.

  • donald_24

    Today Bachmann said that, if elected president, she would close the non-existent US embassy in Iran.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/us-embassy-in-iran-michele-bachmanns-oops-moment/

  • federalfarmer1

    You should be banned just for putting that image in my head.

  • donald_24

    Here is the “unedited” version of the Gingrich/ Pelosi ad, courtesy of Jay Leno.

    Click on the link at your own risk, as it will give you nightmares. Do not consume any beverages while watching the ad.

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/hl-40020130/the_tonight_show_with_jay_leno_newts_regret_season_19/

  • donald_24

    So is there some sort of statute of limitations when it comes to pointing out flaws in candidates that I don’t know about? I think everythign is fair game. If someone did something stupid in college, I will look the other way. But 2000 is certainly not out of bounds.

  • federalfarmer1

    What a dummy.

    Still, vote Newt!

  • clowngirl

    and you haven’t actually dealt with it.

    I think it’s self evident that Texas presents a very different political climate from Washington DC. To be clearer: my point wasn’t that Perry or Bush had a cake walk being elected (though Anne Richards failure to support gun rights probably really helped) but that Rick Perry governs in a state that (presumably) already has a well established right leaning political culture.

    I haven’t lived in Texas for a long time (though I was born in Dallas) perhaps you are a current resident and could provide some enlightening insight on the subject.

    I’m not learning anything from what you’ve posted so far.

  • JSobieski

    First, I think my comment above is quite clear that I think HSAs are the answer, and Berwick sees no value in patients having more skin in the game. If that isn’t clearly saying that our solutions take us in opposite directions, let me provide the cliff’s notes version—”Berwick’s solutions to health care take us in the opposite direction of where we need to go”—JSobieski.

    Second, I simply gave credit to Berwick for one insight that is very important—the same insight that Newt gave Berwick credit for—the insight that fee for service is a mess.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec11/berwick_08-11.html

    DR. DONALD BERWICK: We have to get health care costs under control. I mean, nobody disagrees with that premise anymore.

    But there are two ways to do that. The simple way, the easy way, the wrong way is just to cut stuff, withhold benefits, take things away from people, even cut some people out of care. That’s seductive because it’s so quick and it sounds kind of easy and, well, why wouldn’t you do that?

    “But there’s a better way. There’s another way. I have for 30 years, my entire professional career, worked on the other way to do it, which is improve, improve. The computer you use today has probably 10 times the functionality of the computer you could have had five or eight years ago, and it costs less.

    That’s because we are improving the way we make that device. Most of what you do in your life is better today and less expensive because we have figured out a better way to do it. The same applies in health care.”

    Berwick wants to avoid rationing by doing what private industry is increasingly doing, paying for treatment using a system approach instead of as a patchwork of individual activities.

    Third, Berwick has stated that America needs an American solution for healthcare reform.

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/29/pf/healthcare_medicare_berwick.moneymag/index.htm

    “You’ve been heavily criticized for praising Britain’s system [in which the government pays for most care.]

    The solution to America’s health care problem is going to be an American solution. Am I curious and do I encourage us to be curious about what other countries are doing? Absolutely. ”

    Bottom Line: Complimenting a person for one reason doesn’t mean praising the person in all respects. Berwick adds to the public debate in meaningful ways. He is a leftist who talks about the need to reform Medicare. He criticizes fee for service. Newt and others can give him kudos ON THOSE TOPICS without endorsing and approving of everything else he does.

    I am not supporting a Berwick run for Senate. I am not supporting a Berwick appointment in a Republican administration. I am saying that the guy is wrong on the fundamental way to fix healthcare, but he has some insights which are nonetheless valuable.

    I am a persistent supporter of an HSA approach to healthcare reform. I want to convert Medicare and Medicaid into personal HSA accounts. Berwick finds my solutions to be abhorent. Doesn’t mean the guy is a total hack. Doesn’t mean he is wrong about everything.

    Frankly, I find that if one can identify a reason to compliment someone, it gives the criticism more weight. For example, I usually compliment Obama as a father before I attack his policies. It just makes the overall presentation more effective.

    If I inadvertantly underestimated the esteem with which Berwick holds the British system, then I apologize for the mistake.

    Now returning to your regularly scheduled program . . .

  • Tbone

    You operate at a very superficial level.

  • federalfarmer1

    People forget this. I don’t know what else Newt could have done to have accomplished more than he did while Clinton was in office. Except maybe get a different republican to run for pres in ninety six.

  • nathanalbright

    ….that he’s good as an ideas man, good as an elder statesman, but absolutely terrible for the job of running the country. He’s good as one of those older players on a sports team who shows the ability to season younger stars, a la Bull Durham, but not be the star himself.

  • acat

    If someone’s position evolved in the last decade, they should be given the opportunity to explain it. Just as Willard has tried to explain his evolution on abortion… and several other things.

    The further back in time you go, the less credible a claim that “So and so thinks this” becomes.

    Would you like it if I were to post some of the crap you wrote when you were in high school?

    Mew

    * note – I do not, of course, have access to anything you may have written, crap or not, in high school. It’s hypothetical.

  • acat

    there will be people who could be saved but who die for lack of money.

    The goal that Berwick and Newt share is how to maximize the bang-for-buck of government dollars. They have quite divergent ideas on how to get there.

    Take a look at how the HIPPA regulations define medical coding, something Newt was involved with. All insurance carriers and Medicare use the same HIPPA codes, i.e. same treatments, same procedures, same costs.

    This makes it relatively easy to, say, convert Medicare into something like government-paid-for insurance pools with the major carriers, with the old having a choice of which carrier they use. All the bureaucracy shifts from the Fed to the insurance companies, government just wire transfers premiums over.

    Further, to bank off something J. Sobieski said below, perhaps instead of paying AARP for medicare supplemental insurance, seniors could put their money into HSAs, money that would go to their children or heirs on their death, but which could also be held tax-free until they spend it on medical care.

    These are free-market – not nanny-state – reforms, and answer the common goal.

    Mew

  • acat

    That makes the business models, while highly unpleasant, also legal. Same as certain bank practices, and some car dealer activities.

    Lay out your problem with the death penalty for drug lords, if you can.

    Mew

  • acat

    The general population may have come around to the idea that weed should be legalized, but I think they’re still pretty opposed to legalizing heroin and cocaine.

    Mew

  • septembergurl

    ideal candidate for a host of reasons.

    However. He is performing a great service, something I frankly expected Perry to do: He is taking out Romney.

    Today Newt is beating Obama in the head-to-head, while Mittens trails Obama by 6 points.

    Newt has almost 50% in florida republican primary, while romney has fallen to the mid teens. Romney is running about 15% in Iowa, SC and Florida. Only in NH is he still strong.

    We can deal with Newt later. The important thing now is to deny Mitt wins in the early primaries. Newt is making this happen. he has bigger leads than Cain or Perry ever had — don’t ask me why.

  • federalfarmer1

    Other than bachmann and santorum, who are unelectable.

  • JSobieski

    the impression of having a deep knowledge of issues–the one thing Newt is designed to do.

    I have no doubt that if the entire country were forced to watch each of the candidates talk about national issues for a 90 minute block of time, the two leading candidates would be Newt and Huntsman. Obama wouldn’t even register.

    Its not hard to see why Newt rose in the polls. People want a competent President.

    Newt knows how to communicate. Conservatives haven’t had a communicator since Reagan. Newt is no prise, but if each President is chosen to address the weaknesses of the prior President, then Newt has a legitimate shot because Obama exudes incompetence at this point.

  • gekster

    You late night comedians crack me up.

  • JSobieski

    using your “logic” it is impossible to say anything good about Jack Kemp because Jack Kemp supported going back to the gold standard. It is possible to give someone a compliment, without supporting their entire worldview. I can say Barack Obama is a good family man without supporting his abortion policies.

    My comment had NOTHING to do with end of life care, It had to do with identifying people who were looking to solve problems vs. people looking to stick their heads in the sand and say “what problem”.

    If you support the current fee for service path to bankruptcy of Medicare, that is your right. For my part, anyone who is willing to say that Medicare is on a bankruptcy track is someone I am going to agree with on that issue.

    People can disagree on philosophy and still agree on a point or two.

    I care more about ideas than the people who have them. If Obama decided that reducing tax rates in exchange for closing loopholes made sense, I would continue to hold that position and compliment him for being on the right side for once.

    I seem to recall you supporting Pence’s medical accounts over Ryan’s medical accounts because Pence’s were somehow “more private” than Ryan’s.

  • texasref

    Just like Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party Freshman-turned-establishment Republicans in the House have passed a bill repealing Obamacare….

    *crickets chirping*

    …or held the line on no raised taxes…

    etc

  • Tbone

    but claiming he is more conservative than Perry is just plain delusional bs.

    You really need to stop this and rejoin reality.

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

    makes it worse.

    Technology has complicated the matter.

    Before health insurance, wealth mattered even more. Health insurance lessened wealth as a factor.

    Death is a bitch.

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

    ‘ski, very comprehensive!

  • JSobieski

    Insurance companies compete with each other.
    If an insurance company cheats you, they can be sued, they receive bad publicity, etc. There are alternative avenues such as courts, private funding (I have seen numerous examples of people raising funds for health care expenses), etc.

    In a government death panel system, there are no alternatives. In Canada, it is ILLEGAL to pay for care.

    Summary:
    In a private sector scenario, nobody says “you must die” they simply say “I will not pay you need to look elsewhere”

    In a public sector scenario, there are no alternatives, so the panel really is saying “you must die, nobody can help you”. Such a policy is necessitated by cost controls and the absence of a private sector provider.

  • wonkish1

    Its amazing that people on the right are allowing themselves to get so confused over healthcare right now that they are now allowing themselves to actually root against conservative healthcare legislation(like voucherizing, moving from government run to premium support, converting Medicare payroll to HSA accumulation, etc).

    We need to ask more conservatives to research this issue further because not many are speaking with much authority on the subject.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • avgjo

    and this is a big BUT, that was just as much a failure of the conservative media, blogosphere and grassroots. There were no pre-vote warnings to Boner of primary challenges, there were no organized efforts to bombard them for days and weeks on end, no marches on D.C. nothing like the libs do.

    I should have (and I knew this when I wrote that sentence) prefaced that sentence with ‘when we make our will known’…

    If we don’t make our voices heard, they’ll sell us out everytime, no doubt.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    They were already waiting in the wings until Perry self-immolated. That made these issues superfluous and therefore unnecessary at that time.

    I have absolutely no doubt that if Perry starts to get traction, they will be put to the fore by wither the MSM or an opponent. They are part of almost everyone’s opposition research.

  • Kyle-MI

    As I said, most of its provision died in the Senate because they were not part of the contract and there were enough conservatives.

    I am not sure how you define effective when most of the provisions never even made it into law.

    And I am not blaming Newt. The House did its job. The Senate dropped the ball.

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

    you are on a roll bro’

  • texasref

    and make sure we put up genuine tea party people, not the ones that turn all establishmenty with one teary-eyed glance from the Speaker

  • avgjo

    my sweat where my mouth is.