« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Danger Newt Gingrich Poses . . . to Mitt Romney

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Ramesh Ponnuru is out with his endorsement of Mitt Romney. It’s a reasonable endorsement that doesn’t really try to do what so many others are doing — claiming Romney is something he is not.

But one line up front made me chuckle just a bit. It happens to be the first sentence.

Even though nobody has yet cast a vote in the primaries, Republicans are increasingly resigned to Gov. Mitt Romney’s winning the party’s presidential nomination.

This is the real danger that Newt Gingrich poses to MItt Romney. Suddenly, to many people, Romney does not look so inevitable. In fact, a friend of mine pointed out the other day that it seems every time the polling shifts against Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney’s supporters or the Politico start claiming Romney is inevitable.

I have long thought the race was Mitt Romney’s to lose and I am starting to think after his whining about Bret Baier’s interview that even the Romney camp is starting to realize his days may be numbered.

The problem for Romney is reflected in the comments here at RedState and elsewhere. For the longest time our users here have been for Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Suddenly, even the Perry supporters have decidedly turned toward Gingrich. Not all of them have, but a good number have. Perry may remain their first choice and for Cain supporters Cain may remain their first choice. But Newt is all of their second choice and they’re going to defend him.

For the first time in the race there has been a rapid and remarkable shift toward vocal support for one candidate coming from the competing supporters of competing alternative candidates.

Romney was always inevitable until he was not. And three times now someone has gotten ahead of Romney. The first could be an anomaly. The second had to be considered. The third time must be taken quite seriously.

75% of the Republican voters have wanted someone who can hold their own in a debate with Obama and who is not named Mitt Romney. Suddenly Gingrich, by virtue of these several thousand debates we’ve had, has become that guy.

And his rise has been so dramatic and so affirming that so many really do not want Mitt Romney that Mitt Romney is looking less and less inevitable.

If Newt Gingrich can avoid his historic fate of imploding at the pinnacle of success, Mitt Romney will stay the bridesmaid at Newt Gingrich’s wedding in August in Tampa.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bzip

    I won’t defend Newt. I actually think Newt is worse then Romney and that is really bad. Newt, the guy who supports the mandate, global warming, ethic violations, material affairs, lobbying ties.

    Good grief, how the heck could Newt even be considered.

    Rick Perry is the only true consistent conservative, the experience and record to lead this country back on its feet again.

    Is Newt Gingrich a Conservative? You decide
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-newt-gingrich-a-conservative-you-decide/

  • federalfarmer1

    If you want to take a chance on Perry go ahead, but it will divide the field and let romney slip in. Perry is playing the huckabee in this primary. The gadfly with no chance, but enough strident goofballs supporting him that they risk compromising newts defeat of romney.

    Nro and ramesh have been so transparently in the bag for romney that its disappointing they wait until now to come out with endorsements. They look like an arm of his campaign team.

    I had hoped maybe they would start pushing huntsman instead of romney. Huntsman is preferable by a fair margin.

  • concrusade

    Are we so quick to forgive Newt his numerous conservative transgressions because he is simply not Mitt Romney?

    And if so, the serial adulterer/egomaniac/flip-flopper/panderer/Pelosi-Sharpton-Fannie-Freddie pal/lobbyist is the best anti-Romney candidate we’ve got? At least Romney stands a chance against BO.

    How did we get to this point?

    If there was ever a moment to donate to Bachmann or Santorum, that time is now.

  • federalfarmer1

    Except bachmann, but you are delusional if you think she has a chance

  • loganyung

    Both Newt and Mitt have been tagged as flip-flopers, but, I’m wondering if either of them has actually done a non-rhetorical flip flop. What I mean by that is, has either made specific campaign promises in previous elections that they have countermanded once they were in office? You know, like a “Read my lips” type of thing?

    The rhetorical stances that both Romney and Gingrich take today are overall within a reasonable distance of conservative principles (both pro-life, both fiscally conservative, both strong on defense). If they are known to act reliably consistent with their campaign promises, then it’s reasonable to say that we have two good candidates at the top. If not, then that, alone, would be a disqualification for nomination.

  • sethellis

    Many would point to his comments that he’s already won, but that’s all in good fun. What concerned me was when he said that we must be willing to make our friends uncomfortable. My take away was something like:

    “As soon as you elect me I’ll abandon you and turn hard to the center. This might upset you, but don’t worry. I know better than you do about what’s best for the country.”

  • adamd

    Romney never was the inevitable nominee. He was elected and served just one term as governor as Massachusetts. He won with less than 50% of thee vote and decided not to run again versus losing. In 2008 he finished 3rd in the delegate count and was an unimpressive candidate. The simple fact that Perry, Cain and now Gingrich have all led against him shows there is no sense of inevitability.

  • acat

    Many of us don’t hate Romney, we don’t think that he’s near the best, and don’t want him as the nominee.

    Mew

  • wbb1950

    to suggest that the Washington elites in BOTH parties do not want an outsider as president–and will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to ensure that their candidate wins. This was true of the Democrat primary where Obama–the establishment stealth candidate ran against Clinton who had burned their bridges with that establishment? There was nothing subtle about this. By the same token you see NRO, Weekly Standard and other organs of the establishment support Romney against Gingrich because he too burned his bridges with that establishment. To see Boehner and McConnell pay homage to conservative principles and then cave to low lifes like Harry Reid of Searchlight Nevada (population zero) merely confirms this suspicion. These are good times in Washington DC. Housing values are up, unemployment is low, life is good. Not so the rest of the country. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that these self promoting people would fight any kind of insurgency that might throw them off the gravy train. I find it difficult to take them seriously, or to indulge the fiction that they are concerned about the welfare of the country as a whole. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

  • acat

    You’re serious about this?

    Ah. You’re pro-Huntsman now. Why am I not surprised?

    Mew

  • dajeeps

    I can’t believe after all Gingrich did in 1995 for the conservative cause and pushed it through with a Dem president people have the guts to attack him for not being conservative. Not conservative? Really?!? No one in the Republican party has done so much since he left, which his departure from the House was instigated by nervous Republicans not wanting to make too many waves. They couldn’t stand the heat and were afraid they’d get voted out. Everyone else is just nothing but dogs barking in the woods, promising the land of rainbows and unicorns that they can never deliver. Heck, Romney wouldn’t have the guts and if we say no to Gingrich, that’s who we’ll get.

    The choice is yours – probably the most conservative administration since Grover Cleveland, or you can have more of the same old garbage, and do nothing but complain like you have since Boehner became speaker.

  • WY_Cowboy

    Newt Gingrich is the most accomplished politician in terms of delivering for the conservative movement since Ronald Reagan. His accomplishments were huge, but today we take them for granted. The things is they would not have happened but for Gingrich’s leadership and ability to hold a diverse coalition in the House.

    * Welfare Reform
    * 1997 Tax reform – lowered the capital gains rate by 25%
    * Balanced budgets in 1998 and 1999 and paid down national debt
    * Led the GOP to a majority in the US, the first in 40 years
    * Increased defense spending while cutting taxes and balancing budgets
    * Empowered states in Medicaid
    * Reformed Medicare without raising taxes

    None of this was easy and he had to work with Bill Clinton and the 1994 GOP Freshman Class. He wasn’t perfect, neither was Reagan. But his accomplishments as Speaker, while the country had a liberal POTUS (whose self interests were paramount) are huge. Perry, Romney, Cain, et al, just can’t match their records with his record.

    He’s not perfect. He’s not ideal. But, he is solid, competent, and experienced.

  • concrusade

    Although I’ve seen him characterized in ways on this site that would lead me to believe that many anti-Romney-ites do hate him.

    Regardless, my point is that the double-standard with the way we hold Mitt to the fire, yet give Newt a free pass would be a disastrous and sad conclusion to this primary that will end with four more for BO.

  • kipling

    He is less of a mistake than a Mitt Romney nomination would be to the conservative movement.

    I am for Perry first and foremost but I could vote for Newt.

  • WY_Cowboy

    * Welfare Reform
    * 1997 Tax reform ? lowered the capital gains rate by 25%
    * Balanced budgets in 1998 and 1999 and paid down national debt
    * Led the GOP to a majority in the US, the first in 40 years
    * Increased defense spending while cutting taxes and balancing budgets
    * Empowered states in Medicaid
    * Reformed Medicare without raising taxes

    Gingrich changed forever the political landscape of the country in 1994. His accomplishments are second only to Ronaldus Magnus (winning the cold war and achieving the destruction of the Soviet Union without a nuclear or conventional war was pretty big).

  • WY_Cowboy

    Newt Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to bring a vote on amending the constitution to make the unborn citizens of the US and entitled to constitutional protections to the House floor. Everybody knew the vote would fail, but at least he had the courage to bring it to the floor. No other Speaker has since.

  • robbyshankar

    I think the only candidates with less of a chance in a general election than Gingrich are Cain and Bachmann (both of whom I like very much.). It is true that Gingrich has done a lot for Conservatives in the past, but his past is a cornucopia of negative press releases for team Chicago. Moreso than any other candidate.

    If Gingrich wins the nomination, I pray that I’m wrong because I cannot afford four more of Obama.

  • geoph

    Could it possibly be he has “so many” transgressions because he’s the only one who has such a long history of supporting a Conservative agenda.

    I mean, it’s not like he actually designed and signed into law a HealthCare policy as late as 2006, or supported giving illegals the same (or better) benefits than American citizens have here in America – while calling dissenters with his view heartless, or supporting an isolationist/hands off foreign policy just when America faces a dangerous and fluid shakeup in stability and policy in the world?
    Nope. All he did was just what he told us he would, ushering in a Conservative House, passing landmark legislation in his first 100 days as Speaker, and challenging governmental growth and the takeover of healthcare in the ’90′s as well as standing firm on wasteful spending to the point of the partial closing down of government – only to be abandoned by those who supported slowing expansion when the heat was turned on.

    Gosh Newt, just ignore those knives we stuck in your back, but tell us – when you were selling books and on the lecture circuit, how could you not toe the Party line? Oh, and how far back can we Cons go and claim we stuck to our ideals? Where was the Tea Party in 1999? 2005?
    And let’s not forget the Taxed Enough Already Party is a FI-Con movement. Where were you SO-Cons before 2009?
    And I’m a Bachmann guy!
    End of rant.

  • robbyshankar

    It is honestly reassuring to me to see your list of Newt’s accomplishments. Great job of advocating for your guy. I think Newt will really need to hone his message to point out what you have here if he is the nominee.

  • msbs05

    You are perfectly accurate in your comments. It is only recently that conservatives have been as demanding of our candidates, Bush was no conservative and most of us really liked him, before we understood he was not conservative. Before the teaparty we were not asking for conservative purity, thus we got McCain. However, Newt was already a conservative, understanding that politicians worked for the people, giving us the”Contract for America”. I have heard complaints from house members that served under him, that he was zealous in carrying out the promise to the people. He will be like that again. He will fullfill the conservative agenda he has laid out. He has worked with Heritage for years helping to formulate what conservative means. Plus Newt is a fighter, an experienced fighter, unlike Romney. Not one of the candidates running are perfect. I was excited about Perry, but after watching him in debates and then seeing him drop in polls over the immigration statements (I think his immigration stance is fine) I finally looked for the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama. That person is Newt, and I hope conservatives can rally behind him, so the vote is not split, with Romney then becoming the nominee.

  • wennejunk

    Intense anger that we have been, apparently with little recourse, corralled slowly by:

    - stumbling candidates in an American idol nation who are better leaders but poor speakers
    - inane debate formats that fail to highlight anything except the smoothest player on the stage
    - circular firing squads between the real conservatives (leaving Romney untouched)
    -and the media, on both sides, pre-annointing him as the one.

    The anger is not at Romney, per se, simply that he for too long appeared to be the only viable candidate.

    We didn’t want to have to wear beer goggles/a bag on our heads when we went to vote, euphemistically speaking.

  • msbs05

    should help your concerns. It has Newt beating Obama 45/43, while Romney is now losing 42/43. Clearly Newt is as electable as Romney, so that arguement for him is gone. In the PPP polls independents like Gingrich, as do the seniors by wide numbers. Once Newt debates Obama, he will defeat Obama. Newt has not even started running against Obama and already winning in the national polls. Newt is funny, likable, a known quantity, a real conservative with clear ideas. He has not been unfaithful or personally sinful since he found a real connection with God. He asked for forgivness and has led a clean life since then. I am a Christian that believes in redemption, so I accept his personal sins are in the past, and his last 20 years or so prove it was a real conversion.

  • robbyshankar

    N/t

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    “Newt, the guy who supports the mandate, global warming, ethic violations, material affairs, lobbying ties.”

    Newt, the guy who has actually achieved more of the conservative agenda at the federal level, in practice, than any living human being.

    He does not support the mandate, he states openly that we need to repeal the entirety of ObamaCare.

    He does not support “global warming,” he’s cautious about the science, which is sensible.

    The ethics violation was the result of a Democratic party slime attack; he was fined for teaching a college course on American political history and not reporting the stipend he received as a campaign contribution. It was the last of 76 frivolous accusations (same as the ones that were thrown at Sarah Palin), it was bunk, the IRS agreed that it was bunk, and frankly, it’s grossly irresponsible of you to be swallowing the filth from the Democratic party slime machine and spewing it here.

    He had material affairs 10 years ago. They’re public knowledge. He admits them, and admits that he was wrong.

    How could Newt be considered? He’s considered by people who, completely unlike you, know the facts.

    Go get a clue, PLEASE, before you do us further damage.

  • tailfins1959

    Boston talk radio personalities are beginning to refer to him as “Willard”. Who knew that calling someone by their name could be so funny!

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Newt Gingrich has actually achieved more of the conservative agenda at the federal level, in practice, than any living human being.

    THAT is why we forgive his conservative transgressions.

    Romney, by contrast, achieved a model of collaboration with the left.

  • oldlady

    For federalfarmer to call the Chief Executive of the state which is producing more than half the new jobs of all of those created in the entire US a ”gadfly” is really beyond the pale.

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

    I have mulled-over a problem encountered 24-hours ago, and will now implement a dual-purpose remedy; it will both dovetail with a prior set of threads and become highly-relevant to the discussion on this thread.

    The Focus is The Newt, who continues to support the Individual Mandate and whose champion [wonkish1] and supporter [JSobieski] attacked my effort to transplant a cogent discussion from here…
    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/30/latest-gingrich-oppo-dump/#comment-14966
    …to here…
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/01/is-mitt-romney-as-whiny-as-barack-obama-or-just-not-really-vetted/
    …while ensuring 100% transparency.

    {I should have been forewarned that vituperation was awaiting me after a brief, announced hiatus [had to testify in a disability case...and then had to preclude a flat-tire]. Prior thereto, Wonk appeared gleeful because he felt that he had parried my critique ["Dr. Bob in all of his elitist ?knowledge? is getting crushed so now he has to lie about what my position is*****, Sucks when you can?t win an argument now does it?"], but this paled in comparison with his claim that I had “lied” when attempting to draw tentative conclusions therefrom [without dutifully rephrasing the issues to his personal satisfaction]. There was but one moment when I missed his having replied to a distinctly separate thread…which irked him, but which was rectified…but, otherwise, I tried to paraphrase the gravamen of each of his replies with precision.}

    {A lengthy side-conversation also ensued, related to the financing of healthcare for the uninsured; a brief side-conversation related to the ability to trust insurers also arose, after which I directed him to my decade-long litigation against the consolidation of The Blues in PA: http://www.doctor-bob.biz.}

    But, rather than viewing this as “personal,” I will present the database as it had developed on the former site and skip recapitulation of the unjustified and demeaning attacks on the latter site. These two guys [and others, of course, will then be invited to partake and to critique the conclusions that I had drawn.

    The responses-to-the-responses were getting to the point whereby they were being squished-right, so I opened a fresh-thread. I leave it to those who wish to explore how this developed to trace the origins of the discussion. Suffice to say, I feel Wonk was evasive and wavering, and I feel this key-discussion must be held with an individual--such as Wonk--who claims to have read/heard a large chunk of the oeuvre of The Newt during past years.

    *

    Here is his starting-point:

    Let me be clear:
    1) I do not agree with an individual mandate. I instead believe in ending the mandate for hospitals to provide healthcare to the insured(only after a few other changes took place). So No, No, No, NO I?m not for the individual mandate.

    2) I do understand the allure of the mandate because currently people are coming to hospitals and essentially stealing healthcare because of the mandate for hospitals to not turn anybody away. So I wouldn?t necessarily call it a clear conservative vs. liberal issue(at least historically it hasn?t been). But I still disagree with idea of solving one mandate with another mandate.

    3) Just because I am one that will defend Newt as someone that has done a lot for the conservative movement doesn?t mean that I support his past decisions to support a certain type of mandate(bond posting for the uninsured).

    4) Just because I?ll defend Newt as a conservative and a lifetime of quality work on behalf of the conservative movement doesn?t mean I?m going to agree with someone who believes you can strip all that away because of one or even a few issues.

    **5) Just because I defend Newt?s past work doesn?t mean that I?m going to support him through the primaries. I draw a distinct line between defending someone?s work and picking them as the best person to lead the free world. Currently I?m still undecided between a few people.

    *

    Here is my starting-point:

    Hill-Burton [mandating ER-care] isn?t the major $-driver when analyzing healthcare costs, and it serves a humanitarian role in society [although I have submitted testimony to a Harrisburg House committee that would allow for deportation of illegals following the delivery of urgent care].

    Let?s be specific; assuming you do not believe in the Individual Mandate [INCLUDING the posting of a "bond"], do you concur that The Newt HAS endorsed an Individual Mandate? And, assuming you concur with this assessment, do you not see that this represents statism/elitism which philosophically impugns his credentials as a Constitutional Conservative?

    *

    Here is how he replied:

    So I?ll make it as clear as I can.

    ?assuming you do not believe in the Individual Mandate [INCLUDING the posting of a "bond"], do you concur that The Newt HAS endorsed an Individual Mandate??

    In the past YES.

    ?And, assuming you concur with this assessment, do you not see that this represents statism/elitism which philosophically impugns his credentials as a Constitutional Conservative??

    NO!!! It ?doesn?t philosophically impugn his credentials? because you can?t determine whether or not a person is a conservative based on the past support of one position that many would consider liberal.

    But let me guess that still isn?t me answering your 2 yes or no questions is it?

    *

    To summarize the status, here…
    rsklaroff Thursday, December 1st at 11:11AM EST (link)
    ?consider:

    This is based on the fact that The Newt 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."].

    Wonkish1 is invited to critique my conclusions, which I?ll update in a few hours upon return from testifying on two disability cases.

    1. When has The Newt stated recognition that he favored the Individual Mandate in these two relatively recent books? When did he state the issue that changed his mind? When did he change his mind? [And when did he abandon the "bond-age" idea?]

    ?He said last night [this was his past position], among other times. He said that libertarians wouldn?t go for it and that it isn?t strictly legal. I don?t know when the exact date was that he decided against it.?

    I conclude he is obfuscating, because he wants the listener to believe that he?s currently rejecting a remote, tangential concept. That he hasn?t defined what/when/who/what/where/why/how he altered his stance is telling; recall, for example, how Mitt explains when he became Pro-Life [again] while dealing with cloning.

    2. Because all realms of government-fiat affects cost/access/delivery, and because all of this is to be forcibly-financed via Individual Mandate [and/or BHO's "penalty" and/or The Newt's "bond], then [pray tell] why you support any imposition of any $ upon all Americans to accomplish this private-marketplace pursuit?

    ?Again your adding in other things to the discussion. It is the state regulations, government programs, etc. that are controlling healthcare. The individual mandate has nothing to do with it. We could wipe away all those things and have a 100% free market healthcare system and if we imposed an individual mandate nobody would be saying that it was government control of the healthcare system. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.?

    I conclude you support imposition of an Individual Mandate, regardless of how the monies-collected are expended [and regardless of whichever governmental apparatus this occurs].

    3. Please provide a differentiation-concept that provides a red-line between his desire to intrude in healthcare vs. what he might contemplate doing elsewhere.

    ?You want an example for yourself? Do you support Heroin being illegal? That is an action of government. Am I to assume that because you support that government approach you will want to get the government involved in everything??

    I conclude you are unable to answer this question, which carries tremendous philosophical implications.

    4. Please ensure that, throughout, you ID whenever you [perchance] might DISAGREE with The Newt.

    ?Can you please rephrase what you are actually asking me into a question please.?

    I conclude, until stated otherwise, that you concur with The Newt with regard to his [shifting] Individual Mandate policy.

    *

    The Singapore system at its core is:
    1) Private account system for HSA?s. So a percentage of your income goes into your own HSA(most likely in the US would mean a conversion of Medicare Payroll tax into people?s HSA

    2) They don?t pay for the expensive elderly(like our Medicare) and instead subsidize the young poor.

    3) Once a person either starts earning enough or his HSA private account grows enough to support health insurance premiums from distributions the get kicked out of the subsidy

    4) Since people are sitting on large capital funds when they hit age 65 there is no need for a Medicare like system in their country

    5) They have an individual mandate, but since the system basically guarantees affordability I would personally change that out the ability of hospitals to refuse treatment to those that are uninsured. You would have to be pretty stupid to not have insurance then and if you don?t its your own fault because the system guarantees you?ll be able to afford it.

    …

    I?m not actually a Newt supporter. I?m undecided. But I still respect the conservative accomplishments he?s made for us over the years. I made that point yesterday and Dr. Bob swooped in and over several posts wanted to get into an argument with me on whether or not Newt was even a conservative or not and whether Newt?s past support of a bond posting individual mandate was enough to write off any and all of Newt?s conservative accomplishments.

    I took that challenge and now Dr. Bob is resorting to lying about what I believe because he clearly isn?t winning(as defined by the fact that he can?t answer my questions and is lying about my position on an issue to cover up for that fact).

    …

    I said numerous times over and over again that I didn?t agree with Newt?s decision to support the Heritage style(bond posting) individual mandate.

    *

    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."].

    I cited excerpts from Wonk and it’s time to summarize the situation; here goes….

  • texabama

    Because there sure seemed to be one he thought was OK if it meant having to purchase health insurance. Granted, now that he’s running for President he seems to have changed his position on that. Does he or doesn’t he support AGW? Saying you’re cautious about the science seems a little squirmy to me. I think it’s perfectly fair to say Gingrich and Romney have a tendency to change their positions at will.

  • texabama

    and if doing so keeps Gingrich out, but allows Romney in I’m willing to take that chance. I feel that strongly about not having Gingrich as our nominee. I truly believe he or Ron Paul would do us the most damage in the general.

  • quixote

    A 40 minute interview with Hannity a couple of days ago.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jGAn29cs4Q

    I think Newt would absolutely CRUSH Opromter in debates, to the point of being embarrassing; like “look away, you shouldn’t stare”…

    If I could wave a wand and pick who would govern the way I would want, it would be Perry or Cain (admittedly the riskier choice). But all of them would better than Obama. If Romney wins the nomination via splitting the “Not Romney” vote, I’ll vote for “Not Obama”. If Ron Paul wins by stuffing ballot boxes all over the land, I’ll hold my nose and vote for “Not Obama”.

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

    This is based on the fact that The Newt 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."].

    Because this is the essence of ObamaCare, and because it appears to reflect a fealty for Big Government, I do not consider it to be an isolated aberration. Rather, it is c/w the statism/elitism that pervades other policy-assertions, antithetical to free-market principles that serve as the bedrock of conservatism.

    Although Wonk may not concur, I believe the above excerpts demonstrate that he neither supports the Individual Mandate nor endorses the derivative concept thereof espoused the The Newt…namely, the forced-filing of a “bond” if an individual chooses to “go naked” rather than to purchase insurance. This is identical–legally and operationally–to BHO’s use of the IRS system to exact a “penalty” for comparable behavior.

    We quibbled over the issue of “past” and “recent” because I argued that The Newt has pretended that his erroneous support for the Individual Mandate dated back to ClintonCare [and co-adoption of the Heritage Foundation posture]. Thus, I argued that his VERY recent books [including a third, mentioned in another essay, somewhere] all unambiguously call for this profound level of governmental intrusion.

    Constitutional on the federal/state level[s] or not, this constitutes an insult to Individual Liberty. I argue that this cannot be dismissed as a “stupid” behavior-pattern, for The Newt has developed it through his American Solutions over the years…and has adhered to this posture aggressively [until recently].

    Finally, anyone who defends him is obligated [particularly if he knows his policies so intimately] to convey [with references] the basics of his conversion. That is, he should tell us all the who/what/where/why/how/when of this event, comparable to how Mitt has depicted his conversion to Pro Life status [the "fetal research" vignette].

    *

    THEREFORE:

    Be it Resolved THAT

    1. This issue of The Newt’s adherence to an Individual Mandate [manifest, if nothing else, as the forced payment of a "bond"] undermines his credibility when he disclaims support for ObamaCare.

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    2. This policy carries profound/troubling implications regarding the overall view of The Newt regarding the desirability of governmental empowerment.

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    3. If The Newt cannot explain the details of this conversion, the most ominous conclusions [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn.

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

    Those who claim to want to hear a fall-debate between BHO and The Newt – and find it delicious to anticipate the latter dominating the former – must not be blinded by this potential sideshow.

    The key-concern is how would the POTUS approach his executive functions.

    I aver this would be troubling, with regard BOTH to Mitt and The Newt, because of their past [and relatively recent] support for the Individual Mandate.

    Portrayals of the track-record of The Newt are embroiled in personal perceptions and biases, and a far more “convincing” approach to attaining consensus development [here and elsewhere] would be the provision of a specific statement, which would require a level of introspection that The Newt may not be able to exhibit [recalling his cagey performance @ the Thanksgiving Family gathering in Des Moines].

  • azrally

    Newt’s original position on healthcare was very much a conservative approach: eliminate the “third party” payment system and make certain that each individual is responsible for their own coverage. The “mandate” misnomer came about because this change would require each person to have “coverage”. The coverage could be insurance, bond, or starting a medical saving account that was part of Newt’s proposals since the 1990′s. (To Renew America: 1995) This was a moral mandate not a government mandate. “Allowing individuals to pass their health costs onto others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviours that bankrupt the current system.” (Real Change, p. 227: 2008)

  • Whacker77

    If we do stupidly celebrate Newt’s wedding in Tampa, it will double as a funeral for the Republican party.

    Let’s stop pretending as if Newt or Mitt or any of the other guys running are anywhere close to top quality candidates.

  • federalfarmer1

    And boy is my brain tired.

    Might want to condense your thoughts a little.

  • federalfarmer1

    Newts accomplishment with welfare reform, by itself, trumps everything Perry has done in politics.

  • Common_Cents

    People don’t remember or respond to who you are, or what you did, as much as they respond to how you make them feel.

    Gingrich is making people feel confident. This cycle’s version of ‘hope and change’. Confidence will trump hope and change in the general.

    Romney makes people feel uneasy.

    It’s that simple boiled down to its essence.

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

    Anyone who thinks this race is anything but gaseous [beyond "fluid"] hasn’t noticed the fluctuating polling.

    For whatever it’s worth, I would summarize the forces-at-play [taking into account EE's long-delayed "horserace" summary, yesterday] thusly:

    1. Paul’s 10%-tithe won’t grow, for the rest of the 90% would require minimal prodding to recall his abhorrent foreign policy stances.

    2. Mitt’s 25% tithe won’t grow, as has been evinced by the bulk-shift during the past three months from Michele to Rick to Herman to The Newt.

    3. The TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement and the Evangelicals have not weighed-in, nor have the mega-donors.

    4. Cain is history and, regardless of prior conservative thought/action, Huntsman has decimated personal credibility by constantly acting aloof from the rest of the field…to become the darling of Mika/Joe of MSNBC [inter alia].

    5. To whatever degree Johnson and Rohmer have any role to play in any meaningful discourse, they are tangential; the only import of the former is whether he would help BHO by running on the 50-state Libertarian Party ballot.

    6. Rick [Santorum] is consistently viewed as a lightweight [and his great foreign policy stances were offset in PA by his propensity to spend-$]. His great achievement [welfare reform] is offset by the stridency in his tome ["It Takes a Family"] which predictably would provide juicy-quotes if/when he were ever thrust into the limelight. Although Michele told me [the day after Des Moines] that she had previously heard Rick’s lachrymous self-flagellation regarding personal hypocrisy vis-a-vis abortion [which I perceived, perhaps in error, as the most moving portion of this event], there is little doubt that Rick has provided a textbook-test of whether visiting all 99-counties will affect the Iowa-meter. I think he won’t register, for he has failed to render himself “indispensable” when compared with his compatriots.

    7. Michele also has a great foreign policy, but she seems to have amassed a set of personal-digs from what she has unfortunately registered against each of the candidates; for me, the Gardisil-attack on Rick [Perry] was highly problematic. Also, I disagreed that Rick had erred with the “0-based Foreign-Aid Budgeting” approach as applied to Pakistan; she claimed it was naive, but Rick properly noted–both with regard to this situation and to Israel–that this was a STARTING-POINT for strategic planning, illustrating the danger of continuing to issue blank-checks that would have to be covered by further borrowing from Red China. {Disclosure: I gave her $180, primarily because of her enlightened stances on foreign policy.}

    8. The Newt will have a difficult time handling the aforementioned analysis/synthesis of his governmental view…which leaves Rick [Perry].

    [After my DeMint Gambit failed a fortnight ago, everyone on RS should know that I've redoubled my view that he's feared because he would dismantle the D.C.-Establishment. Trot out all the counter-arguments about Immigration, Gardisil, Crony Capitalism, etc....and all can be neutralized and none will "trump" his basic philosophy, as articulated with specificity in "Fed Up!"]

    *

    OK, gotta run to see two patients and then [believe it or not] tutor a 12th grader on AP-Chemistry [recalling the adage "The teacher learns more than the student"]. Wonk, you’re on!

  • federalfarmer1

    And more electable than any other republican. He’s my third choice, way ahead of mitt. I’m for Newt, for the time being, so quit twisting words.

  • federalfarmer1

    You know what I meant.

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

    …as a top-quality candidate.

    His message of limited/Constitutional government needs to become emblazoned in the minds of all listeners/viewers.

    It contrasts with the thrusts of the rest of the candidates, and it carries precise foreign-policy implications, as he would ensure American Exceptionalism is exerted in a muscular fashion overseas.

    If nothing else, recalling EE’s comments, he i[and Anita] and at least some staff/supporters are sufficiently “hungry” to sustain this effort.

    {Disclaimer: I gave him $100 on-line this past August.}

  • sunshinek67

    Retired AirForce captain, married to the same woman for over 25 years. No scandals~

  • azrally

    Doctor Sklaroff,
    I have just read your posting, after I responded to another’s post using nearly the same Newt Gingrich books and pages to come to an entirely different conclusion. The context of your selected quote changes in my opinion when you include the rest of the paragraph:
    “Third, individuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs. Allowing individuals to pass their health costs onto others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors that bankrupt the current system.”
    A true conservative would have no aversion to the statement “Each individual should be responsible for their own health care costs”. I see that whether buying insurance, utilizing a Medical Savings Account, or posting a bond at the time of hospitalization, each is a personal activity not a government activity. It is the health providers that should be mandating an individual be able to pay for their own medical treatment, so that the rest of society will not be burdened.

  • streiff

    he resigned his commission after 5 years. There is an important difference.

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

    …by adding the below-commentary.

    I was precluding any claim from Wonk that I hadn’t fully conveyed his views.

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

    …because, as in ObamaCare, the key is enforcement.

    OF COURSE people should assume personal responsibility, but GOVERNMENT must NOT be EMPOWERED to ENFORCE it [whether it be by MSA or bond].

    BTW, the Health Savings Account concept was conveyed in 1982 to RR by George Ross Fisher, III, MD, a retired Philly endocrinologist; I listened to tutorials about it for a quarter century thereafter.

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

    “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice….[and] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Extremism_in_the_Defense_of_Liberty_Is_No_Vice

    [this includes "social" justice!]

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

    sorry, although it’s worth repeating, isn’t it?

  • donald_24

    I’m against subsidies for the poor because that will only make health insurance more expensive, as insurers raise premiums by the amoubnt of the subsidy. If you want to see how great government subsidies are, just take a look at the stuent loan industry. Thanks to government, a college degree is now as unaffordable as ever!

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

    ?extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?.[and] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.?

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Extremism_in_the_Defense_of_Liberty_Is_No_Vice

    [this includes "social" justice!]

  • luciusacius

    I am staying with Perry. He is a real conservative, with conservative instincts. I know Gingrich is bright and a terrific debater, or at least a master of the one line put down. But, let’s not get sidetracked by our delight in his schooling of offensive the media. Perry as a significant record of accomplishments, real passion for this country, and excellent political skills. Gingrich has a record of some procedural accomplishments before being driven from the House, but not as substantive. I like Gingrich and appreciate his good qualities, but we are not selecting a Debater-in Chief. I want to trust the lives of American service men and women to someone who has experience making hard decisions and can rouse and unite the country when necessary. That person is Rick Perry. Gingrich scares me.

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

    …with the bottom-line being the fact that he would enforce this mandate, how ever it may be characterized

  • exitsfunnel

    I actually agree with almost everything you’ve written (here and slightly more elaborately elsewhere) but I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish by repeating it over and over in almost every thread having anything to do with the nomination process. I mean, really, what’s the point? Yes, our list of candidates sucks, but it is what it is. At this point it’s time to pick one and make the best of it.

    -exits

  • Kyle-MI

    Also, can you provide more details for the last three bullet points?

    From what I can remember, Clinton bled the Defense budget to fund greater domestic spending all the while under Gingrich’s nose.

  • sunshinek67

    I stand corrected, he is a former AirForce captain. Next~

  • streiff

    I won’t hold that against him

  • azrally

    In reading Newt Gingrich’s health care proposals in “To Renew America” and “Real Change” it appears that the common thread is to eliminate the “third party” bureaucratic model and bring about a consumer dominated market. In both books, written a decade apart,the policies dictated focus on individual responsibility for health care costs, as well as for individual physical health. Combining technology, personal service and reforms to lower costs and increasing efficiency are noted, but nowhere have I seen a call for government intervention. ” Our job should be to allow innovation and the free market to bring costs down while increasing choice and quality.”(To Renew America, pg.168: 1995) “If America is going to have a healthy future, we need to stress prevention, wellness, early detection, and self-management. . . but it requires recentering the system on the individual responsibility of the patient. . .away from bureaucratic third party payment models toward individual accountability and empowerment.” (Real Change, pg. 220: 2008)

  • donald_24

    Since Newt already cheated on 2 of his wives, how do we know he is not doing the same with his current one?

    If Gingrich is the nominee, are you willing to take the chance that women will start coing forward alleging an affair with Gingrich right before the general election? Is that a risk your willing to take?

    I do beleive that if Gingrich is the nominee, we can have a repeat of Herman Cain, with someone coming forward every week alleging an affair. It won’t matter to voters whether the women are telling the truth. In the media your guilty until proven innocent.

  • streiff

    Prince Charming isn’t going to appear so we had better start smooching frogs.

  • streiff

    that is an unknown. I would seriously doubt that would happen.

    There is, in my view, less of a chance of that than having to play defense on all the stories about Rick Perry’s escapades in Austin. These stories are probably not true but they are going to become part of the campaign. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.

  • geoph

    That’s 5 mins of my life I won’t get back.
    I’m still unsure why that got posted here?

  • geoph

    informative and relevant.

  • azrally

    You are absolutely correct Doctor. But should not the enforcement be exercised by the heath care providers? Why should they be recipients of Government payment (if only partial payment), when the individual abdicates their responsibility to pay? It should be considered a certainty that individual costs are increased to pay for these irresponsible patients twice, once by the hospitals and again by higher insurance premiums. I would think the goal would be to eliminate Government completely from the health equation, Medicare, Medicaid and all. It may be heartless to consider that some who through no fault of their own may find it expensive for medical treatment, and thus be denied, But not less than when entire hospitals are closed because of the impact of providing care for all when they cannot pay. Individual hospitals, or local insurance providers could establish funds through donations, or as a cost of providing care that would pay for indigent patients.

  • independentmike

    At the last GOP debate, Romney postured as a hawk on illegal immigration and attacked Newt Gingrich’s proposal that illegals who’ve been here a long time be given a legal status short of citizenship, as long as they’ve committed no crime while here.

    I have defended Romney when I’ve thought he was being attacked unfairly, but his posturing on illegal immigration in this campaign, and especially in the last debate, is sorry–it’s also sharply at odds with statements he made in 2007.

    When Romney talked about illegal immigration in detail on Meet the Press in 2007, he very clearly said that illegals who’ve been law abiding since coming here should be registered and then allowed to apply for permanent residency and even citizenship.

    http://presspass.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9073373-romney-on-immigration-2007-meet-the-press

    Romney’s condition that they not be given special consideration when they apply does not change the fact that he clearly advocated virtually the same thing that Newt is now talking about. In fact, Romney’s 2007 statements go farther than Newt has gone, since Newt does not support citizenship but only a legal status short of citizenship.

    I’d still back Romney if he got the GOP nod, but he’s no longer my second pick. Rick Perry or Rick Santorum now seem more appealing to me as a second pick. My first pick is still Newt.

  • acat

    The only way you could reach that conclusion is if you ignore Red State entirely. I’ve said that I want someone holding Newt’s leash – do you take that as complimentary toward Prof. Gingrich?

    Quit with the attempts to be clever, they’re not working for you.

    Mew

  • azrally

    Barry Goldwater would not understand the term “social justice”, as I believe that it is commonly used today. His ideal of ” justice for all” and the defense thereof, revolved around the individual not society. Just as this quote refers to Liberty, it is referring to individual liberty not collective liberty. The bottom line here seems to be that you, Doctor Sklaroff, find that Newt Gingrich is unqualified to be President because he supports an individual mandate to be a responsible party in providing for one’s own health care costs. This in the eyes of a conservative is a core belief of fact. Twisting the concept of “mandate” to imply government intervention when such an assertion runs counter to the overall assumptions made by Mr. Gingrich in his books is not helpful in forwarding the discussion of his supposed conservative transgressions. Support another candidate if you will, but do not propagate misrepresentations to degrade other candidates.

  • bzip

    Lets start dealing with know facts rather then your opinions:

    Newt Gingrich Was For The Individual Mandate Before He Was Against It
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-gingrich-was-for-the-individual-mandate-before-he-was-against-it/

    Gingrich (in 2007): Congress Must Impose an Individual Mandate
    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/gingrich-individual-mandate-health-care-Congress-2007

    Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-hit-on-health-care-flip-flops-think-tank/

    Gingrich Supports ‘Variation’ on Obamacare-Type Health Insurance Mandate
    http://youtu.be/ThwVp0cwOMA

    Newt Gingrich Supports Individual Mandate
    http://townhall.com/video/newt-gingrich-supports-individual-mandate#

    Interview with: Newt Gingrich
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html
    ?I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there?s a package there that?s very, very good.? ? Newt Gingrich

    Why Newt Gingrich Will Never Be President
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/why-neevberwt-gingrich-will-never-be-president/248456/

    ?The House ultimately voted 395-28 to reprimand Gingrich and order him to pay a $300,000 penalty for ethics violations involving contributions and political activity. It was the first and only time in the history of the House that a sitting Speaker had been disciplined for ethical violations.?

    [That is NOT by a party line vote: Newt's own party didn't want him anymore]

    Examples of Gingrich comments in favor of federally-funded abortion, stem cell research
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/29/examples-of-gingrich-comments-in-favor-of-federally-funded-abortion-stem-cell-research/

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

    Newt Gingrich Al Sharpton Education Tour
    http://youtu.be/wwDoTg-Kljw

    Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple

    Newt Gingrich Supports Health Care Mandate, Cap & Trade
    http://www.unelected.org/newt-gingrich-supports-health-care-mandate-cap-trade

    Gingrich ?Cashing in on Public Service?; ?Lobbying? by Another Name
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/jack-abramoff-newt-gingrich-cashing-in-on-public-service-lobbying-by-another-name/

    The list id endless, the baggage is endless and yet idiots like you want to defend and sell out the conservative movement when there are far better candidates, even Romney has less baggage and less flip-flopping then Newt.

  • bzip

    That is what I would like to see. For people to stop pretending that Newt and/or Romney are some great conservative candidate to rally around more so when there are others that are far better (even if you don’t like Perry there are better candidates then Newt and Romney).

    Stop being blind, stop pretending the amount of baggage isn’t that bad when in fact it is serious in regard to both Newt and Romney. Both are seriously flawed.

    If anyone had any sense they would realize every candidate has a flaw, some more then others and Newt and Mitt are the two worsed flawed candidates.

    True, in my biased opinion Perry is the least flawed most consistent conservative candidate that has the record to prove it. But surely the other candidates aren’t as flawed as Newt and Romney are.

  • streiff

    but Perry didn’t get back any of the voters he lost to Herman Cain. One has to conclude that unless Gingrich does something spectacular in the next 6 weeks he is going to be the nominee.

  • clowngirl

    Aside from that fact that’s it’s getting increasingly implausible to claim Romney’s inevitable and that the base is settling in when Newt has a gigantic lead (even a majority of support in Florida) and when 75% has consistently refrained from supporting him..

    Ponnuru more or less shoots from the hip in saying “We don’t know whether Gingrich’s marital history will weigh heavily with voters but we know it won’t help”

    Really? Do we actually “know” this or is this just a case of automatically applying conventional wisdom and making assumptions rather than doing research. I would agree that Gingrich probably isn’t counting on the “pro-adultery vote” but in addressing his unfaithfulness of decades past, Newt has not only expressed remorse and noted his lasting repentance but has taken the opportunity to poignantly share his testimony of deepening faith.

    A humbled and open Newt has an appeal that both Romney and Obama lack. Both are reputedly men of faith but neither (to my knowledge) has ever publicly talked about his faith on a personal level.

    People talk about how Newt will have a problem with women — but he’s actually polling way ahead of Romney right now *especially* with women. Possibly because he’s a much more emotionally genuine seeming candidate – or perhaps for other reason but it just goes to show you can’t make assumptions based on what would intuitively seem to make sense.

    Krauthammer writes that conservatives will forgive a lot of Newt’s baggage because of his considerable service to the movement but that independents and moderates will be harder on him.

    That sounds like it makes sense, in a way, but where is the evidence to back it up? Rasmussen currently has Newt destroying Obama among independents ( I believe the numbers were 50 to 32)

    There’s a couple of assumptions that seem to be unquestioningly repeated among much of the media:

    #1. Because he is deeply unappealing to the vast majority of his base, Mitt Romney will be the candidate most attractive to independents.

    AFAIK there’s no evidence that Independents OR moderates are just dying to line up to vote for a spineless President. The last Republican President to win by a landslide with tons of votes from Independents and Democrats was Reagan.

    #2. That Newt’s baggage will prevent him being elected. Has there been any polling whatsoever to suggest that significant numbers of people who would otherwise vote for Newt would rule him out solely because of his baggage?

    AFAIK there’s no data.

  • Common_Cents

    So if he’s doing well in the primary among more social conservatives, he’ll have a much easier time in the general among independents.

    Lot’s of straw men being thrown out here. Baggage boogey men.

    Oh, you know the lame stream media will try an make an issue out of it, but general election voters will have smear fatigue and it will backfire on the left. Mark my words.

  • bzip

    We agree to a degree :-) . I think people are going to slowly move away from Newt as they learn more and more. I don’t think it will be a massive scandal to implode Newt but simply people becoming more aware of Newt and his baggage and more aware of Perry as they start question Newt.

    I also think it is way too soon to be throwing in any towels and just assume unless it will take a miracle to change things.

    I am kind of at the point where if I except this, then I accept the conservative have totally failed and I have more faith in them then that – I hope.

  • snowshooze

    But the heavy bags will only come out in the general. So you may be incorrect. Plus the primary is a target audience, and the general is everyone. Very different when everyone has a voice.

  • snowshooze

    Obama is not on the primary ticket. And Democrats are not selecting the Republican Nominee. ( Not that they aren’t doing everything they can )

  • tomatin

    the terrible campaign he’s run with his huge war chest.

    Hate to say but he’s running the same “inevitability” campaign Clinton did that got us Obama. You would think with all his high payed consultants they would not repeat such mistakes.

    Romney had his chance to change GOP voters impressions of him but he was too timid and unauthentic to just try to not lose every debate. His non-answer questions and droning talking points when answering debate questions was nauseating.

    The last straw for him was his latest Fox News interview where he showed when challenged even a little he’s gonna respond like a petulant child like Obama does.

  • tomatin

    Yes the average independent voter is not going to care.

  • tomatin

    about Gingrich’s stregnths in debates against Obama.

    For one Gingrich is not nearly as tied to the mandates as Romney is. It’s not like Gingrich passed Romneycare so he can attack Obamacare on different levels.

    Newt also has the best “are you better off now than you were then” argument because he can point to the economy of the ’90s and how his conservative accomplishments credibly lowered the deficit and cut government. Frankly he can avoid the more uneven Bush years altogether.

    Finally no one can articulate the conservative cause better than Gingrich in this field with as much credibility. He actually helped make government smaller and cut out the worst part of the self perpetuating Welfare State.

  • tomatin

    I mean he pulled a Barry why doesn’t he think he’s gonna pay for it politically.

  • tomatin

    The mandate is wrong but hardly the only thing wrong with Romneycare=Obamacare.

    The limits on health care insurers to make profits and the fact that the government will define what is covered is as wrong or even worse than the mandates.

  • donald_24

    When will they refer to Rick Perry as James Perry?

  • serpounce

    there is nothing in his original writings that suggest he meant something different than everyone else talking about an individual mandate: that individuals would be mandated to buy health insurance.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    nt

  • Scope

    and introduce himself saying that Rick was his real first name. There are plenty of people who go by their middle name, including Perry. Willard just happened to fudge the facts in public.

  • carolina

    Romney IS the pollitical elite candidate. I prefer ANY of the other candidates over him because of this.

  • clowngirl

    thank you for putting the facts straight.

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

    .

  • tomatin

    You would know Newt as speaker actually did all the things you claim to be for.

    But go back to your “destroy anyone but Perry” fest because it’s so credible.

  • tomatin

    Actually shrinking federal government and getting the deficit in line with the biggest capital gains tax cut in history.

    Don’t forget it was Newt as speaker that actually cut regulations too.

  • tomatin

    You are just going to attack the front runner if they are not Perry.

    If Romney takes the lead again everyone will be worse than him again.

  • tomatin

    Um Newt leads Obama in polls now and Romney does not.

  • bzip

    You forget that Clinton wanted welfare reform. It wasn’t just a Newt idea and a Newt success.

  • gracepmc

    some ideological, some moral, some the way their hair is or isn’t. My focus is on who can beat Obama and between Romney and Gingrich, my lean is toward Gingrich. He does not hesitate to take Obama on directly and with Obama’s demagoguery being just that and always thin on fact,Gingrich’s debating skill and command of facts is important beyond the primary. He does not cower at the feet of the media. He knows and understands more about America than Barack Obama ever will and he articulates it well. He is passionate and may overstep but this will be a dirty and contentious election and Gingrich can take the fire. Barack Obama and his minions have done great harm and Gingrich understands the federal government and Congress and is best suited to undo as much damage as possible and get this country back on track as quickly as possible. Even without a teleprompter Newt Gingrich will not mistake himself as Commander AND Chief, he knows how many states comprise the United States of America and it is unlikely he will be talking about Pockeestawn.

  • gracepmc

    I suspect Gingrich will get under Obama’s notoriously thin skin and the facade will crack. For that, I would even keep the channel stable and the sound on when Obama appears with Newt.

  • bzip

    Yeppers, I can just see it now. Obama pulling out the Newt lobbying ties, the crony capitalism. The ethic violations, the fact Newt has agreed with Obama’s mandate and global warming stance. The infidelity and ethic violation is going to go over real well with the American people and more so with the women voters.

    Oh how I long to see how Obama wipes the conservative base off the face of the earth.

    Yep, Newt to the rescue alright. You think Ron pauls ad was effective, just wait till the DNC goes on the Newt hunt.

    BTW, Ron Pauls ad has hit almost 500,000 hits in just two days (and NO I am NOT a fan at all of Ron Paul).

  • septembergurl

    that Mark Levin endorsed Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum in the primary. Though it was not so much an endorsement as his saying that one or the other would be who he would vote for in his state’s primary (that would be Virginia, I believe).

    Sarah palin has also reommended that social/religious conservatives take a look at Santorum.

    It’s possible one or both might pull off a strong showing in Iowa that, along with a good result for Ron Paul, might result in a newly scrambled field, or, alternatively, might render Iowa irrelevant.

  • reggie182

    According to realclearpolitics.com Newt Gingrich has accepted their invitation for a Lincoln Douglas style debate to be held between himself and Romney.

    They report that Mitt’s campaign has declined.

    If it’s accurate that Mitt will not participate in such a debate, then he is chicken(you know what).

    Bad. Really bad.

  • wonkish1

    1. No it doesn’t. The core of ObamaCare is community rating(socialized health risk), standardized benefits(socialized benefit options), and government control of insurance expenditures. If you want to say that the individual mandate is worse than these items be my guest, but I doubt you’ll find many people that will agree with you.

    2. Actually no it doesn’t. Newt as espoused thousands of conservative small government proposals. The idea that this one could relegate all of those meaningless is insulting to people’s intelligence. Furthermore, since you described yourself as “multiple choice on abortion” I’ll assume that you believe you aren’t a conservative because clearly under your own definition if a person takes 1 non conservative position they are now liberal on everything.

    3. A) That is your opinion nobody has to agree with. B) Newt has given some details you just choose not to hear them when someone gives them to you.

    Dr. Bob I would just quit while your still only 6 ft below the earth. No point into continuing burying yourself anymore than already have.

  • wonkish1

    I think people would much rather take a look at all of the ideas of a person rather than using one past position to blanket their entire record.

    I think Perry supporters would agree as well(given the in state tuition) because they are right in concluding that Perry is on the hole much, much, much more conservative than you could ever get away with blanketing him based on 1 non conservative position.

    ***So I’m actually curious if anybody here agrees with Dr. Bob.***

  • wonkish1

    **********My response to his top 4 back and forth’s between me and him.

    “1. Well you can think what you want, but your now imposing your own view on a persons intentions. And he has answered why he believed it in the past and why he changed or can?t you read?

    2. Now your going to start lying? I have repeatedly said that I don?t support the individual mandate because the government has no right to force a person to buy a product. Just because I easily demonstrated why the Individual Mandate isn?t a takeover and government control of healthcare(the rest of ObamaCare accomplishes that) doesn?t mean you have to start making crap up to cover up the fact that you can?t win an argument.

    3. You need to define terms in a question so someone can understand specifically what you are asking. Or should I just conclude that you don?t even understand what your asking and are trying to act elitist with something you don?t even get yourself?

    4. Again are you now in the business of lying so that you can cover up for you getting destroyed right now? I have stated repeatedly that I don?t support the individual mandate. I have stated why. I have given a different proposal for solving the problem of charity care. When I asked you to provide a policy on how you would deal with charity care you didn?t give one(at least not one that pertained in anyway to it). Its not my fault if you don?t even understand the problem enough to give a policy solution to the problem.

    *****Folks need to take a good look right now because Dr. Bob in all of his elitist ?knowledge? is getting crushed so now he has to lie about what my position is*****, Sucks when you can?t win an argument now does it?

    So lets now get back to what started this. ****Do you Dr. Bob believe that the past support of a bond posting individual mandate is enough to disregard all of someone?s positive conservative work in the past?**** Because apparently according to Dr. Bob if you have ever held a position that is contrary to conservatism in the past than everything else someone has done or said that is conservative is no longer conservative. Should we apply this to Perry on In State tuition? How about Santorum on different tax rates for different industries? How about Palin on some of the positions she took while on McCain?s ticket?”

    ****Also a side conversation ensued with me asking how he would deal with uninsured free riders.

    Me: “But Dr. Bob I Thought As A Respectable Doctor You would already know that Hospitals are forced to provide healthcare to the uninsured.

    So are you saying that there is no solution to the problem of people showing up to the hospital and not paying for the care they receive? Are you in favor of the status quo on that issue?”

    Jsob: “Arguing with Dr. Bob about free riders is like arguing the budget with Bachmann. She pounds her chest and says the right things, but you won?t hear a solution to the problem.

    Dr. Bob will no sooner put out a solution to health care free riders than Bachmann will put forth a plan that would make future increases of the debt ceiling unnecessary.

    It amazes me the people most vocally critical of our ?ideas guys? never seem to have anything specific to offer in terms of solutions.

    As if just ?being tough? means that there aren?t complex policy decisions to be made in terms of budgets and laws.

    The Founders shared a core set of common principles, but that fact didn?t alleviate the substantial policy differences that did exist between them.”

    Still no answer from Dr. Bob much to the prediction of JSob.

    So lets see it Bob or you just going to avoid answering my 4 responses again?

  • kestrel

    to get that endorsement. Ponnuru basically supports Romney because Romney is a breathing human being who breathes without making unintended whistling noises through his nose. Keeping the nose quiet is a wise political calculation that is under-appreciated. If Romney lacks convictions, well, the stakes are too high to nominate anyone with convictions. But Romney is committed to that which is most important, which is quiet nose-breathing. He is obviously the only candidate who can beat Obama.

  • wonkish1

    I would look at the conversation ending here:

    http://www.redstate.com/gawken/2011/11/23/memo-to-rand-paul-time-to-take-the-cars-keys-away-from-your-father/#comment-1075

    To find out what is going to happen to you over and over and over again if you keep on thinking that chiding me is going to get you anywhere, but embarrassment.

  • RJLigier

    You cannot have this primary season materializing any better than this for conservatives. As the liberal RNC and MSM have all but ignored the conservative Republican candidates, what better way to remove the other challengers than to have the progressives/libertarians of the liberal wing of the Republican Party take themselves out. The final debate will be between Santorum and Gingrich. Give Newt a gracious thank you for openly challenging his adversaries within the liberal wing of the Republican Party. I surely would pay to see the debate between he and Santorum, the most knowledge regarding foreign and domestic policy as well as being superior debaters to the current candidates running for the Republican nomination. IN the race of ABO/ABR, it will be Santorum/West or Santorum/Gingrich. “Do not move to the middle. Let the middle come to you.” Newt Gingrich 2011

  • independentmike

    If you go and read the Des Moines Register link, you’ll find out that Newt only supported federal funding of abortion for poor women who had been raped or subjected to incest, and that he supported the same kind of embryonic stem cell research that Sen. Bill Frist supported.

    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/29/examples-of-gingrich-comments-in-favor-of-federally-funded-abortion-stem-cell-research/

    Look at Newt’s ratings from all the major pro-life groups while he was in Congress. They all gave him high marks, including the National Right to Life Committee. In contrast, NARAL gave him a rating of 0.

    For that matter, look at Newt’s ratings from major conservative groups for his time in Congress. He received solid ratings.

    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/whynotnewt.htm

  • Common_Cents

    the only time he was confronted was Paul Ryan and Obama flinched.

    Gingrich will destroy Obama in the debates. Obama will want the debates to be prepared remarks on teleprompter and then multiple choice true/false questions.

    He will come up w/ some excuse to limit any free form debate.

  • wonkish1

    Where you have to think about how to get yourself out of the hole you just dug and comeback with another weak response that easily taken right back down(as evidenced by those weak 3 “resolutions” below that took you(24 hours to produce, really all that time for only that?) that I easily knocked back without any problem.

    LOL.

  • Common_Cents

    Romney is running scared.

  • Scope

    is that Paul was in Congress when Newt was the speaker, and, he brings up some old clips about Newt that many want to believe don’t matter anymore because it was too long ago. Paul won’t gain any more support from the ads, but it is very helpful to shine the whole light on the Grinch’s past.

  • bzip

    As much as I dislike Ron Paul he will be of serious value to the voters and no I don’t think he can expand his base :-) .

    The DNC is going to have a huge party of the baggage that Newt has. I don’t understand anyone who thinks Newt can easily beat Obama with the kind of baggage Newt has.

    They all have some baggage but Newt has the worst yet.

    Good thing Perry has the least and is in the mode for a second look. Lets keep the faith for Perry, scope. Best wishes.

  • joecollins

    Watch Newt. He has killer political instincts.

    Challeged by the Gingrich camp to a one-on-one debate, today Romney declined. ROMNEY DECLINED. Seizing the opportunity, Gingrich upped the game when he then challenged Huntsman (Huntsman Who?) to the same debate. Both men will sit on stage and the obvious will be evident . . .Romney won’t risk that debate any more than Romney will risk an interview on the Sunday morning talk shows. Gingrich gets more air time impressing viewers with his depth. So does Huntsman, but . . . . Huntsman’s depth is all in China. And Romney is chicken.

    Newt has learned political instincts and isn’t likely to roll over and give up when Obama/Axelrod/DNC come after him. Instead Newt might be the one to set the trap for the other side. Stay tuned. This race ain’t over . . .

  • wonkish1

    Let it die. Nobody will see this thing nor care in a few days and you’ll escape relatively unscathed.

    If you want to keep this up and keep on bringing it to new threads I’m more than willing to participate and make it hurt more. But honestly if I was ever caught in the position where I had to spend 24 hours to come up with my next response I probably would try to look for the exits and get out the best I could.

    Luckily for you if I see someone wanting out I usually let off and let it go I don’t keep the pressure on. In your case, you haven’t seemed to want out yet(and you actually stooped to lying about my position) so I gave you a little beating yesterday.

    I’m sincerely advising you to not continue. I don’t like doing this to other conservatives. In the past this talent has usually been used(very effectively) against liberals. So don’t chide me into doing it to you anymore I don’t want to(but I will if you don’t stop poking me).

  • Scope

    please stop telling us over and over and over that Gingrich will destroy everyone and anyone in debates. That may be very true, but we are not electing the winner of the debate society for the POTUS. That should have ended in high school. And like it’s been said, Newt is the smart man in the room for those that don’t know what smart is. That’s the kind version. If you can keep up with his statements today, that are a twisted version of what he said yesterday, or last year, then have at it. I prefer my head to stay straight on my shoulders, not spinning to figure out what nuanced position the Grinch is adopting, with fancy language today.

  • Scope

    is that your hat size exceeds that of your candidate Gingrich. You are so full of yourself you make my screen bleed.

  • center77

    Tommorrow, and Perry is one of them. Both Mike Huckabee and Bill O’reailly stated that the new Perry ad is a very good ad. I was surprised that they gave it positive reviews, but then again they may figure that they cannot have Newt as president, and that if romney is not going to be the nominee, then it would be better than having Newt. Huckabee took a lot of heat from Perry supporter’s, and Fox in general has been really harsh to Perry. I find that odd, because Bush left conservatism in such a injured state that it is going to take prrof that it is conservatism that is needed to save the country, the two front runner have center left leaning records. I know many say Newt has a very conservative record, but what really has is a record of being in the center with the lkes of Clinton, in his own words he used to say that he is a Rockerfella Republican, and suddenly he is supposed to be the conservative outsider tha tis going to sell conservatism to the rest of the country.

    I dont care what anybody says, Newt is a fraud, and a Washington insider who has spent the last decade selling information to the highest bidder. If you think any different then you are kidding yourself. I find it so amusing when people try to convince me Newt is anything but what I just decribed.

  • lineholder

    I’m not sure that he was really expecting to be a contender in this race, but now that he does appear to be in a position to have that chance, my gut instinct is that he has no illusions whatsoever about the fact that if he wants to win this he has to (1) be proactive and (2) take what opportunities he gets (or generate them himself as the case may be) to convince people that he has changed over the years.

    Yeah, he knows politics, and so far, it doesn’t look like he’s willing to settle for a win “by default” either.

    We’ll just have to see how it goes.

  • Scope

    it doesn’t mean that she won’t go after prey, like baby animals that have no ability to fight her. Newt has a reputation of going after even those of his own breed.

  • wonkish1

    And Newt isn’t my candidate! How many times do I have to say this?

    Do I admire the man? Yes!
    Do I think his career deserves a lot of credit? Yes!
    Have I learned a lot from watching him? Absolutely!

    Am I currently a Newt supporter? No, he’s one of several people I may end up voting for.
    Why am I not? Because my biggest problem with Newt in the past is his lack of discipline. If he shows that has changed and maintains a decent level of discipline over the next few months I’ll probably support him, if he doesn’t(and I’m currently 50-50 on it) then I wont.

    And Scope a lot of your posts that I don’t comment on(because I don’t want to spark this back up again) just reek of unbelievable self righteousness. Like you are trying to always show everybody that your more conservative than the rest of the world and they need to admire your moral perfection. So don’t go there.

    I’ve never denied that I have a big ego when it comes to politics, finance, and capital markets(not much in other things), but I actually feel I have earned that right to have that ego on those topics.

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

    gets it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284652/mitt-vs-newt-charles-krauthammer

    I think Mitt is about to tank and that opens up the possibility that an anti-Newt tea partier might have a small opening.

    more later

  • reggie182

    The fact that Mitt apparently doesn’t want to engage in a Lincoln Douglas style debate with him should be proof enough that this man is formidable.

    I don’t know if Perry will agree to such a format. I’m not saying yea or nay. If he does…good for him.

    The others…..well good for them if they do but, ….it doesn’t really make a difference..

  • kipling

    Newt was dynamic in getting the House under Republican control in in 1994 but then fell from grace rather quickly.

    The same political instincts many praise now also put him on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

    He is a good idea man but his execution of those ideas are not always the best. It is often hard to get him to stay on target long enough to turn ideas into legislation. We also know from the Clinton years that in a game of chicken he will blink first and often.

    I would vote for Newt over Romney but let us be realistic about who he is and the limitations he has.

  • Scope

    “I?ve never denied that I have a big ego when it comes to politics, finance, and capital markets(not much in other things), but I actually feel I have earned that right to have that ego on those topics.”

    No one, and I mean no one, likes a smart ass. And that is exactly what you have portrayed here at RS. Contrary to what you believe of yourself, your opinion is not usually worthy, simply because as Newt isn’t always the smartest man in the room, either are you.

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

    can maintain the positive message.

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

    There will be a small window for a tea partier to get a second look in Iowa and NH. Mitt is about to fall.

  • don12345

    Both characters supported a mandate, but the real difference is this.

    You can either vote for a candidate like Gingrich that thinks he’s God’s greatest gift to mankind, or you can vote for a candidate like Romney that thinks Jesus Christ is God’s greatest Gift to mankind.

  • lineholder

    “Anti-Newt” rather than “Anti-Mitt”. Maybe. Just in what I see so far, we’ve got some candidates who have managed to succeed in connecting with voters and some who haven’t…yet. Whether they will succeed in doing so in time remains to be seen at this point.

    You better believe that I’d prefer Conservative with a capital C. But when it is all said and done, I want our side to win. Period.

  • don12345

    I bet Romney’s oppo already has the dirt on Gingrich. So if Gingrich is cheating, Romney is patiently waiting until after Iowa for it’s release.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Barack Obama will be smashed by whoever is the nominee. because he barley won last time against a horrible candidate in terrible circumstances.

    Now he has to run against “change” while he represents four years of total failure. At least one full third of those who voted for him the first time will not support him again.

    There would have to be a major screw up by the Republicans not to win this (of course a major screw up by the stupid party is very possible.)

  • bzip

    Yes, I realize this is only a small focus group of 12 but I believe it echos what many deep down feel and think about the top two candidates:

    Focus group shows Republican voters have major problems with Romney, Gingrich
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/02/focus-group-shows-republican-voters-have-major-problems-with-romney-gingrich/
    …
    “A focus group of 12 GOP primary voters conducted in northern Virginia?a battleground state?showed that GOP voters have not warmed up to Mitt Romney, are worried about Newt Gingrich’s volatility, and have all but dismissed the candidacy of Herman Cain. What’s more, they see their two frontrunners as suffering from the same potentially deadly problem: a penchant to flip flop.”
    …

    Newt really isn’t that well received deep down and I bet his support is very weak because they know at least enough (but not all() of his baggage to see the corrupt flip-flopping nature of Newt.

  • wonkish1

    “Always the smartest man in the room”. I’m frequently up there though on a few subjects.

    And “No one, and I mean no one,” likes a [self righteous] ass. Or are you unwilling to admit that one like I did with my ego? At least I’m willing to admit it, are you willing to admit one of your negative personality traits?

    I’ll guess we will see wont we!

    P.S. While you may not like my style it has served our movement in the past. I have pulled off quite a few converts over the years. Am I to assume that you don’t like people in our movement being good at arguing just because they may come off as “smart asses”?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    it is they worship

  • lineholder

    No ifs, ands or buts about it on that matter. He’s very intelligent and knowledgeable, and he can stand his ground when presenting an argument for or against an issue.

    I’d love to see a few of them engage in discussions more than debates…just to talk about what is going on now in our country, what direction we’re heading in, how we got to where we are, then talk about ideas they have to alter the course or path we’re currently on, setting new goals for our country, how to begin to move in that direction and away from the black hole we’re being sucked down into. IMO, that could generate more interest amongst voters, because it draws stark contrast between what Dems are offering and what Repubs are offering.

    But I’m guessing with all the competitive juices so high, that’s unrealistic to expect during primary season.

  • Scope

    and ego, and claim to being the smartest man in the room is not welcome by the majority, especially here at RS. Again, no one likes a smart ass, and your posts have been much more smart ass than honest and intelligent debate. Smart asses name call, and try to portray their debate partners as dumb, anti- intellectual, and just not smart enough to debate your inanity. You are an ass, and your accolades about your own intellectual prowess betray your lack of debating skills, especially when you have to puff up your peacock feathers, and pat yourself on the back as the intellectual adult in the room, which you prove over and over you are not. You are an over-caffeinated serial narcissist.

    Have a good evening. Now I have better things to do than exchange messages with you. Have at it.

  • lineholder

    is more or less referred to as “counting your chickens before they hatch” where I come from. In case people haven’t noticed, Obama has been gaining ground against a generic Republic candidate. So we can’t take things for granted in this situation.

    Do you know what a “vision, mission and values” statement is, kyle8? That’s where I think Repubs are missing the boat right now. They don’t have a cohesive “vision, mission and values” statement that has been presented to the general public in a way that motivates people to choose Repubs BECAUSE of what they stand FOR. The message they have out right now is disjointed to the hilt, and it sends a very confusing and often conflicting message to voters. Which the left absolutely LOVES at this point.

    I think it would be more advantageous to our side to have something of this sort in place prior to the primaries, because it gives us a greater opportunity for a broader scope of voters to choose a Republican platform from the get-go, rally behind it, and be willing to fight for it.

  • wonkish1

    She’s unwilling to admit to.

    Also, is it your habit to not acknowledge the postings of others? Because I explicitly said that I don’t think “that I’m always the smartest guy in the room”. I don’t have thaaat big of an ego. But my honest answer about how I feel, I would say that in particular subjects I’m probably up there. That does mean that I have an ego, but I don’t lie about it. I willingly admit it.

    Now I do things the way I do them for a reason and clearly you don’t care to know why.

    But you can take you self righteousness and take it somewhere else. Your not an example of moral perfection even though you act like it. And good, bye! I don’t want to deal with a person who thinks her excrement doesn’t stink.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    *peeks through hands-over-eyes* Do we get the all-clear siren now, or do I need to stay under cover?

  • lineholder

    Scope and wonkish1 have had this battle before. No one ever wins it, but it flares up once in a while.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    nt nt

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Yikes, I must have missed it in all the months I lurked around here. How are you doin’, lineholder?

  • lineholder

    Thanks for asking. How are you doing? Love your Governor, BTW.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Don’t we all do far better than we deserve? God is very merciful to us even in the smallest details of our lives. Aw, thanks, I love my governor too :D He’s a great guy.

  • wonkish1

    Scope and I have gotten into it before. She is the only person on this site that I’m engaged in a forever truce with(i.e. I don’t respond to her comments and she avoids commenting on mine).

    It all started when I was posting a bunch of polls on here and commenting on how reliable I thought particular polling outfits were.

    Scope thought I was deliberately posting polls that made Perry look bad(she made this clear to me a day after someone accused me of doing the same to Cain when I called an online poll with him way up a joke). Following that she started sniping my comments. She would come in and snipe my comments in a rude way and I let is slide for a while. Then one day I had enough and I started landing a lot of blows until she defacto agreed to a truce where we just stopped responding to each others comments.

    So that is the story of how Scope and I started our feud.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Like Sergeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes: “I see nothing, NOTHING!” If you don’t mind, I’ll just keep working quietly and watch this one from the sidelines :)

  • wonkish1

    I came to the conclusion a while back that Scope didn’t want us to ever “make up” and get along so I wouldn’t suggest anyone get involved.

    The only answer going forward is for folks to stay out of it and for us to leave each other alone.

  • lineholder

    I have a co-worker, with two teenage kids, who just lost her husband in an industrial accident at work this week. Keep her in your mind and prayers.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I’m so sorry to hear it.

  • determinedconservative

    I was all for Perry, and I agree with many of the caveats people state about Newt; but I would rather have Newt be the nominee than Mittens, by far. And here’s the problem: if we can arouse conservatives to push Perry’s numbers back up (hardly a sure proposition), it’s not going to be enough to totally crater Newt. The two of them will split the anti-Romney vote, and this will give Romney a chance to get back in.

    We have to totally crush Romney, knock him out early; and the only way we can do that is to rally around a single alternative. Newt’s numbers are so high right now, and Perry’s are so low, I just don’t see that completely changing places. So Newt is the best horse to back to stop Romney. And at least he is really good at debating so he will put Obama in his place.

  • center77

    I think what we are seeing is a semi-epic struggle for control of the party. The establishment had lost that control for the longest time, but they have so brilliantly taken back that control by selling their candidate, and the pushing two of their insider lackeys, one post speaker of the house who was demoted to regent information peddler, and the other a unelected Pizza industry lobbyist who had moved onto being a radio host. I am utterly perplexed about the rise of Newt and hope that the party in reality knows better. Cain has deep ties to people who work for Fox news, like Greta; whose husband is an advisor to Mr. Cain?s campaign if you want to call it that. Cain has business ventures with Hannity.

    I wrote a while ago on my site and for a class paper in one of my political science classes that I feel if Newt Gingrich would not have had so much baggage from the beginning he would have been the insider choice for the establishment, but that was not to be. When Cain started to fall, I said to my girlfriend that I?ve been watching Fox slowly start selling Newt and sure enough they did, and shortly after Newt started to see his poll numbers shift.

    I figured they figure Cain would have been really easy for the center right media to knock down, but when his past came out to get back at him, then the establishment was forced to try and fill that spot with Newt. Funny thing is, they never expected him to take such a lead in the polls. I think it is at this point that the establishment started to get worried. I would expect them to understand a Newt nomination sinks the party, but I have little faith it the way they think. They for some reason either believe that Romney is the most electable, which is just nuts, or they believe it would be better to lose and wait until 2016 to get Jed Bush or Christie to be the nominee.

    I care little what anybody says, but I feel Perry is the one who can save this party from electing more of the same in Washington. I hold on to my values dearly and will never drop them for no one or no party. I am an independent and conservative meaning that I hold the Republican Party responsible for a lot of the mess we are in. Obama has been a complete disaster, and we need a true reformer in the White House, anything short of that is a true failure on our part.

    The Tea Party really got me feeling excited about the state of the Republican Party, and I felt the days of electing insiders were over, but I under estimated the power of the media. The conservatives brought the Republican Party out of the woods and have given them a chance to really reach the promise land, but as soon as they could they dumped the small government outsider that helped them stand up again.

    Perry seems to understand that we have to really go to Washington as shake the place up. He has also learned along with his supporters that first we have to go through the entrenched Washington Establishment. They have given us the ultimate insider and he is doing a wonderful job of selling himself as the reformer. He is not, he is more of the same & and he has charted a new way for the establishment to control the conservatives.

    People, anything short of taking a sledge hammer to Washington is not a win, and we will all be saying this come 2012, 2014, until 2016. Right now the establishment is in our way, and we must be smart and get through them. It?s a fight, but it was done in 2010 when they were weakened, but it can be done again, we see it in the way Romney cannot take off. He has everything going for him, except that the voters he needs just understands him too well to except that he is the one we need. I will end this with a simple two words “NEWT REALLY.”

  • kipling

    We need to see if New has the ground game to back up these poll numbers. Iowa is about turnout and from the reports I hear Newt has very little ground game.

    Newt also has a nasty habit of shooting his foot off before the big game. I will keep my powder dry and back Perry.

    With the rise of Newt, Romney has had to break out of his protective shell. The Fox News interview did him no favors and his numbers will continue to slide. There was a reason he avoided the interviews. Now that he has opened the door, Romney may implode further and open another avenue for a third candidate.

    We also need to see whether Cain ends his campaign or not and how all of that falls out.

    Too much fluidity to go all in with Newt.

  • center77

    so why not again, look who was in first at this point last time, it is not time to give up

  • conservativemusician

    And I think the vetting has started on Newt in earnest.

    Check out this link from HotAir:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/02/quotes-of-the-day-876/

  • snowshooze

    There is no reason to feel pressured.
    I’m gonna be sitting it out anyway, until primary day here.
    My Senator Murkowski though… she just couldn’t wait to sell me out again, by endorsing Mitt.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    There is almost no scenario now where he gets reelected. No president has ever won with the economy so bad or so many negatives.since ww 2, And if you go by electoral votes and the states where he has a chance it is even worse.

    Sometimes I think we revel in doom and gloom.

  • nathanalbright

    ….with his entitled and whiny attitude. Stay true to Perry, prepare for the next opportunity, and don’t be a summer soldier.

  • snowshooze

    The only problem would be in a very strong 3rd party spoiler.
    We should take our very best shot here, and we have time for careful aim.
    I suppose I should take some time to look over Huntsman and Santorum.. it’s pretty obvious that the MSM isn’t going to give them the time of day… maybe one of those guys might have a chance.
    But it doesn’t look like they have a snowballs chance right now.

  • determinedconservative

    …we get to a situation in February where Romney is at say 40 percent, Perry has come back up to 20 percent, and Newt is at 30? Are you going to just keep fighting for your candidate because that’s who you want and damn the torpedoes? I’m trying to be pragmatic here, and splitting the conservative, anti-Romney vote is what Mittens prays for every night.

  • snowshooze

    No harm done at that point.
    Now, depending on who decides to run 3rd party, then it will be at issue.

  • Common_Cents

    You left out ALL the positive comments by the DEM pollster group too.

    “Even so, Gingrich received praise as “the best politician of the group.” Yet his personal history?and his personality?were cause for concern. Some called him “experienced” and “smart,”

    “Gingrich has lately worked to soften his image?and that may be paying off. Within the focus group, he seemed to be more warmly received than Romney. What relative did they compare Gingrich with? The answers: father, grandfather, a favorite uncle.”

    “But several of the attendees said Gingrich’s past – either his three marriages and/or his extramarital affair – caused them some concern.

    “It is not a deal breaker, minor concern. It just goes to show his character,” Mahoney said. ”

    “One surprise: Many of the attendees voiced support for the position outlined by Gingrich to move some of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently into the country towards legalization because it is impractical to think they will all be deported.”

    BZIP, are you that desperate that you cherry pick a DEM pollster focus group and then leave out all the positive comments?

  • wonkish1

    I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this:

    http://www.redstate.com/wonkish1/2011/12/02/a-new-revolutionary-change-that-is-occurring-as-we-speak-that-will-usher-in-a-long-era-of-conservative-governance/#comment-331

  • macphisto96

    Where do you think the idea came from? It actually had its genesis with Newt Gingrich and The Heritage Foundation.

    I’ve read plenty of Newt’s material over the years and he gets a lot wrong and a lot right. He also has a lot of baggage and will cause independents to run away.

    If RedState and others have helped Gingrich to get the nomination then another four years of Obama is on their heads. A vote for Gingrich in the primary is a vote for Obama in the general. I’ll support Newt if he’s the nominee, but I’m not going to be thrilled.

    Romney is currently the most electable in the general and that’s why the DNC is running ads against him now. They want us to nominate Gingrich because the general public will not embrace him – whether fair or not.

    Perry had a chance to step up and claim the mantle, but he stumbled. I really wish Mitch Daniels would have run because he was the guy I truly wanted in the race.

    Running a guy who was only ever a member of the House is bad news. Why can’t all you Newt people swing behind Perry? That’s not perfect either, but I think he’s more likeable than Newt.

    Right now I’m praying for Mitch Daniels to come in and save the day in the 11th hour. Romney is imperfect, but if the NotRomneys give us Newt then they give us Obama. And if Erick Erickson and RedState assisted in this just because they don’t like Romney for some reason (though Erickson thought him the best bet in 2008) then for shame. Good way to help ruin America, guys!

    Vote Newt = Death to America! I hope you Newt voters are the first ones Obama comes after and leaves destitute. You’ll deserve it.

  • wonkish1

    The idea has been around for a few decades.

    And Heritage(who didn’t even invent it) subscribed to it before Newt did.

  • gekster

    You must have someone in mind.

  • snowshooze

    AhhhAhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
    Actually, that is an interesting question.
    I don’t bet that Newt has settled on it either.

  • snowshooze

    I honestly at this juncture consider Perry the best.
    I’ve seen all the attacks, I understand what he is doing, and has done. I don’t see any point in supporting the other guy.. at least until after the Primary.
    At that time, I am pretty danged sure there will be a third party contender. Hey, it could even be a Democrat! ( I’d be THRILLED!)
    At that point it is time to lay down the sword and climb aboard.

  • Common_Cents

    If he does, he’s off to the races in 2nd in Newt Hampshire, winning SC, winning FL, not a bad start.

    If he comes in 4th or worse in IA, he’ll take a good hit and Perry will have an oppty to step up. But it’s a small window and tough for Perry because the next stop would be NH. Gingrich looks real strong in SC(has largest staff there) and FL.

  • lineholder

    Absolutely nothing at all. I have moral values and standards that I try to hold myself to every single day of my life.

    We’re at a major crossroads here, with plenty of people inside the Republican Party who have been far too complacent about the direction that our nation is going in. They come across as if they either don’t care, aren’t interested, don’t want to take the political risk, or aren’t willing to put forth the effort that it would take to present a vision of where our nation could go from here (and I mean that in the context of a positive potential), to establish a course of action, to fight for that vision, and to follow through with it to the very best of their ability.

    We’ve got a huge, HUGE opportunity here. And our side is doing a poor job right now of providing the American people with a vision that they can hold on to (these are tough times for a lot of people, they NEED the positive) and fight for (because getting them personally invested means that it matters more to them in the long run…that it is what they CHOOSE).

    I don’t know who it will be, but I think the person who finds a way to succeed in presenting the context of that particular CHOICE to the American people, i.e. where we go from here and what we want this nation to become, is the one who has the best chance to win the nomination.

    We can do this “establishment vs. Conservatives” battle until we’re blue in the face, but the hard cold reality is that if one of our candidates doesn’t find a way to connect with voters in a solid, positive way, we leave the door wide open for Obama and the left to win, because they will pull out every deceitful, conniving, unscrupulous, corrupt method they can find to get Obama another four years. We need a pretty big buffer against that and the sooner we get started on establishing that buffer the better our chances are of succeeding.

    Here’s the part YOU may condemn: So far, Perry isn’t making that connection in a way that is solid. It’s an intangible element that he needs to find a way to resolve and quickly.

    I believe Perry is qualified, and I believe that he may have the potential to win. I just don’t see it happening at this point. Why? He isn’t proactive. I used to wonder why until I kept reading comments his supporters made over and over again about how it is just part of his style to “sit back, wait until his opponents implode and then move in for the win”. Then it made sense, because that is a reactive approach not a proactive approach. That’s an approach of “winning by default” more than anything else. So when Erick put up his last Horserace analysis, and very objectively stated that he just didn’t see the Perry team as being “hungry for a win”, it sort of fit in with what I had already come to recognize.

    Conservatives comprise only a portion of 33% of our population that self-identifies as Republican. We have to gain the support of people outside our portion of the population. That means being proactive in selling a Conservative vision. A reactive approach just doesn’t get it done.

  • snowshooze

    Even exit polls on election day… asking those who had just cast ballot…. can be way off.

  • gekster

    He asked her who she would endorse, and she pretty much said she wanted to wait to see how it plays out. Till the field gets thinner.
    She did say she doesn’t think the American people want someone who hasn’t held the same position in the last three years.
    (could that be Romney)
    So it seams there is one she will NOT endorse.

  • lineholder

    The Dems and the left will pull out every unscrupulous method they can think of for Obama to get another four years. Regardless of whether you see it as “doom and gloom”, that just isn’t a risk I want to see us take. Which is why I see it as being that much more important for our side to excel and succeed in providing the American people with a solid vision of what our nation’s future could become under Republican leadership as compared to what it will become under Liberal/Progressive/Obama’s leadership.

    And what’s more, we’re capable of doing it, kyle8. This whole idea that we should just assume the election is in the bag and not even try to broaden or strengthen what support we might have with voters serves no purpose from my veiwpoint. None at all.

  • snowshooze

    And endorsed Mitt.
    At least you can count on her.

  • Common_Cents

    To show that his poll leads are being transferred to reality.

    Coming in a close 2nd to Romney in Newt Hampshire would be a huge win for Gingrich.

  • snowshooze

    Heck, they might run a re-print. It’s a tough call from here.

  • wonkish1

    I think he’ll pick… drum-roll…Luis Fortuno(Google search coming). An outside pick like that just fits his style so well(considering he recommended Palin to McCain publicly).

  • snowshooze

    He will stay clear of all of it. Not even take a chance of associating.
    I think when he feels like it, he will run, and not be in anyone’s shadow.

  • acat

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    It is cute. I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of it.

  • acat

    but that wasn’t the question.

    Between Perry and Huntsman, I’ll take Perry.

    Mew

  • acat

    but the Newsweek one is the one I remember reading.

    Mew

  • center77

    because voting more if the same is not a option, Newt & Romney are that.

  • citizenkh

    what Palin is angling for?

  • tomatin

    Nixon invented the individual mandate when he wanted to use HMOs to cover all Americans.

  • tomatin

    Gingrich – Perry or Perry – Gingrich ticket

  • citizenkh

    tax reform?

    Manufacturing plants began shutting down all over the U.S. in 1998 but called themselves mothballed for 5 years in order to get some HUGE tax credits. Enough cabbage so they could move operations overseas. That is why massive demolition of plants across the nation began in 2003.

    When it was a lone process unit or two inside a facility, it was not maintained. However, I caught wind of this at Phelps Dodge in extreme SW New Mexico in 2003. It was south of Playas (a PD company owned town) NM. The plant was a copper ore refining plant, which received ore from several mines in the area (AZ & NM) and processed it into a semi finished state before shipping off to El Paso for electrolytic processing into pure copper cathodes.

    Anyway, Phelps Dodge spent over $1.5 million annually to be able to call a never to reopen location mothballed in order to make $10′s of millions annually for government in tax credits.

    Also during that time, Babcock and Wilcox shifted manufacturing of boiler modules from the U.S. to its Austrian subsidiary in Turkey. These are now shipped to the U.S. and welded into position during new boiler construction for power plants.

    The famous Nooter company did the same as B&W and no longer manufactures equipment for refineries and chemical plants along the Mississippi River in St. Louis to ship all over the U.S.

  • avagreen

    This playing cagey with both her “running or not running”, and now who she “will/will not endorse” just smacks of lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. Waaayyyy too political, IMHO.

    Wonder how she’d felt if her supporters had stayed on the line waiting to see if she’d win while she was struggling with the dirt being thrown at her?

    Disingenuous.

  • tomatin

    No personal mandate but when health care insurance can really compete in a free market if you don’t have insurance you should not get free care in an ER either.

  • tomatin

    ntnt

  • snowshooze

    The infighting may get even worse, such as Ron Paul’s recent shot at Newtie, which I thought was a pretty darned good job.
    And then, well, the Democrats are trying to steer it with the stuff they just fired off at Mitty. They will both be viable factors. Yes, it is true, that ad was targeted at Republicans and those hopeless ones lost in the deserts between the parties. The Indypendables.
    If history does not provide the facts they need, fear not, for they shall invent their own.
    Apparently, they would rather take on Newt, just judging from the ship sinking torpedo they fired at Romney..
    Has he rebutted? If so, will he later Unrebutt?
    I think they are in error to select Newt as their preferred competitor.
    Debating Newt has got to be kinda like wrestling a pig in the mud… after a while you realize the pig likes it….
    But that is their gamble. I am certain they are worried sick to death about playing this right.
    It is going to be a long ride to Iowa. I expect the polls to be very different. It is really going to get interesting.
    I will hope for the Phoenix from the ashes.

  • gekster

    we call it the 2005 election.
    We did just what you said.
    We stayed on the line waiting to see if she?d win while she was struggling with the dirt being thrown at her?

    And weather she would hve run or not, that is water under a bridge.
    It’s right here right now time.

    I think she is smart not endorsing a candidate now.
    How many would pick the one she endorse, and how many would not becouse she endorsed someone.

    It’s why I won’t endorse anyone.
    I don’t want someone to base thier pick for or against someone because of me.
    I want them to know the facts and base thier pick on information.
    I will give my opinion, and try to correct misinformation, but not endorse.
    I have only done that once, as I stated I liked Mike Lee once.

    Sorry for the tangent.
    What I am basically saying is that Palin, (God bless her soul)
    took herself out, eventually, and doesn’t want to influence the primary this early.
    Give her credit for that.

  • avagreen

    and they are savage about it. The unaware voters need to be educated on the facts whenever this garbage is spewed. On any forum.

  • gekster

    On anything with a lover or, uhem, queer encounter.
    It was said RP supporters put that reward out.
    I won’t say it was, but that’s what I heard.

  • snowshooze

    And how upset he is now with the Campaign crew, Hermin, and just about everything?
    Your feelings about Palin ( God bless her soul ) are a mirror of that.
    Understandable.
    I think it is prudent to let these candidates stand on their own two feet and duke it out. Who knows what will come tomorrow, and then… your endorsement value might just go flapping out the window.
    This is a time for sorting. A time to gauge the respective strengths and weaknesses, and most importantly, who will best represent and lead in the next term.
    Don’t let it bug you. We’ll get over this mountain and circle up the wagons in that next valley…

  • avagreen

    conservatism will rise it’s head again. Thank God for that!

    Can’t remember the study, but it showed that the younger generation is more conservative than the previous one. Thank God for that, too!

    Here is something along that line:
    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2002-09-25/article/14827?headline=UC-study-finds-younger-people-more-conservative

    And, here:
    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gop-house-committee-boehner/2010/10/28/id/375201

    YOU ALL CAME ALONG………JUST IN TIME!

  • avagreen

    It will be there. For sure.

    Hillary lost her election bid even though she was ahead in the polls for that very reason.

    Maybe the young lions of conservatism, along with older lions, can make it a point to be present during the election processes. ‘course could be just more riots…..right up Oblungler’s alley.

    I’m praying really, really hard that this enemy can be contained for the sake of our nation.

  • snowshooze

    So I have yet to write off Perry. It’s going to get wild now.
    I’d not dismiss the technique, let’s see if them Texans are right about him.
    When you get to the party late and everyone else is drunk and fighting… you can’t hardly lose.

  • snowshooze

    Both Gingrich and Perry are leaders. I’m not so sure they would get along that well because of it. Ford wasn’t bad. I am trying to think of a really outspoken strong Vice President…
    For some reason all I can recall are Mondale, Gore, Quail… now Biden and not a one suited for duty.
    Oh Dick, he could have swung the job.
    But it seems that many are just bench warmers and food tasters.

  • pj2012

    Perry I believe will make a great President ? possibly the best since Reagan in advancing conservatism. He’s a humble man, not a perfect man, and he will rebuild America for all Americans. The other day he gave a fine speech in the NH State House an received a standing ovation and many applauded throughout his speech.

    It amazes me how shortsighted people seem to be. That they’re willing to throwaway the best conservative for the least of conservatives whom they think would eviscerate Obama the best in a debate. But, after the thunderous applause… then what? We watch conservatism, freedom and liberty die at the hands of Newt or Romney?

    If given the chance Perry will win against Obama. I have no doubt about that. I’ve watched ALL Obama’s debates (even the ones with his fellow democrats) and he wasn’t all that good.

    The “Bad Newt” is creeping back and it’s not pretty. His flatulent ego is so going to implode his candidacy. Hopefully it will happen long before the first vote is cast in Iowa. Which would probably give Perry a majority win there… ; )

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I’m right here with you. Hopefully others will also see right through the Establishment and the media (or are they one and the same???). I guess it’s up to us to educate people if they DON’T see through them. We’ve got our work cut out for us, that’s for sure.

  • bzip

    Common cents – you are far more delusional then any of the past Messiah chasers I have ever seen.

    When are you going to stop pretending that Newt doesn’t have some serious baggage? When are you going to stop pretending that winning an election isn’t just based on winning debates?

    When are you going to stop pretending that the DNC is going to use Newt’s baggage, his extra material affairs, his crony capitalism, his lobbying ties in TV ads over and over not to mention his support of the mandate over and over to argue that even Newt agrees with Obama.

    When are you going to stop pretending that Newt isn’t a perfect candidate and in fact is the same candidate that we would have hung out to dry in 2010.

    When you stop pretending that Newt is some ideal candidate that is going to wipe Obama off the face of the earth – I will see you are no longer delusional.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    –no–text–

  • bzip

    NightTwister – If you have ever read any of my post I have never pretended that Perry wasn’t perfect and didn’t have his own set of problems. If fact many times I have pointed out that “every” candidate has their problems at that I believe Perry has the least of them.

    So I am far from being delusional unlike some of Newt’s supporters that can’t even admit that Newt has some problems, some of which are serious.

    So NightTwister are you another delusional Newt supporter?

  • nathanalbright

    He can use the exposure and make a run for the more moderate voters and show that unlike Romney he’s not a coward. Here’s hoping he can knock Romney down at least a few points.

  • bzip

    Some more news on Newt, the global warming support isn’t new for Newt but I hadn’t seen this video before. Then we have Newt making yet another stupid remark in regard to poor children:

    You Call This A Debate? (At about 2:30 in the video Newt shows e is pro-green taken in 2007 ? the Newt/Kerry Love Fest)
    http://youtu.be/wY2Uh6TKqnk

    Gingrich: Poor kids have bad work habits ?unless it?s illegal?
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/196663-gingrich-poor-children-have-bad-work-habits-unless-its-illegal
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390203n

    ?GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Thursday that ?really poor children? have bad work habits and no knowledge of how to make an income ?unless it?s illegal.?

  • nathanalbright

    …insulting the work ethic of the poor. It looks like Newt is a real class warrior there. There are much better ways of going about this. Instead of insulting the work ethic of poor kids (I grew up as one myself, a very poor kid in poor neighborhoods for my entire childhood, both in rural and urban poor neighborhoods), he could have spoken positively about the need to provide opportunities for people to learn hard work as young people in age appropriate ways. I didn’t hear that message. I just heard poor bashing.

  • bzip

    That is a serious problem for Newt. He sometimes opens his mouth too much. You don’t start a class war more so over children and their work ethics (odd, doesn’t Newt have a ethics violation).

    I am bad, I just now notice that Paula has written a diary of this Kerry/Newt love fest and she has done a great job in analyzing it. It is located at;
    http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2011/12/01/newts-romp-on-the-couch-with-john-kerry/

  • Scope

    The difference with the Perry supporters is that we are willing to acknowledge his imperfections and faux paus. I haven’t heard any of us Perry people claim that Perry is perfect. His record has been out there, going all the way back to his days as a Democrat, and everything he has done since then. His record has been out there including his finances, his college grades, his military service, the legislation he signed, and every word he has ever uttered about immigration. Oh, and don’t forget he is a Build-A-Burger.

    Gingrich has been in Washington since the 70′s. Even when he left the House, he remained in Washington in one capacity or another. He has a long record to examine, just as Perry’s record and many other candidates records have been examined in detail. I personally have more problems with Newt’s record since leaving the House, as that seems to be when he really decided to shake hands with some less than conservative positions. As has been said many times, Newt has ideas, and is not controlled by any deep seated conservative core values and convictions to restrain him. But it appears that because he is never at a loss for words, and some believe a wordsmith is what we need to defeat Obama, the layers of the onion shall not be peeled back because we might find some bugs hiding between those layers, and the search for the best candidate might continue and not coalesce around the Newt.

    I can’t stand Karl Rove, and I do believe that he is much too influential in GOP elections unnecessarily, but, he said something this morning about the Newt that holds some value. He said that Newt is at his very best when he is at the bottom, but when he is at the top is when he is at his very worst (Speakership?). When he proclaimed recently that he will be the nominee, that has not gone over very well with many. Outside of Washington, when you get to flyover country, not many will see his ego as endearing. If he keeps making those kinds of statements, he will prove once again that he is not capable of personal discipline. Oh, and whether some here at RS want to ignore his record as being too old, and not important, it will be examined everywhere else, and then some. As one of his former House colleagues said, Newt is never more than 6 inches from the self-destruct button.

  • sunshinek67

    —nt—

  • wbf

    I don’t know who is running the ad. There is one mistake in the ad…it was his FIRST wife who had the cancer.

  • bzip

    Wow. The ad is a little too long that I think it may lose some of the effectiveness BUT is hits Newt hard.

    This is the type of ad you can see the DNC running over and over. The martial affair along with Tom Coburn statement just hits Newt very effectively.

    Reduce the time on this ad to the most vitial parts and play it over and over and Newt becomes the most dishonest, least trusting person on the face of the earth.

    So tell me Newt supporters – do you still pretend that Newt has no baggage and that he is the best to beat Obama, the least flawed and you defend Newt over other candidates? Do you still think Newt can win solely based on debates and not TV ads and other areas of campaigning?

    Ron Pau’ls ad on Newt is now at 537,000 hits in just two days. That is effective.

  • lineholder

    How do I put this? I think that if a candidate is going to accept the role of being most Conservative and take on that mantle, then that person has to be that much more proactive in presenting a Conservative vision for our nation’s future, just to generate the level of interest of the American people in a way that draws them to Conservatism.

    I’m not gung-ho about Newt, but I agree with the statement he made about “don’t go to the middle…bring the middle to you”. People can question whether he really meant it or not, because they tend to associate Newt with being in the middle of the political spectrum, but the general idea he expressed is correct.

    Actions speak louder than words, and it would take being proactive rather than reactive to win people over. And you’re right, style is personal and that may not be Perry’s style.

    Given how I tend to look at things, it just strikes me as an opportunity missed, that’s all. With the left being who they are, I’d rather not see us miss opportunities…I’d prefer we find way to utilize them to our advantage.

  • David123

    Romney flip-flops and he was for the individual mandate. Besides, he’s one of those Mormons so he might have more than one wife.

    Cain says stupid things and he’s got woman-problems, or at least alleged woman-problems.

    Palin is a quitter. Plus, even though she’s really good, the MSM has vilified her so much that independents will never vote for her. Besides, she’s not running for president – at least that gives her plenty of free time to go on a cruise.

    No we can’t nominate those three – let’s find one person who has ALL their negatives and nominate that person. sarc.

  • kipling

    We need to see if the polls translate into reality. Once the votes starting coming in in 2008 the whole race changed.

  • lineholder

    If there was ever a time for our side to display initiative, this is it.

  • bzip

    Yep, it’s strange how and why Newt gains supporter. One can hope that voters learn more about Newt and wake up before it is to late.

    Newt is the combination of all them combined.
    Newt was and still is for the mandate (Romney),
    Newt has/had women problems with his affairs (Cain),
    Newt says stupid things (Cain),
    Newt has ethic violations,
    Newt was and is for some type of amnesty,
    Newt was/is for global warming.
    Newt was/is for a form of death panels.
    Newt has direct tie to lobbying, crony capitalism.

    Good grief, this is the best we can do to advance the conservative cause and find a candidate with the least amount of baggage.

  • Common_Cents

    You should post them 1000 times a day on more sites.

    thank you for your help in electing Gingrich President.

  • bzip

    Keep being in denial and pretending that Newt can beat Obama
    Keep being in denial that Newt has no baggage – your and his supporters keep in denial and that will ensure Obama gets his 2nd term.

    Keep pretending Newt is the ideal candidate to advance conservative issues and before you know it – Newt will mandate cleaning toilets for all of us.

  • Common_Cents

    Now we are praising Ron Paulites because of a web ad.

    Desperation is in the air.

  • littlemas2

    I don’t know if you are a Mormon or not, but if you study both Mormon doctrine and traditional/orthodox doctrine about Jesus, you will discover that the Mormon understanding of Jesus is very different than orthodox Christian belief.

    Mormon belief: Jesus is A spirit son of a god named Elohim, who was himself once a man like us, but progressed to godhood and is the god of this particular planet. (Look up Lorenzo Snow couplet.)

    Christian belief: Jesus is THE unique son of God, who has always existed in perfect unity as one of the member of Trinity along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Godhead is eternal and self-existent.

    Now maybe Mormons are right or perhaps as I believe the orthodox Biblical understanding of God is correct, but one thing is certain: Jesus is not the same for Mormons and Christians.

  • Common_Cents

    Shocking new revelation by Bzip: Gingrich is a sinner! Gingrich is human!

    Bzip, keep up the old baggage attacks.

    Keep calling me delusional, it really shows an intelligent fact based response on the candidates and issues.

    Voters like this one below are listening to you, you are getting through!

    “Wayne Love is a retired plant manager who says he’s also had three wives.

    “I can relate to Gingrich. I think all of us can look back over our lives and say, ‘Should have done this, should have done that,’” he says, “and you know, that didn’t interfere with my career, and I don’t think it reflects Gingrich’s political career.”

    http://www.npr.org/2011/12/03/143077844/gingrichs-popularity-a-winning-boost

  • Common_Cents

    ?Newt Gingrich just went out the back door,? Merrick joked as Romney knocked at his Chestnut Street house. Merrick said the former U.S. House Speaker is a threat, adding ?I think because Newt Gingrich is a smart guy.? -BostonHerald.com

    haha, this guy actually said that to Romney? that’d be priceless video.

  • Common_Cents

    Is there any interest or pursuit of a Gingrich Perry debate by Redstate/Human Events???

    here is the quote from AJCblog:

    Recognizing that the race has come down to two competitors, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Human Events and Red State went to the two campaigns to propose a two-man debate between them later this month. Gingrich quickly accepted; Romney turned them down. RealClearPolitics reports:

    ?As Joe Guerriero, publisher of Human Events and Red State, put it to RCP: ?Newt was all over it, and the Romney camp basically said no. It wasn?t a harsh no, but it was a no.?

    A Gingrich spokesman confirmed to RCP that the candidate was interested and accepted the invitation, but a Romney spokeswoman didn?t return a request for comment.?

  • donald_24

    Let one of the other candidaes debate Newt instead and to embarass Romney, have an empty podium on the stage.

  • stupidme

    If you prefer global governance over national sovereignty — vote Newt. He has the record to prove that he’s the man to deliver.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    You go from diary to diary singing Perry’s praises and pointing out everything wrong with all the other candidates without acknowledging anything positive.

    Physician, heal thyself.

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

    …and i tried to include both baseline-thoughts and distilled-conclusions.

    Nevertheless, by referencing the origin of this distillation, i allowed for the reader to unearth additional data…to corroborate my credibility when abstracting it…if the desire were to exist.

    Anyway, let’s critique what supervened…infra.

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

    …I will reply to these responses to my “resolution” and then hope that the attack-mode will subside…allowing substance to emerge.

    Be it Resolved THAT

    1. This issue of The Newt?s adherence to an Individual Mandate [manifest, if nothing else, as the forced payment of a "bond"] undermines his credibility when he disclaims support for ObamaCare.

    {No it doesn?t. The core of ObamaCare is community rating (socialized health risk), standardized benefits (socialized benefit options), and government control of insurance expenditures. If you want to say that the individual mandate is worse than these items be my guest, but I doubt you?ll find many people that will agree with you.}

    Most legal scholars concur, and the fact that this one query is distilled as one of the four foci of the SCOTUS argument suggests strongly that they also view this as the core-concern. Actually, the additional issue of “severability” has been generated specifically by the inclusion of the Individual Mandate because most analysts conclude ObamaCare [as much as its calculations depend upon such parameters as you distilled] would dematerialize without it.

    THEREFORE, it remains difficult to appreciate what he opposes in ObamaCare if he continues to adhere to any residual component of his prior positions regarding how government would expect people to manifest their duties to manifest their “Individual Responsibility” to finance personal healthcare.

    *

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    2. This policy carries profound/troubling implications regarding the overall view of The Newt regarding the desirability of governmental empowerment.

    {Actually no it doesn?t. Newt as espoused thousands of conservative small government proposals. The idea that this one could relegate all of those meaningless is insulting to people?s intelligence. Furthermore, since you described yourself as ?multiple choice on abortion? I?ll assume that you believe you aren?t a conservative because clearly under your own definition if a person takes 1 non conservative position they are now liberal on everything.}

    I look to whether an isolated posture carries implications. Regarding Abortion, I quote Exodus 21:22-25 which defines “potential life” as inherent in a Jewish approach AND the Talmudic discourse regarding the mandate to preserve all “life” to maximize the number of voices available to praise the Deity; this dynamic was detailed in-detail on RS a few weeks ago but, the bottom-line, here, is that I concur with invoking the medical-model when legislating on this volatile issue.

    This is to be differentiated from the posture of The Newt, who consistently looks to “Big Government” as a resource for his “Real Solutions” to myriad problems. Endorsing the Individual Mandate is symptomatic, sadly, of this elitism/statism.

    THEREFORE, the depiction of The Newt as having deviated from constitutional conservatism [no matter the allegedly pragmatic rationale that might be conjured] remains a major sticking-point.

    *

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    3. If The Newt cannot explain the details of this conversion, the most ominous conclusions [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn.

    {That is your opinion nobody has to agree with. Newt has given some details you just choose not to hear them when someone gives them to you.}

    You had previously disclaimed knowledge thereof, despite your encyclopedic database accumulated over the decades. You are cordially invited to share”!

    THEREFORE, in the absence of he capacity to assess the mechanism by which The Newt may have converted his position on the Individual Mandate, it is impossible to view whatever he now portrays his posture to be…as credible.

    Perhaps tonight’s discussion will illuminate but, absent quality input, my three RESOLVEDS survive this initial swipe by Wonkish1.

  • reaganbuckley

    Say what you will about Romney – flip-flopper, no principles etc. Once thing you can’t criticize him for is lack of self-discipline.

    It’s very simple. Newt simply does not have that kind of self-discipline for a long primary campaign. It’s a really important advantage in the long-haul – witness Obama vs. Hillary, Bush vs. McCain.

    Romney’s going to be the nominee because Newt will eventually implode.

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

    The insurers can only be empowered to exercise “enforcement” by the government and, thus, by whatever pathway, once this assertion is made by The Newt…no matter how it is couched in supportive phraseology…he is robbing the individual of the personal empowerment NOT to purchase health insurance.

    The focus of the D’s is often on the potential impact of indigent-care upon providers [hospitals/professionals], but other mechanisms [EMTALA, Hill-Burton] exist to provide a rudimentary safety-net [SCOTUS-confirmed]. Ethical concerns have been addressed [including by myself, in testimony submitted to Harrisburg a few years ago regarding the need to provide emergency-care to Illegal Aliens].

    The key-goal must be to ensure that government policy doesn’t sway from the limits upon Congress [Article I Section 8]…unless someone wishes to amend it.

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

    seems to characterize your weird effort to [1]–recognize The Newt’s support of the Individual Mandate, while [2]–claiming enforcement thereof could emanate from any entity other than government.

    You claim I am guilty of “Twisting the concept of ‘mandate’ to imply government intervention when such an assertion runs counter to the overall assumptions made by Mr. Gingrich in his books” without specifying which “assumption” undermines my conclusion…and how this could possibly transpire.

    You can’t “have your cake and eat it too.”

    You can’t be “just a little-bit pregnant.”

    Specifically, I do NOT believe each individual “should” be forced to buy anything [service/product]; the rest is commentary…don’t you agree?

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

    ….because of the need to juxtapose the Constitution…in your case…when comparing the implications of these contrasting policies.

    The tuition-issue is unique to Texas ["states' rights"] and arguably has cut overall welfare costs; the mandate-issue is national ["individual rights"] and arguably carries a tsunami-effect when assessing overall political philosophy.

    Let’s see how these concepts are debated … starting tonight!

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

    …which was noticeable during the VIP reception @ the ZOA dinner during picture-taking.

    But I still don’t think these two candidates have the track-record that Perry can sport effortlessly, notwithstanding how great they all are regarding the need to exert a muscular foreign policy.

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

    …unnecessarily so.

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

    …is a concept invoked supra…and it certainly applies here.

    I care not whether one-or-the-other is more-or-less-vulnerable regarding ObamaCare and the Individual Mandate; this is a distinction without a difference.

    Both are vulnerable, Perry isn’t.

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

    Both are CULPABLE, Perry isn’t.

  • donald_24

    So what if Gingrich never passed a mandate? That’s like a bank robber telling the judge in court after beuing arrested “Your honor, I did not succeed in robbing the bank because the police stopped me. Therefore I am not guilty of bank robbery and I should be freed.”

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

    …most Republicans concur with this conclusion.

    Guzzardi and I were mulling-over the Cain withdrawal and concurrent events, and we have concluded that The Newt will have performed a community service if/when he has KO’ed Mitt; we will then be able to have a clear-”shot” [ORATORICALLY] @ The Newt, allowing for a TRUE CONSERVATIVE to emerge.

  • donald_24

    I suspect that the DNC will not make any negative ads about Newt during the primary because they woudl rather run against him than Romney. I’m no fan of Romney, but at least Romney is free from ethics and marrital problems.

  • acat

    and weakest at interpersonal “retail” stuff.

    And yes, this one is going to be ugly before it’s over.

    Mew

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

    …let’s focus on facts.

    The repetitive praise for one-or-the-other candidate [e.g., "Newt-BHO Debate would favor GOP"] becomes tiresome.

    The great thing about RS is the myriad participants; anyone who appears excessively pro-Perry is “disciplined”…even as we call-to-task those who appear blind to any of his attributes.

    Let’s not all take ourselves too seriously, eh?

    There is WORK to be done!

  • donald_24

    Debates are not really that important in a presidential campaign. They alone don’t choose winners and losers. This is presidential politics, not the high school debate team. As long as neither candidate makes any major Rick Perry type gaffes, then there will be no clear winner or loser.

    Looking back at the Obama/ Mccaind debates, who won? The answer is not clear, now is it?

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

    eloquence in thought and expression

  • Common_Cents

    Smacks of desperation and BOTism.

    If someone disagrees with them, they call the Hinz rule to get people to gang up and validate their own insecurities.

    Focus on the candidates and the issues folks.

  • 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

  • wonkish1

    LOL

    1. So your saying that your more okay with socialized health risk(community rating), socialized benefit options(standardized benefits), and the conversion of health insurers into government sponsored utilities(government control of insurer expenditures) than the individual mandate? Please answer this question in a yes or no format! The individual mandate may be unconstitutional, stupid, and what holds those things together, but for conservatives from a policy standpoint what I listed above is far, far, far more atrocious than the individual mandate and they want to kill all of above by killing the Individual mandate because the other pieces can’t survive without it(of course in a policy(not legal) standpoint the individual mandate can survive without those other pieces).

    And Newt opposes all the things I just listed above. So please save your “I’m going to lump someone into supporting an entire bill because he once supported a modified piece of it” crap.

    2. You have no clue whether “Newt continues to invoke big government” or not since you don’t pay attention and just accumulate only the negative baggage(and largely untrue or out of context stuff) and don’t ever touch anything positive he’s done or said(which is extremely larger). If we went down the list you would get clobbered by me. Furthermore, this hasn’t been your argument. You are switching it from Newt’s past support of the individual mandate shows he will take big government positions on everything -to- some ‘obvious’ notion that Newt is for big government of which the individual mandate is only an example(that’s not what you said before). I’ll take this change as you defacto giving me the victory on the issue of whether or not a person taking one non conservative position is all you need to blanket all of their proposals–you appear to be giving up on that. But I’ll just copy a recent response I gave to someone else on this front and I would love to see you try to weasel your way through this one.

    Quote: “Now that said by any objective measure Newt is a conservative. His ACU rating was a 90 over his career. He has written more than 20 books, delivered thousands of speeches, etc. and the most people can find is a small handful of things where Newt has broken with the conservative movement and he has more than made up for them with hundreds of conservative ideas and thousands of new arguments that are in many cases more effective and equal if not more in quantity than some of our largest think tanks(with hundreds on staff). Anybody that calls Newt not a conservative either A) Thinks that conservatism is the absence of any breaks from the movement(whether mistaken or not) or B) Those that get their opinions of the candidates purely from others and don?t ever spending time looking into the candidates long record themselves(and determining what % they are in agreement with the movement which in the case of Newt would be an extremely high percentage).”

    3. Your changing your position again. Before you said that you **will assume** bad intentions for why he changed his position until he satisfyingly proves otherwise to you(of which it sounds that you are holding him to an unbelievably high standard of explaining everything he ever thought about it and everything that caused him to switch and you don’t take into account any information already provided on that front). Your now saying that there is no way to know if its credible or not(which actually applies to all politicians and their positions) that is a huge change. I agree that we can’t know for sure, but I completely disagree that you have to assume the worst out of every politicians position until they meet some insanely high standard no one will meet without devoting an hour to explaining every single thing on the issue like a damn committee hearing(and even then you would probably not even acknowledge it ever happened). And I’ll assume your change in position on this one means that you are conceding that it isn’t right to automatically assume that any change is not for real and until they hit an amazingly high standard of proof that it is for real.

    So I’m up 2 to 0 right now Bob on just these 3 resolutions since you have defacto giving me them by changing your positions. Your changes have created one new resolution(in number 2) and I agreed with your change in 3 so that one isn’t up for contention. So I’m up 2 to 0 with 2 left.

  • heraklios

    It’s a good thing because he was certainly toast in November. Conservatives will not vote for a man without princiles or a RINO

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

    …both with the premise and the example.

    [vide supra]

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

    Couldn’t log-on for a day…and it appears my transfer of my critique of The Newt prompted a not unexpected reaction. Recognizing “bzip” provided an encyclopedic review of these concerns, will reserve reactions to the Individual Mandate for a separate posting; will first summarize generic observations based on the other 200+ entries [recognizing that others were inserted in response to particular observations]:

    1. “streiff” refers to “Rick Perry?s escapades in Austin”; anyone know what he’s writing about?

    2. Has Mitt ever reacted to such comments as this ["Mormon belief: Jesus is A spirit son of a god named Elohim, who was himself once a man like us, but progressed to godhood and is the god of this particular planet. (Look up Lorenzo Snow couplet)"] during any prior interview/speech?

    3. Can we all give Sarah some credit for, just like The Donald, her endorsement will carry weight [unlike those being accumulated by Mitt]?

    4. Anyone who praises Huntsman for allegedly-conservative credentials is foolhardy for, consistently, he has acted aloof; for example, he has again aloofly absented himself from joining his colleagues with the Huckster tonight.

    5. The Newt has issued damaging quotes during recent days that are anathema to Main St. America…such as when he disclaimed any interest in being a lobbyist because he was already receiving $60K/speech [and invites were increasing in quantity]. UGH!

    6. Recommended-reading is the entire byplay that starts with “look guys, Mitt, Newt even Perry, its all a party struggle. Don’t worry about Nov.
    kyle8 (Diary) Friday, December 2nd at 9:10PM EST (link).” It carries both profound import and a model for high-level discourse; it’s ok to be optimistic, but we must fight as if we’re pessimistic

    7. Wonkish1 invited comments on his assessment of how people choose their media-outlets [http://www.redstate.com/wonkish1/2011/12/02/a-new-revolutionary-change-that-is-occurring-as-we-speak-that-will-usher-in-a-long-era-of-conservative-governance/#comment-331], but no one [including CC] replied. “Just sayin’….”

    8. Guzzardi wonders if it’s too early to start attacking The Newt [i.e., before Mitt has been helped to implode]; my response is twofold. First, the Holidays approach, so the window-of-attention is limited prior to Iowa. Second, it takes awhile for messages to disseminate, so this vetting couldn’t have started in-earnest soon enough!

    9. I may be naive, but I’m less focused on whether a given candidate does/doesn’t have a campaign apparatus assembled in a given state….when compared with the importance of choosing the true conservative….and then allowing for whatever logistics are necessary to be created ASAP to disseminate that individual’s message. We are all policy-wonks, perhaps, but this is the crucible in which optimally productive discourse occurs.

    10. The risk of a 3rd-party diminishes [on the right] if Perry is the nominee.

    The embedded videos are universally superb!

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

    Here is the point-counterpoint, prior to an effort to reformulate in a fashion that will preclude [if at all possible] the use of four-letter-words to intrude upon direct discussion of facts/ideas:

    I will reply to these responses to my ?resolution? and then hope that the attack-mode will subside?allowing substance to emerge.

    Be it Resolved THAT

    1. This issue of The Newt?s adherence to an Individual Mandate [manifest, if nothing else, as the forced payment of a "bond"] undermines his credibility when he disclaims support for ObamaCare.

    {No it doesn?t. The core of ObamaCare is community rating (socialized health risk), standardized benefits (socialized benefit options), and government control of insurance expenditures. If you want to say that the individual mandate is worse than these items be my guest, but I doubt you?ll find many people that will agree with you.}

    Most legal scholars concur, and the fact that this one query is distilled as one of the four foci of the SCOTUS argument suggests strongly that they also view this as the core-concern. Actually, the additional issue of ?severability? has been generated specifically by the inclusion of the Individual Mandate because most analysts conclude ObamaCare [as much as its calculations depend upon such parameters as you distilled] would dematerialize without it.

    THEREFORE, it remains difficult to appreciate what he opposes in ObamaCare if he continues to adhere to any residual component of his prior positions regarding how government would expect people to manifest their duties to manifest their ?Individual Responsibility? to finance personal healthcare.

    *

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    2. This policy carries profound/troubling implications regarding the overall view of The Newt regarding the desirability of governmental empowerment.

    {Actually no it doesn?t. Newt as espoused thousands of conservative small government proposals. The idea that this one could relegate all of those meaningless is insulting to people?s intelligence. Furthermore, since you described yourself as ?multiple choice on abortion? I?ll assume that you believe you aren?t a conservative because clearly under your own definition if a person takes 1 non conservative position they are now liberal on everything.}

    I look to whether an isolated posture carries implications. Regarding Abortion, I quote Exodus 21:22-25 which defines ?potential life? as inherent in a Jewish approach AND the Talmudic discourse regarding the mandate to preserve all ?life? to maximize the number of voices available to praise the Deity; this dynamic was detailed in-detail on RS a few weeks ago but, the bottom-line, here, is that I concur with invoking the medical-model when legislating on this volatile issue.

    This is to be differentiated from the posture of The Newt, who consistently looks to ?Big Government? as a resource for his ?Real Solutions? to myriad problems. Endorsing the Individual Mandate is symptomatic, sadly, of this elitism/statism.

    THEREFORE, the depiction of The Newt as having deviated from constitutional conservatism [no matter the allegedly pragmatic rationale that might be conjured] remains a major sticking-point.

    *

    And be it further Resolved THAT

    3. If The Newt cannot explain the details of this conversion, the most ominous conclusions [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn.

    {That is your opinion nobody has to agree with. Newt has given some details you just choose not to hear them when someone gives them to you.}

    You had previously disclaimed knowledge thereof, despite your encyclopedic database accumulated over the decades. You are cordially invited to share?!

    THEREFORE, in the absence of he capacity to assess the mechanism by which The Newt may have converted his position on the Individual Mandate, it is impossible to view whatever he now portrays his posture to be?as credible.

    Perhaps tonight?s discussion will illuminate but, absent quality input, my three RESOLVEDS survive this initial swipe by Wonkish1.

    Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

    ************************************************************************************

    Dr. Bob Way To Move Those Goal Posts
    wonkish1 (Diary) Saturday, December 3rd at 5:47PM EST (link)
    LOL

    1. So your saying that your more okay with socialized health risk(community rating), socialized benefit options(standardized benefits), and the conversion of health insurers into government sponsored utilities(government control of insurer expenditures) than the individual mandate? Please answer this question in a yes or no format! The individual mandate may be unconstitutional, stupid, and what holds those things together, but for conservatives from a policy standpoint what I listed above is far, far, far more atrocious than the individual mandate and they want to kill all of above by killing the Individual mandate because the other pieces can?t survive without it(of course in a policy(not legal) standpoint the individual mandate can survive without those other pieces).

    And Newt opposes all the things I just listed above. So please save your ?I?m going to lump someone into supporting an entire bill because he once supported a modified piece of it? crap.

    2. You have no clue whether ?Newt continues to invoke big government? or not since you don?t pay attention and just accumulate only the negative baggage(and largely untrue or out of context stuff) and don?t ever touch anything positive he?s done or said(which is extremely larger). If we went down the list you would get clobbered by me. Furthermore, this hasn?t been your argument. You are switching it from Newt?s past support of the individual mandate shows he will take big government positions on everything -to- some ?obvious? notion that Newt is for big government of which the individual mandate is only an example(that?s not what you said before). I?ll take this change as you defacto giving me the victory on the issue of whether or not a person taking one non conservative position is all you need to blanket all of their proposals?you appear to be giving up on that. But I?ll just copy a recent response I gave to someone else on this front and I would love to see you try to weasel your way through this one.

    Quote: ?Now that said by any objective measure Newt is a conservative. His ACU rating was a 90 over his career. He has written more than 20 books, delivered thousands of speeches, etc. and the most people can find is a small handful of things where Newt has broken with the conservative movement and he has more than made up for them with hundreds of conservative ideas and thousands of new arguments that are in many cases more effective and equal if not more in quantity than some of our largest think tanks(with hundreds on staff). Anybody that calls Newt not a conservative either A) Thinks that conservatism is the absence of any breaks from the movement(whether mistaken or not) or B) Those that get their opinions of the candidates purely from others and don?t ever spending time looking into the candidates long record themselves(and determining what % they are in agreement with the movement which in the case of Newt would be an extremely high percentage).?

    3. Your changing your position again. Before you said that you **will assume** bad intentions for why he changed his position until he satisfyingly proves otherwise to you(of which it sounds that you are holding him to an unbelievably high standard of explaining everything he ever thought about it and everything that caused him to switch and you don?t take into account any information already provided on that front). Your now saying that there is no way to know if its credible or not(which actually applies to all politicians and their positions) that is a huge change. I agree that we can?t know for sure, but I completely disagree that you have to assume the worst out of every politicians position until they meet some insanely high standard no one will meet without devoting an hour to explaining every single thing on the issue like a damn committee hearing(and even then you would probably not even acknowledge it ever happened). And I?ll assume your change in position on this one means that you are conceding that it isn?t right to automatically assume that any change is not for real and until they hit an amazingly high standard of proof that it is for real.

    So I?m up 2 to 0 right now Bob on just these 3 resolutions since you have defacto giving me them by changing your positions. Your changes have created one new resolution(in number 2) and I agreed with your change in 3 so that one isn?t up for contention. So I?m up 2 to 0 with 2 left.

  • wonkish1

    Because it looks like your going out of your way to try to poke at me:

    “Wonkish1 invited comments on his assessment of how people choose their media-outlets [http://www.redstate.com/wonkish1/2011/12/02/a-new-revolutionary-change-that-is-occurring-as-we-speak-that-will-usher-in-a-long-era-of-conservative-governance/#comment-331], but no one [including CC] replied. ?Just sayin??.?”

    Now feel free to respond to that comment if you want, but I think you’ll find little disagreement that Democrats avoid Fox News, conservative talk radio, conservative sites, etc.

    Seriously, what is it that your trying to accomplish be invoking my name in all your comments on different subjects?

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

    …emerges from this point-counterpoint. {Wonkish1′s grammar has been corrected.}

    1. I asserted: “The Newt?s adherence to an Individual Mandate [manifest, if nothing else, as the forced payment of a "bond"] undermines his credibility when he disclaims support for ObamaCare.” After Wonkish1 introduced other potential parameters such as Community Rating, I relegated them to second-tier concerns because, ultimately, it is the Individual Mandate that would finance whatever system that would emerge [and I noted that the SCOTUS had also focused its 5 1/2 hour planned colloquy on the Individual Mandate.

    Wonkish1 did not disagree with this conclusion, instead constructing/demolishing a paper-tiger, thusly: “So you’re saying that you’re more okay with socialized health risk (community rating), socialized benefit options (standardized benefits), and the conversion of health insurers into government-sponsored utilities (government control of insurer expenditures) than the individual mandate? Please answer this question in a yes or no format!”

    No. I only disclaimed these “in the weeds” concepts as secondary to the key financing-feature of ObamaCare.

    “The individual mandate may be unconstitutional, stupid, and what holds those things together, but for conservatives from a policy standpoint what I listed above is far, far, far more atrocious than the individual mandate and they want to kill all of above by killing the Individual mandate because the other pieces can?t survive without it; of course, from a policy (not legal) standpoint, the individual mandate can survive without those other pieces.”

    Noting that ObamaCare doesn’t have a non-severability clause, once the Individual Mandate goes, so does the rest of the bill.

    “And Newt opposes all the things I just listed above. So please save your ‘I?m going to lump someone into supporting an entire bill because he once supported a modified piece of it’ crap.”

    You are obfuscating. Focus, please on The Newt’s repeated philosophical/operational support for the Individual Mandate…and the implications thereof.

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

    ?emerges from this point-counterpoint. {Wonkish1?s grammar has been corrected.}

    2. I asserted: “This policy carries profound/troubling implications regarding the overall view of The Newt regarding the desirability of governmental empowerment.”

    Wonkish1 quoted himself while asserting The Newt has strong conservative credentials, ultimately, after having attempted to corrupt this simple-sentence. He claimed some sort of “victory” for allegedly having prompted me to alter my position [an incomprehensible argument] while failing to confront even the possibility that The Newt has provided a symptom of elitism/statism through his support of the Individual Mandate. To be precise, I have abandoned NO argument regarding The Newt’s “past” support for the Individual Mandate, particularly having quoted two “recent” books that unambiguously reinforce that conclusion. It is for that reason that his overall governmental philosophy remains “troubling”…particularly after having read such a lame [off-putting] “defense” of his approach to such matters.

  • wonkish1

    First of all thanks spell check(rolls eyes).

    I completely disagree that those things are “in the weeds”. They are not. AND THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD CALL SOCIALIZED HEALTH RISK, SOCIALIZED BENEFIT OPTIONS, AND THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH INSURERS AS “SECONDARY ISSUES” SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU! Everybody take a good look right here because according to Dr. Bob socialism is okay as long as you don’t force people into buying a product.

    And since you answered No to my question you basically conceded my argument and that is that those things above are far more damaging than anything a lone individual mandate could do.

    That will be up to the Supreme Court, but you miss the point entirely. Your focusing on the clauses within the law. As a doctor you should be looking at the practicality. There is no way a ton of people will buy overpriced benefits under a community rating system if they aren’t forced to. So the bill blows up under market forces(not just legal ones). But your making a fallacy here. Just because socialized medicine requires something like an individual mandate to survive doesn’t mean that a lone individual mandate requires socialized medicine. It goes one way, but it doesn’t have to go the other and **this is a key point**.

    I’m not obfuscating anything. It is very clear that a person could support an individual mandate(which he doesn’t anymore) and not support socialize health risk, socialized benefit options, and a government takeover of health insurers. Now take that sentence verbatim and tell me where you see a hole in that(and please don’t redirect to something else) take it directly on and tell me how an individual mandate has to result in those 3 things.

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

    ?emerges from this point-counterpoint. {Wonkish1?s grammar has been corrected.}

    3. I asserted: “If The Newt cannot explain the details of this conversion, the most ominous conclusions [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn.”

    Wonkish1 responded thusly: “I completely disagree that you have to assume the worst out of every politicians position until they meet some insanely high standard no one will meet without devoting an hour to explaining every single thing on the issue like a damn committee hearing(and even then you would probably not even acknowledge it ever happened).”

    I am merely inquiring as to the circumstances that prompted his alleged conversion. Recalling that Mitt became pro-Life after having grappled with a fetal-research issue, it is not unreasonable to probe what prompted The Newt to flip-flop on a posture that had served as a foundation for his overall approach to Big Government…over the decades.

    Wonkish1 also claimed: “Before you said that you **will assume** bad intentions for why he changed his position until he satisfyingly proves otherwise to you (of which it sounds that you are holding him to an unbelievably high standard of explaining everything he ever thought about it and everything that caused him to switch and you don?t take into account any information already provided on that front). You’re now saying that there is no way to know if its credible or not(which actually applies to all politicians and their positions) that is a huge change.”

    This is not self-contradictory. Until/unless The Newt ‘fesses-up, one must assume that he [particularly noting his verbosity] has no true defense.

  • wonkish1

    You have changed number 2 to something else and defacto conceded it already.

    This:
    “This policy carries profound/troubling implications regarding the overall view of The Newt regarding the desirability of governmental empowerment”

    DEFINITELY DOES NOT EQUAL THIS:

    “This is to be differentiated from the posture of The Newt, who CONSISTENTLY looks to ?Big Government? as a resource for his ?Real Solutions? to myriad problems. Endorsing the Individual Mandate is SYMPTOMATIC, sadly, of this elitism/statism.” Emphasis provided by me. That is a different argument altogether.

    Your first argument seeks to cast a brush painting all of a persons positions as liberal because of one position that is. Your second one tries to make the case that it is an example. So please tell me how I’m wrong about this distinction!

    By symptom you mean an example of a non conservative position, how you could possibly say that I haven’t agreed that it is an example is beyond me. I’ve said it over and over and over again. But you obviously just make up whatever you want.

    “Lame defense” buddy you its you that make crap up and are now changing the arguments altogether.

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

    ?emerges from this point-counterpoint. {Wonkish1?s grammar has been corrected.}

    It’s fascinating to note the self-scoring [predictable] outcome, from Wonkish1: “So I?m up 2 to 0 right now Bob on just these 3 resolutions since you have de facto giving me them by changing your positions. Your changes have created one new resolution (in number 2) and I agreed with your change in 3 so that one isn?t up for contention. So I?m up 2 to 0 with 2 left.”

    Well, it seems that Wonkish1 AGREED with #3: ?If The Newt cannot explain the details of this conversion, the most ominous conclusions [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn.?

    Noting prior posts [during which this guy who knows all about The Newt claimed ignorance of the motivation for his flip-flop], it would seem that Wonkish1 has confirmed my concerns regarding the lack of credibility harbored presently by The Newt.

    [And, of course, as per the posts supra, I certainly would flip his "2-0" scoring my way.]

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

    I do not discount the importance of weighing the impact of such concerns as Community Rating [which was the focus of a spate of AMA resolutions almost 2 decades ago, which I scrutinized as a delegate to the hospital medical staff section...renamed the "Organized Medical Staff Section"], either as a physician or as a critic of BHO’s legal analysis; I certainly don’t condone intrusion of socialism into the insurance-rate calculations, in any of the three realms you isolated [plus myriad others].

    But you should please put-aside this obfuscation and focus on the Individual Mandate, please. The closest you came was your closer, which you requested that I critique: “a person could support an individual mandate (which he doesn?t anymore) and not support socialized health risk, socialized benefit options, and a government takeover of health insurers.”

    I honestly don’t know why The Newt now would rescind ObamaCare, for he has yet to rescind an offshoot thereof, government mandated posting of a “bond” [which is akin to the IRS penalizing the absence of a purchase of health insurance].

    So, please elucidate the forces at-play in this PARTICULAR regard!

  • wonkish1

    To “correct” someone’s grammar on a post you didn’t actually correct anything on(I’m referring to 2 not 3).

    No your not. Do you even get what this statement: “the most *ominous conclusions* [flip-flop, etc.] will necessarily be drawn” means?? Or are you not bright enough to even understand the statements you make?

    It is not the *foundation* of Newt’s overall approach to big government” I mean where do you get this stuff? I guess I’m to assume that since you’re multiple choice on abortion that is your “foundation” of being a baby killing Feminazi socialist? Because that’s the type of crappy arguments you make.

    He has fessed up. You either fail to acknowledge that or he hasn’t hit a standard of “fessing up” that your comfortable with. Well that’s your problem not anyone else’s.

    But in regards to your changed position before that essentially asked how will ever know for sure that a changed position is genuine that is true of every candidate and I completely agree. But there is no way to every fully know if a candidate is genuine in their beliefs on anything. All we can do is our best in assessing that for ourselves.

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

    Any alleged-changes are intended to integrate your input. Regardless of this unsubstantiated charge, my expressed-concern was not confronted. I already differentiated an “isolated” issue [Gardisil, for example] from a “pattern” of issues [The Newt's stance on the Individual Mandate].

    That is why his support for an Individual Mandate [in any form] is indicative ["symptomatic"] of his proclivity for imposing governmental “solutions” upon any problems that arise.

    Please confront this unsettling observation.

  • wonkish1

    I agreed with the change you made that is completely different from your original post. And that is that nobody can ever know for sure. That is not agreeing to your original number 3.

    Dr. Bob you have to lie and lie and lie to try to make it look like you have anything.

    The score is still 2-0 I’m up when you changed your resolutions!

  • wonkish1

    Because you seem intent on saying that one non conservative position equals the person isn’t conservative.

    Well apply that to yourself. If that is the case then are you or are you not a conservative since your “multiple choice on abortion”?

    The fact that you claim that the individual mandate = ObamaCare(and disregard everything in it) just shows that you are either A) An idiot or B) A Liar! or C) Both!

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

    …in that one cannot know what’s in the heart of a politician, but one can vet the credibility of his posture [and the clarity thereof] after having been informed regarding the circumstances under which it had been formulated.

    The Newt [and you] provided neither dataset, relegating allegations of his “conversion” to the “ash-heap of history.” [thus far]

    When you write he “fessed-up,” I request a hyperlink so that we can all discern what prompted such a concession..and what exactly the concession had been. Indeed, someone who ‘fesses-up will be able to recall vividly such data, eh?

  • wonkish1

    An isolated issue and a pattern by using Gardasil and the Individual mandate? I would like to see that because there is no way in hell you could get away with that argument.

    Bob you didn’t address my point that your two statements above are not the same. Please prove to me that they are.

    And it isn’t indicative of anything. Tell me please how past support of the individual mandate is “indicative” of his passage of Welfare Reform for example. Is seriously ending and curtailing welfare reform not a conservative position? Because your argument that his past support of the individual mandate shows that everything he’s done or said is liberal would have to confound to things he’s actually done before.

    So how is Welfare Reform Liberal Dr. Bob???

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

    You lose people such as “Scope” when you go ad-hominem; I do not “lie” when attempting to elucidate truths.

    I did not conclude “nobody can no for sure” as discussed supra; we need to know more about what prompted such a profound alteration of his oeuvre.

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

    we need to know ANYTHING about what prompted such a profound alteration of his oeuvre.

  • valrobex

    What am I? Chopped liver?

    Re: #7 – I responded to Wonkish’s comments several times. I guess your computer still isn’t working right ’cause it didn’t pick up on all the back and forth comments on on Wonkish’s posting.

    BTW I’m a Dr. Bob in real life too, but call me Valrobex,. …Just avoid the moniker Chopped Liver… :>)

  • wonkish1

    You agree that nobody can no for sure, but that you are going to hold people to a standard that you determine. Well who care’s what your standard is. It isn’t universal. Except that your soooo elitist that you think that it should be everybody’s standard.

    I mentioned to you before that it was brought up in the Hannity interview. He’s brought it up other times as well. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is your problem not mine.

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

    and don’t be off-putting; you demonstrate intellectual bankruptcy

    focus on THIS one posture and NO other, and confront yourself with reality.

    if you agree that this posture of The Newt is “not conservative” [regardless of whether this renders him not to be "conservative" generically, then it appears you conceded [in your own convoluted lingo] that The Newt has adopted a position that CAN be viewed as carrying negative implications regarding his overall governmental philosophy.

    most everyone concurs that “individual mandate = ObamaCare (and disregard everything in it)” because the mandated-financing is foundational; if I’m either/both an idiot/liar, that you have impugned most sentient Americans.

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

    Gardisil was an isolated decision which he rescinded [although no one got a shot, and the drug was safe, and there was an opt-out].

    The Individual Mandate was representative of a pattern of policies that he reinforced through American Solutions [and he has yet to clarify the origin of any regrets he now may harbor in this regard].

    apples/oranges

    please peel the orange, and don’t try to core the apple

  • wonkish1

    When its true its not an attack.

    I’m not calling you anything. I telling people what it that you’re doing and have been doing since the beginning of this “debate”.

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

    …how did he describe any of the circumstances that prompted him to flip-flop?

  • snowshooze

    That is a good roundhouse swing that connected.
    Done by an old dog. Don’t mess with an old hound, he knows all the tricks Really, done well.
    Ron Paul will not be the Nominee.

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

    …and recognize that The Newt has not come-clean

  • wonkish1

    I’m attacking you because I point out that nobody in their right would say that the individual mandate = ObamaCare and then you come back and say I “demonstrate intellectual bankruptcy”.

    Dr. Bob it is quite funny dealing with you because you seem to not really get the things you post.

    No I haven’t conceded that point actually on the contrary it is you that tries to change your “resolutions” to try to get somewhere and you still can’t.

    ****One previously held liberal position shows no predictability on any other positions***. And to say otherwise is beyond pathetic.

    And know most others don’t conclude ObamaCare = the individual mandate. They conclude that is the *illegal part* of ObamaCare. Everything else is still bad policy, but apparently you don’t think so.

  • wonkish1

    You just don’t think its sufficient for your own standards of what “coming clean” means.

  • valrobex

    No more bickering! It’s unbecoming from two of my RS heroes.

    I’m calling a time out!

    Now both of you, GO TO YOUR ROOMS! And don’t come out until you’re ready to behave….

  • Scope

    you and wonkish, plus his over the top post of someone who expressed his views/opinions of Gingrich, saying that he had gone over the top buddy, and PO’d him because of his opinions, and called BS on him for his opinions was what made me go off on wonkish last night. There can be no question that the wonk has his ideas firmly set, with his long years of studying the Newt, and anyone who defies those wonderous years of Newt, along with wonk’s opinion of them is to be called out. According to wonk, you cannot possibly disagree that the Newt was the greatest thing to happen to the Republican party for the last gazillion years. He was even put on notice for his fiery bashing of a very honest poster, that many agreed with.

    Dr. S. I implore you to drop the conversation now. It only exacerbates the conversation that has gone nowhere, yet only incites the wonk to continue his tirade of calling anyone but him dumb, stupid, and not deserving of his degree of intellectual capacity. Please drop it and let it alone. Sometimes these arguments are more destructive than they are helpful. Your posts have been very popular and educational. Let it go at that.

  • wonkish1

    If you want to expand this conversation to other policies I’m more than willing. I can produce a nice list here and you can say whether you are for them or against them and then we’ll see if there is a pattern or not. How about that, eh?

    And contrary to Perry, Newt never even tried to implement a bond based individual mandate it only existed as an idea. Perry tried to implement Gardasil into legislation.

    Furthermore, since you seem to want to bring in “other policies” reinforced through American Solutions are we to assume that you are conceding that a single bad policy(like Gardasil or the Individual Mandate) aren’t sufficient to show a pattern?

    Also thanks for demonstrating again that you lied. You said you had made this case before when in fact you didn’t.

  • wonkish1

    And I don’t think Newt is the greatest thing to happen to the Republican party.

    But he has done a lot for us, do you disagree with that?

  • wonkish1

    He said that it wouldn’t be something that libertarian minded people could accept and that he didn’t approach it from a legal standpoint(only a policy one).

  • wonkish1

    A while ago that he should stop this crap before he digs himself deeper.

    And to stop poking at me in his posts. He hasn’t. If he didn’t keep on bringing me back to this(after several times of which we went silent for 24 hours) than this would be over.

    So far he doesn’t want that.

  • wonkish1

    But we’ll see if he takes it.

    But if he doesn’t I’m not going to stop responding to him.

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

    i’ll focus on Huckabee’s show; the reader is invited to draw his/her own conclusions regarding the profound implications of the endorsement of the individual mandate by The Newt, notwithstanding to whatever degree he would rescind ObamaCare [plus the circumstances that prompted him to flip-flop], and the implications this carries regarding The Newt’s view of Big Government [as a statist/elitist].

  • wonkish1

    Extends to you stopping the pokes at me in unrelated posts like you did in regards to the diary I created at the top.

    Because if it doesn’t you and me know we’ll back into it within short order.

    And I’ll refrain from commenting on this last word you tried to sneak in here on something that has been dealt with at nauseum in my other posts.

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

    it’s a cease-fire, in recognition of your evasiveness…as per external input

    if these two individuals reflect the level of “education” provided, i was successful!

    keep smillin’! [and know the profound degree to which you have been "outed"]

  • snowshooze

    Just musing that he is the only one who has done anything containing a single drop of common sense with illegal immigrants he is saddled with by the federal government…That he charged out there with the Trans Texas Corridor idea… ( Point being he was out there selling what he thought would do a lot of good, he weren’t ascart to take a run at it ) and the inoculations, he pitched those in a way that covered everybody insured and forced nobody… again a loss ( Now another State has picked it up? ) So, I think he has been very pro-active.
    Yes… I do realize… we are talking about the task at hand.
    Well, one point, he still has a State to run.
    Unlike Romney and Gingrich who are men of leisure…
    Perry has a dang job.
    Somebody here recently stated that he should quit his day job and concentrate on getting elected. Well, I guess I will have to give him a ring and pass that on because there is a great deal of truth to it.
    First though… it is difficult to quit a project, and he has several in the works.
    Yes, I agree, he is doing too much to fully address either one.
    And to be fair to Texas, and those like myself who really want to know more about what he thinks and consider him a very good candidate…yeah. He needs to let go and bet the whole hand.
    In itself, that would be one major pro-active step which I believe would lend credence to his campaign, and then he could get out front more.
    Another issue, as you may recall, Sarah got her tail shot off because she didn’t know a danged thing about foreign policy.
    Rick has been studying hard, on that and other topics.
    Sarah’s idea of forign policy all had to do with dealing with the Federal Government. To us ( In Alaska ) that IS foreign policy.
    ( An old saying here…” We don’t give a damn how they do it outside! ” ( Alaska ))
    And why should she have Foreign policy? She was running a danged State. Those who liked her knew that if they liked her management style and her ideals, they trusted her to extend those ideals throughout her platform.
    I am not her fan. But using her as an example.
    So to avoid that one again…Rick has to cram.
    This is just my opinion of what I think he is doing, what he should be doing and I hope he is doing. Getting ready.
    .

  • wonkish1

    It would be obvious you got destroyed.

    I never evaded a single comment you made. You practically answered zero of my questions so stop projecting.

    And the fact that you got Scope doesn’t mean much she doesn’t like me. But I do remember JSob and valrobex taking a couple of swipes at you in other threads.

    So think what you want, but you start this back up again and I’m game.

  • nathanalbright

    …and it’s rather hard to win over people in a serious recession/depression if all they hear is insults. Someone needs to tell Newt that poor people whose poverty is the result of bad government policies and over-regulation are what is needed to knock down Obama, people who have been badly served by statism.

  • nathanalbright

    ….because of his incessant penchant for unclear reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and intellectual arrogance.

  • donald_24

    Gingrich was not just referring to poor kids. He specifically said “inner city schools” should use kids as janitors. I think we all know who Newt is referring to with the “inner city” reference.

  • donald_24

    Fun history lesson, but the individual mandate actually dates back to John Adams. An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, signed into law by John Adams, stated:

    Be it enacted, Sfc.That from and after the first day of September next, the master or ownerof every ship or vessel of the United States… , shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he ishereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

    That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sumscollected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the secretary of the treasury ; and thepresident of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporaryrelief and maintenance of sick, or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States… ,

  • wonkish1

    Why don’t you look at the top of the recommended diary list and see how well your Hinze rule worked on me! LOL!

  • snowshooze

    xox

  • acat

    That’s how I found it.

    Mew

  • hweila

    is vulnerable to not being able to put together a coherent sentence in a debate, something that is far, far more of liability that Gingrich’s position on an issue a decade and a half ago.

    The reality is the Republican plans rolled out in the early 90s to combat Clinton’s attempt to nationalize healthcare were a tactical move to kick up enough dust where nothing happened. And they succeeded. Had the Republicans allowed it to become a plain either/or choice between Clinton’s plan or doing nothing, odds are Clinton would have succeeded. By confusing the choice and making it between Clinton’s plan, some lesser change, or nothing, they made sure no side could reach a majority and nothing won by default.

    In the end, I’ll take someone whose 75% Conservative, but is capable of getting 50% of what Conservatives want into law, over someone who is 100% conservative, but who shows little promise of getting any significant conservative ideas into actual law.

  • hweila

    ..that he’s absolutely right about the underlying issue. There is a massive problem with a large number of urban youth (and in certain areas rural youth as well such as those in defunct mill towns throughout the southeast) where have no one around them that they can look and say “That’s what you have to do in order to be successful and gain wealth” other than drug dealers and athletes. They don’t know how to hold down a regular job because they’ve never seen anyone in their family do it and there are presently so few jobs available to youth of any sort, much less those living in impoverished areas that they don’t have the chance to learn how for themselves.

    The need to create jobs for those specific people is absolutely paramount unless you want to be paying taxes to support them in prison or things reaching the point where there are some many people in that position they use the federal government as cudgel to take your money for themselves. Finding a way to enable more people to pull themselves out of the trap is paramount to the long-term survival of Conservatism. If we fail to, we are assuring a permanent, large dependent class and the permanent liberal/progressive majority in government that accompanies it.

    The fact that Newt is actually talking about this issue which would otherwise be absent from the political radar is precisely why he would make a competent President. Even if the precise solution he’s suggested isn’t the best one possible, that’s fine. We’re electing a President, not a dictator. He doesn’t get to write the legislation. He does however get to use the leadership and visibility provided by the office to use the bully pulpit to get Congress working to solve the right problems, and that is something that I do believe that Gingrich can absolutely be trusted to do a good job of.

  • hweila

    Any candidate presently in the race who receives the Republican nomination could beat Obama. Period. It will certainly be an easier race with some than with others, but advancing this notion we have to wring our hands and hope we don’t pick exactly the perfect candidate or we’re dooooomed is absurd and accomplishes NOTHING.
    The primary is the time that we vote for the candidate we want to see as President. We may base that on any number of things, but at the end of the day we want the candidate that the greatest number of Republicans are the most enthusiastic about.

    Whichever candidate that is will ultimately stand the best chance of election, whereas if people vote for an “electable” candidate they have no enthusiasm for, that will be candidate that has the greatest uphill battle ahead of them in defeating Obama, because they will have the least number of hardcore supporters out there ready to do the hard work of campaigning for them.

    So support your candidate on the basis of why you think they will make the best President and oppose others on the basis of why you believe they would make a poorer one. But this electability canard needs to die a horrible flaming death.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    There are no facts in your comment, even though you suggest we focus on them.

    I’m tired of the bots, regardless whom they support. I’m not pro-Perry, nor am I pro-Newt. I’ll gladly vote for either.