« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

A Chorus of Scientologists Claim Jim Jones Runs A Cult

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2011 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney as Governor became the testing ground for gay marriage, which Romney revisionists would have you believe he fought more than he actually did, and socialized medicine, which Mitt Romney is still quite proud of.

The United States with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House saw welfare reformed and the budget balanced.

Mitt Romney once said he supported abortion rights because his mother did. His wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. As Governor he made numerous pro-abortion appointments. Newt Gingrich has always been solidly on the side of life.

While I might choose to look at that record and go with Gingrich, the fine folks at National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney with a blistering broadside about Newt Gingrich for being unelectable.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as “winnowing the field,” but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

As one of National Reviews online commenters notes:

 

So you eliminate all the southerners, all the evangelicals (and former ones), and the only midwesterner.

You eliminate all of Romney’s rivals who poll above the margin of error and leave only him and two guys who can’t crack the 2% barrier.

Then you present us with this three-card choice, casually placing the one you’re subtly “forcing” on everyone in the middle. But you’re not endorsing Romney.

If National Review wants to endorse or not endorse that’s fine by me, but trying to sell us Romney with a non-endorsement endorsement that makes Clinton’s non-denial denial about Lewinsky look honest is a bit much.

The fact is Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have huge vulnerabilities. The base is being asked to choose between two cults of personality, neither of which are actually very conservative. But for all of Gingrich’s mouthiness and new-age silliness, he got a federal budget balanced and welfare reformed while Mitt Romney was out at the same time shunning Ronald Reagan and funding Planned Parenthood.

I’ve got huge issues with both candidates and continue to scratch my head in amazement that the top two candidates are about as conservative as some members of the old Democratic Leadership Council. But — and being real honest here — while Gingrich has vulnerabilities as to style and substance, so does Mitt.

At a time when a majority of Americans regardless of party identification are contemptuous of Wall Street, Mitt Romney the vulture capitalist will be a caricature for everything that ails America. Scores of workers laid off in a Romney led restructuring of businesses will be on TV talking about the jobs he killed and the money he made. And just as Americans start to get tired of him, the media will decide we must have a full and public airing of what Mormons actually believe and their record on race relations. When the right screams about the media never doing the same with Jeremiah Wright, they’ll ignore us with the “old news” line.

It is amazing to me the GOP is headed where it is with a nominee. It is more amazing to me that so many Washington conservatives have hitched their wagon to the one guy who wholly does not fit the spirit of this election and whose governing legacy in Massachusetts is the state level equivalent of Barack Obama’s federal legacy. Hell, Obama is even using some of Mitt’s old appointees.

One thing is for sure today though. With Paul Ryan turning his back on his own plan it becomes harder to attack Newt Gingrich for his criticisms of the Ryan plan. With National Review going full on Team Mittens, suddenly the guy who was once Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is standing on the outside looking in at the establishment so many grassroots activists have already rejected.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    Gingrich appears to have a tough battle in the long run because he is too establishment for those of us (like myself) who want a real insurgent and apparently too much of an insurgent to those who want a safe choice. As such he may be ground between the upper and the nether millstone unless he can get some big moneybomb support or huge momentum from SC/FL. I feel a little bit of sympathy for him, honestly.

    But all of the negativity against Newt by Mittens may backfire spectacularly. It is my thought that this opens up room for one of the viable candidates (like *cough* Perry) to charge through after Newt and Romney take themselves out. Of course, there are plenty of other scenarios that could happen too.

  • MikeG

    about “anti-Mormon bias”, just because Erick has the audacity to point out a perfectly predictable line-of-attack by the MSM in the general election.

    In 3…2…1…

  • plf5403

    Ever since Rich Lowry, the current editor, took over at National Review, the magazine has consistently put party over principle and have always endorsed the RINO candidate for president. While not quite the “Lincoln Chafee” of GOP magazines…yet, you can detect an unmistakable squish toward the left, particularly when it comes to presidential endorsements. Or in this case non-endorsement endorsements. Reagan weeps in Heaven.

  • msbs05

    with this article. Romney has said he is a progressive. That is the worst statement anyone can make, especially now. Romney fought gun rights, supported Brady Bill against handguns, banned assault weapons, put restrictions and huge fees on buying guns for legal citizens. He donated to Planned Parenthood (I don’t know anyone so into abortions they would actually donate to an abortion clinic), would never fight to ban even late term abortions. His plan for the economy is so long-winded and confusing (60 something points, wth?) that no one will understand it in the general election. His record in the private sector is less than stellar, almost to the point of embarrassment, and will play exactly into the hands of OWS types on the left. He is not likeable, seems thinned-skin when gets asked tough questions (just like Obama). He invented Obamacare for MA, raised taxes there, increased debt. I cannot tell the difference in him and Obama. Why the establishment is slapping conservatives in the face with this candidate is beyond me. Establishment is always more concerned with picking a candidate the left likes over one the conservatives like. They expect us to vote for anyone they pick & just worry about wooing moderates. Well, Romney is too far left for even the moderates and Newt is a much better choice. I wanted Perry, but I do not see that working so I am going to Newt. He has balanced a budget & paid down the debt (hasn’t happened since). He has evolved as all we conservatives have since Obama came in, but he has a record of being conservative when many of us were not. He is electable and can debate Obama with ease. He is tough enough not to let Obama lie during the campaign like McCain did. Romney refused to even answer when asked if Obama was a socialist. Newt clearly stated he was. Newt will fight for conservatives, while Romney will apologize for us. I want a choice this time. I want Newt.

  • sowa1

    a Progressive. As far as Romney’s religion, drop it. Presidents should not be picked or not picked because of religion. Claiming Romney and his family belong to a cult because they are Mormon is rediculous. I like some of what Newt says, but without the House and Senate he will not beable to do anything. Thank God, Obama was stopped in 2010.

  • The_Gadfly

    I use to make sure I renewed my subscription every year regardless of how tight my own funds were. But after Buckley died I noticed it was starting to trend away from paleo- and traditional conservatism with a sprinkling of neocon to pure libertarianism. Despite that they’ve still managed to endorse a fair number of RINOs who were the establishment selections for elections.

    Yes, there are problems with Newt. One of these days I might get around to posting a blog with my thoughts about Newt and his alleged erratic and/or progressive behavior. But for all his issues, Romney is worse. The only people who don’t understand Romney is has been in “stick a fork in him” territory since before the primaries started are the establishment, and the LSM who are hangers-on to the establishment. It was enough to keep his poll numbers up, but with Newt finally putting an end to that meme, I expect one last reshuffle as people in Iowa consider their options. Perry and Bachman, possibly Huntsman will get another chance. But they will have to be ready to seize it and work hard on it.

    Oh, the thing which pushed me over the edge with NR? A renewal ad that urged “Don’t THINK about it, just Do IT!” I realize that the marketing and editorial departments frequently have nothing to do with one another, but somebody should have recognized that as too liberal an attitude to use in soliciting a subscription for a magazine that claims to be the bedrock of conservative thought.

  • jgfl

    “vulture capitalist” Since when did Red State become the official website for OWS ????? I guess now we know why they call it RED state

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

    You people just don’t give up.

  • davesinsanantonio

    If it offends you that much, why are you still here???

  • circlegranch

    its no longer the bellweather journal for conservatism. This non-endorsement endorsement is another day when the music died. Buckley’s son is a far cry from his elder.

    The Washington Examiner kinda supports Mitt, too, as of yesterday. Still, go there and read a rather decent article about Rick Perry talking about his military service.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/12/perr-links-himself-military-cites-record/200569/#discus_thread

    Americans, will we allow the media and the brainiacs in the Beltway to pick our nominee again? Wake up. It’s happening; they are trying their darnest to pull it off. It’s up to us. We can use our God-given intuitions and common sense and beat back this onslaught coming where the RNC and pundits outsmart us again. Or, we can do what they are betting on, which is we can get disgusted and weary and just throw up our hands and let them drive the bus again.

    Are we going to hold the line and make sure we get the best possible opponent for Obama and the best conservative and moral leader for America? As the aforementioned article in the Examiner points out, only Perry and Paul are veterans in this race. If neither of them get the nomination, for the first time, both candidates (Obama and the other guy on our side) will neither have any military experience. On one hand, there’s Obama that called Iraq a ‘dumb war’ back in the day but yesterday claimed the glory for the end result Wow.

  • renl57

    “Scores of workers laid off in a Romney led restructuring of businesses will be on TV talking about the jobs he killed and the money he made. ”

    You don’t get it.
    That line worked for Ted Kennedy in MA.
    But Obama doesn’t want to raise the jobs issue–because it instantly reflects badly on his track record.

    In 1994, Ted Kennedy used that issue against Romney effectively because as a senator, Ted Kennedy lobbied Congress to get defense contracts for MA, which meant defense jobs for MA, and to keep Hanscom AFB open for business, saving jobs. So when it came to jobs for MA, Kennedy had a decent track record to run on.

    Whereas Obama can’t attack Romney for job losses when his own unemployment record is worse by several orders of magnitude. All Romney has to do is point to all the Americans who lost THEIR jobs under Obama, and that issue will instantly backfire on Obama.

    Now let’s see what Obama will talk about if Gingrich is the nominee:

    Gloria Allred will have women coming forward on practically a weekly basis to accuse Gingrich of affairs or of cheating on them when they were his girlfriends. It will be like the Cain scandals on steroids. And those scandals wrecked the Cain candidacy.

    All those ethics problems that Gingrich allegedly had will be leaked to the New York Times. There will be a steady drip-drip-drip of “revelations” about Gingrich’s ethics accusations and alleged violations.

    There will be half a dozen snarky TV ads that if the GOP had to depose Gingrich from the Speakership, why should anyone else trust him.

    After that treatment, Gingrich will lose the female vote by a wide margin. And that will be decisive.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    This is the worst field of candidates I’ve seen in a long time. Look at our front runners!! Neither one is a conservative!! The GOP stopped being a conservative party decades ago. They were none to thrilled about nominating Reagan even.

    The Tea Party needs to set up it’s own recruiting organization to scout out good candidates and convinced them to run for office. If not we are left with what the GOP Recruiting committee drags in every time. And the means McCain, Romney, Bush, etc. on into infinity.

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

    Save him the heartache and all that.

  • mhgoldwing1

    and that’s the role I see Newt playing. Is he the perfect candidate? NO. Can he be Obama? Maybe. But he does understand exactly how DC works and how to get things done.

    My hope is that if Newt is the GOP choice and wins, is that the real conservatives in Congress will help guide him and keep him between the fences. If they do that, Newt is strong enough to open a can of Whoop A%% on the MSM and Dems and cause real change in Washington.

    I’m hearing more people mention a re-look and Ron Paul. Great. He just announced that he hopes the primary is short because he doesn’t know if he’s up to a long, drawn out campaign. REALLY! What do you think four years in the White House is going to be like? Now a zero in my book.

    Bottom line is I can’t believe the current crop of candidates is the best we could come up with. Reality is though this is what we have to choose from. And I’m still working on that one.

  • tailfins1959

    We still get some entertainment. It might have been fun to have given him some more rope.

  • spainishirish

    Ten words I never intended to type.

  • tailfins1959

    Limbaugh said Paul was the only one in the field that could not beat Obama.

  • gunslingr45

    stuck us with McCain, don’t let them do it again with a choice like Mitt or Newt. Rick or Michelle are our best choices by far.
    And speaking of choices (I mention it because you did not) Newt had a choice to be PRO 2nd amendment, and choose not too. He loves gun control and I am not talking about stance or grip!

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

  • gunslingr45

    but I have no use in the world for turncoats. And he turned on his employer Oblumber.

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

  • gunslingr45

    Rush is right!

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

  • dianabug

    NickDeringer – there is a group called Get Out Of Our House – pronounced GO – that is working to do just that – they are working to get candidates in all races in the country to replace those who are there. Check them out.

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

    Last person who came here to promote that site got banned. Do it again and I’ll toss you, AND edit out every mention so you won’t even get exposure.

    Are we clear?

  • red_oakster

    In a way, Romney is lucky the first state is a caucus where Newt’s limited organization could hurt him. In the primary states, Gingrich can ride with free media while Romney labors under a solid brick ceiling.

    If nothing were to change in the horse race, Newt will win both Florida and South Carolina and Romney will look like, well, George Romney. Who’da thunk? Romney is the new Romney.

  • septembergurl

    The Establishment in full panic mode is not a pretty sight.

    Still, at least Huntsman and Santorum are conservatives, which is more than you can say for Romney. What is the animus toward Perry and bachmann about? Bachmann was on the cover of NR not too long ago, she is the most conservative in the field.

    In 2008 NR supported Romney as did many conservative pundits, but at least others have realized their mistake, not so NR.

    By the way, a slight correction on Huntsman’s polling. He is currently third in NH, ahead of Paul, and in several national polls runs at about 5%, ahead of Santorum.

    I know. “Ahead of Santorum” is not where one would want to be at this point. But it is movement, however glacial.

  • celador2

    This groveling RS lead op-ed is disgusting.First thing in the morning its hard to take. Gingrich fans makes me sick. Newt Gingrich never backed life, never. Well, Not as much as he backed global warming.

    He never helped do anything on balanced budget someone did not do first. He saw the conservatives as rivals and still does. His soul mates were and are Obey and Pelosi and Clintons. Newt obstructs and does not give conservatives credit where it is due as a result.

    Newt is no advocate for life.For proper attribution I cite: Of the ones running for president my hat is off to Senator Santorum who inspired the pro life movement from the moment he arrived in Jan 1995.

    Rick Santorum in Senate put a face on banning partial birth abortion and turned the tide of public opinion. His work on TV stands out today in my mind. His charts and eloquence on Senate floor rank as keynotes for that chamber imo.

    Newt backs every exception to life there is. Also, Newt went on TV and said his marriage was a contract with Christ. He lied. How low or blasphmous can he get?

    I know Fox news and Hannity especially adore Newt Gingrich but I find him still one of the most disgusting obnoxious hot air bags selling snake oil I have ever seen.

    Newt will redefine the GOP if the president and that may be a good thing. He will drive the rest of us out!

    Honoroable people of faith and conservatives may be driven out and forced to regroup. Reform the Republican party as Free soilers did 1854 when they broke with Whigs and founded the modern Republican party in Wisconsin an abolishionist state. Form a party fit for republican (small r) virtues and values.

    For all practical purposes such a party would have nothing to do with Gingrich and his ideas of personal and professional conduct.

    Newt could run the big ideas Republican party.

  • Paul_Zummo

    2008 was much, much worse. Look at this way: in 2008, Romney was the last, best hope for conservatives – now he’s at best the fifth or sixth choice. Sure all of the candidates are flawed, but not fatally so.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    What’s old is new again. Of course, given Gingrich’s cash/organizational liabilities he could easily be this cycle’s version of Huckabee. Who would have thought that going into 2012. This is going to be a wacky primary, however it works out. Mittens might even call it zany.

  • Kyle-MI

    In the 2008 primary, NR pushed Romney over McCain (the establishment candidate back then). They pushed Toomey over Specter in the PA primary. They have supported GOP candidates in the general election, but then so does Redstate.

  • romeg

    Is going to have to do a piece of Newt. I have a working title for you:

    A Tale of Two Newts

    I’d like to know more about the Progressive Big Government Newt as well as the Bomb Throwing Ultra-Conservative Newt.

    It should make for an interesting read.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The Constitution Party. They have notable supporters such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. It’s my guess though that you never learned to play with others in Kindergarten and it’s haunted you your entire life. So, feel free to go join the anti-semetic isolationists over there, but I wouldn’t expect you to survive long around here if you keep promoting 3rd party ideas.

  • bfelger

    “Newt Gingrich never backed life, never. Well, Not as much as he backed global warming.”

    Please cite examples in his legislative record to back up your ridiculous assertion.

    I can tell you that you are lying about Newt not backing life, or you are simply ignorant. Newt twice to to ban partial-birth abortions, supported the Istook amendment to allow states to reject abortion funding, and has stated repeatedly that abortion should be illegal.

    Now, please link me to information about what he has done to promote AGW agenda other than sitting on a couch with Pelosi.

  • bfelger

    *voted twice to

  • dpmapper

    He’s now hit 4-5% in 3 straight polls with just about zero campaigning in the state. Just sayin’.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

  • dpmapper

    He’s now hit 4-5% in 3 straight polls with just about zero campaigning in the state (and being anti-ethanol). Just sayin’.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

  • streiff

    if that was the case they’d never consider supporting a guy like Romney who is so unpopular in the party.

    They are all about being cool and popular. Principle doesn’t even enter into the picture.

  • streiff

    1996? I don’t think so.

  • sethellis

    It seems to me that since ows is so anti capitalist that we should shrink away from that fight in the general. This just seems entirely uncharacteristic of conservatives. If liberals want to run against capitalism, then we should find the best champion of capitalism we can find. Right now that’s Romney.

    I also reject the notion that this makes Mitt less electable than Newt. Americans have already rejected OWS. I think partisian politicians for hire is a message that will reverberate more among Americans, and Newt Gingrich its the poster child of that. Combine that with his bombastic personality, and we see why the establishment is worried that the election would become about Newt instead of Obama.

  • flguy

    Aye, and which Newt is running right now? With all of these debates, it should be pretty easy to put together a type-written montage of his stated positions on the major issues. His past statements could also be put along with them, to check for changes in positions and inconsistencies. One nice thing about having so many debates is that it puts the candidates on record about almost any and every issue out there, and they can be held accountable.

    So in the story of two Newts, which one is the candidate Newt of today? Good question.

  • kipling

    I ended my subscription years ago.

    Their endorsement / non-endorsement of Mitt has all the deftness of junior high.

  • spolson

    While I sit amazed at the skill Gingrich has at debating and speaking I am bothered by the fact that our problem in chief was elected by the smooth talking he used to win over the country. History is replete with leaders who talked their way into power only to savage their country and the world. Look instead at what they have done. That eliminates Romney and Gingrich. It does leave Rick Perry who may stumble with a speech or debate but leads the state with the best employment and economy in the country. I dream that Sarah Palin jumps in at the last minute and becomes part of the team that leads us out of this liberal poverty for all path we are on now. First candidate with the balls to say Obama is evil and trying to destroy this country on purpose wins my vote. Nothing else makes sense.

  • tailfins1959

    It seems like a pretty boring site. Why the hard-core reaction?

  • AceInTX

    What does Scientologists and Jim Jones have to do with Romney?

    Not being a smart aleck or baiting you at all…I just don’t get it

  • westcoastpatriette

    Even thought the wrong title was put on this diary.

    But I think Erick, in essence, is calling both sides–National Review and their rationalization for supporting Romney coupled with their attacks on Newt comparable to a cult calling another cult insane.

    Kinda convoluted but that is what I think it means.

  • AndrewHyman

    This is the only part that I want to address, due to time constraints:

    And just as Americans start to get tired of him, the media will decide we must have a full and public airing of what Mormons actually believe and their record on race relations. When the right screams about the media never doing the same with Jeremiah Wright, they?ll ignore us with the ?old news? line.

    The media could do a lot of things. They could discuss the role of New Gingrich’s religion during World War II in opposing or not opposing fascism, or that religion’s recent troubles with pedophilia. Shall we quiver in fear that the media might do that to Gingrich, or might it be better and braver for us to say that the media would only hurt itself by sinking so low?

    Comparing Romney’s religion’s stance on race relations to Obama’s pastor’s stances doesn’t seem fair. Romney’s father was a great supporter of civil rights, and nothing suggests that the son feels any differently about it. Mitt Romney has not chosen to attend any sermons that denounce America or black Americans. My understanding is that the LDS Church ended its racist policies before Mitt Romney reached adulthood. Suggesting that Redstate might withhold support from Romney because of what others did during his childhood sounds a lot like saying that Haley Barbour should be stigmatized because of what Mississippi did.

    There are a lot of legitimate concerns expressed in this blog post. Better to stick with them instead of suggesting that we should cower in the face of religious bigotry. IMHO. As for what the Mormon Church currently preaches, its fanciful stories seem no less extravagant than those of most organized religions. Cheers.

  • Finrod

    I was saying exactly the same thing back in June:

    http://www.redstate.com/finrod/2011/06/28/the-myth-of-unelectability/

  • Finrod

    .

  • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

    I served in the military under Obama. Does that make me a turncoat for wanting my former Commander in Chief voted out of office?

  • parkfairfax

    That is permissible to me. I have no problem with him taking a job as an ambassador. Had he served in the cabinet or anything to do with domestic policy, then it would be a different story.

    If you worked “for” Obama, wouldn’t that make you want to turn on him?

  • trickamsterdam

    it is that there will be a brokered convention), that Rick Santorum is found to be an unacceptable candidate by 62% of Republicans (tied w/ Ron Paul). So clearly he can’t turn that kind of number around.

    And the R Base will never forgive Huntsman for mocking them on national TV over their lack of belief in science (over climate change and evolution). It was all the worst stereotypes about conservatives, and I think it not only doomed him for this election cycle, but all cycles for the foreseeable future.

    There are also reasons both men are not electable in the general election (e.g., Huntman’s incompetence as a politician, Santorum’s views and incompetence as a politician), but since it’s clear neither will be the nominee, there’s really no reason to go into it, in depth.

  • Ann_W

    Yet addresses Mitt’s faith in the text. I think it was a word association test for Erik, and this is what we got. I like this site better when it’s judging people on the content of their character.

  • origami

    It’s not that the frontrunners are to liberal. It’s that they’re clearly dishonest people. The more honest candidates have the unfortunate quality of being incompetent. Perry has the money, but he can’t seem to stop embarrassing himself. Bachmann attacked the concept of VACCINATIONS, but wants to be the one who reforms Healthcare, and don’t get me started on Cain. All that leaves is Santorum and Huntsman (Who I’m planning on voting for… but it’s looking like it might be a pointless one).

    I can hold my nose and vote for moderate. But I’m not holding my nose and voting for DISHONEST. The Republicans don’t just get to assume I’m voting for them every election if this is the field they put forward.

  • romeg

    Has far less to do with his oratorical and rhetorical gifts than it does with the utter lack of an attractive alternative. The only candidate that we have offered in opposition to Democrats that was WORSE than John McCain was Bob Dole, a man I like and even admire, but who was a dismal choice as our nominee.

    As Obama himself said to Steve Croft “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.”

    In 2008, the voters compared the Obama they knew to the alternative, John McCain, that they knew far better and, unfortunately, chose glibness, glitz and glamor, driven in no small part by White guilt, over the uninspiring John McCain and elected the second worst person in the history of the Republic (the worst being Warren G. Harding) to the office of POTUS.

    It is unlikely that the majority of those ‘independent’ voters, those who have no core beliefs and even less of an understanding of the consequences of their actions, will make that same mistake again.

    Our greatest worry is that our voters will choose to sit by and let someone else choose the next president and we get stuck with this commie idiot for another 4 years. One way to ensure that too many of our voters sit this one out is the slash and burn tactics being employed by Romney et al in their desperate efforts to avoid losing in the early primaries.

    They seem to be saying that since we can’t win on the merits of OUR candidacy and our ideas then see how many you can dissuade from participating altogether and hope that enough of our crowd shows up and supports us in the primary and to hell with the general. This is a very bad approach to winning in the primaries. The other Republicans are NOT the enemy; Obama is the enemy. Save the vitriol for the general election instead of handing the real enemies an arsenal of weapons to use against the eventual winner.

    At least one of the lesser candidates (in terms of their standings in the polls) is making a mistake by piling on to Newt. If he’s the nominee, he’ll be looking for a running mate and he’s likely to remember how he’s being treated at this stage. Newt’s no Ronald Reagan in terms of his magnanimity. Reagan forgave GHWB for his “Voo Doo Economics” rap and gave him the opportunity to occupy the WH for 8 years. I don’t expect that from Newt.

  • jeffperren

    “after Buckley died I noticed it was starting to trend away from paleo- and traditional conservatism with a sprinkling of neocon to pure libertarianism.”

    Huh? I’ve formed a fine contempt for the Progressive-friendly folks at NRO but I can’t see how anything the editors (or the majority of frequent posters) has said in the past three years as remotely libertarian…

    Can you provide some examples, or a brief explanation, of what you mean?

    This isn’t an attack; I’m genuinely curious.

  • JSobieski

    He was the first mainstream conservative I heard of to challenge the drug war—at least with respect to drugs like marijuana.

    Aside from that, I don’t see it either.

  • gunsrus

    that any of the$e endor$ment$ could be for $ale do you.
    Remember how poor the Gingrich camp i$.

  • gunsrus

    that Reagan had the Democrats wouldn’t be muddying up the GOP as well as they have.

  • acat

    he wouldn’t have been forced out of D.C. in the first place.

    Mew

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

    Don’t like it? Tough.

  • tailfins1959

    Conservatives are getting as mean as the left. We need more Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson and less Michele Bachmann and Mark Levin. I used to like Mark Levin; now I realize it’s just adding to the coarsening of our society: How sad!

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

    nt

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

    GIngrich is a true, movement conservative, end of story.

    However, like all people he is flawed. He sometimes pursues his big ideas about things that he has not yet studied in depth, and he often spouts every half formed thought as it springs into his head.

    Now, on the matter of personal finances, on that area there may be real reason to complain, but please, let us not say that he is not conservative. Because if so, then most of the republicans now serving in congress are to the left of him.

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

    I said complaints to the contact page. If you continue to threadjack I will ban you.

    Don’t like that? Take it to the contact page.

    Or you can go make your own website and whine about how mean I was to you.

    I don’t care. Just don’t comment about it in this thread anymore.

  • jeffperren

    Not trying to start a war, just curious…

    Why do you rank Harding (who helped ease the 1920-1921 depression through wise policy choices) the worst?

    Over Wilson? (FTC, Progressive Income Tax, Federal Reserve) Over Hoover (Reconstruction Financing Corp, Smoot-Halwey, Income tax over 60%) Over FDR? (SS, NRA, Progressive court appts), Over Nixon? (EPA, Wage and Price controls).

    He’s got a lot of serious competition.