« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Not Romney

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 7th, 2012 at 12:58 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In an RedState exclusive, we’ve obtained a copy of the latest salvo in the GOP 2012 Presidential primary — “Not Romney“.

The Gingrich campaign is leading the way, staying true to Newt Gingrich’s view of an alliance shaping up. I hear other campaigns and possibly some outside groups will join in.

But this is the first salvo, a flier to be released by the Gingrich campaign and an accompanying website.

Not Romney

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • constitutional

    It’s dead.

  • macbookben

    …release a flier that has side-by-side pictures of Romney and Obama. Underneath pictures put in a matching items quiz, “which candidate said it?” Then list all those liberal policies where they share(d) agreement (abortion, mandated health insurance, global warming, etc.)…well, you get the point.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    once the ads start to run in the others states, if Republicans were so willing to abandon him when they got to see his record, then why should we think the independents are going to react more favorable. Why would we think that the center in this country is going to look at that record and go, hey the baggage is in the past? I still cannot see Newt beating Obama; he has too large of a baggage pile.

    Santorum and Newt are both guilty of Big Government, in fact Newt used to look down on conservatives, he would often call us “those conservatives” when his own caucus members would not help him, when they wanted to stay true to their campaign promises.

    Right now if Allen West was to start voting for more spending, we would me angry, and if he would call other members in the house who voted against spending by the name of “those conservatives” I would deduct that many small government conservatives would feel betrayed.

    Back when Joe Scarborough was still a conservative, he and the first term conservatives voted against spending, but if Newt had his way that would not have happened, he called for more spending in order to rebuild the Republican brand into something that reached into the lower income voters. The only way that was going to happen they thought was more spending, that was the way Newt thought back then. It is only since the Tea Party and Obama has these 1990′s Big Government Republican started coming to the current way of thinking.

    Santorum was and still is convinced because it is congresses job to spend that over spending is fine, that he did nothing wrong because it was his job. Well Nancy Pelosi feels the same way. Newt takes credit for the balanced budgets and gives Clinton some as well, but there were people who really forced the balanced budget to happen, and both Newt and Clinton came at them hard for it.

  • constitutional

    They must be actively working on it.

  • kamiller42

    n/t

  • goodgovernance

    This poster is pure, distilled, truth! Drink it up, Romney! Drink. It. Up!

  • kamiller42

    I don’t approve of this message. If it redirected to Perry’s, then I would. :)

  • jakeofalltrades

    noseplugs on standby just in case.

    Acat is more than welcome to illustrate.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Though I haven’t done the research, and this meme sounds like a pie-in-the-sky fantasy to me.

  • jakeofalltrades

    The DayQuil is in my brain I tell you…

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

    We are ALL “not Romney” … finally something we can all agree on.

    Now, all we need is “GENERIC REPUBLICAN” to jump in, sweep the field and defeat Obama.

  • http://www.mont-sterreport.com The MonT-SteR

    www.notromney.org redirects to http://www.newt.org/notromney

  • parkfairfax

    The best case against Romney is the facts. By comparing to Obama, you hit the perfect spot.

  • parkfairfax

    I see proof above.

  • dforston

    Check this out…

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/06/new-anti-romney-video-attacks-bain-capital-work.html

    It’s gonna harsh Romney’s mellow.

  • usedtobelib

    monthy “games group,” 7 women who get together for a pot luck, eat and drink, chatter away about little things and about big things, play an assortment of competitive games. Five of us are fairly recently retired high school teachers. Another is a year or two from retirement while one is a just -retired manager of a school cafeteria. All except me are registered Dems.

    The cafeteria manager, my best friend, has never voted for a non-Democrat in an election for high office. She hates Obama, but said, “I can’t vote for the guy with the silver hair….Gingrich… or that really hard-ass young guy. I saw him in the debates and he’s living in another time. No way in hell I’d vote for that guy who’s just another George Bush. I’ll vote for Romney, though.” (The reference to Perry brought laughter and vigorous nods from the others.)

    The two most liberal love Obama, would never vote for any other (unless Hilary entered the picture.)

    The fourth, the math teacher, said, “If it comes down to Obama and Romney, as it stands now, I”ll vote Romney because Obama’s team doesn’t know what they’re doing, but I can’t vote for any of the other Republicans.

    The fifth is an economics major. “I can vote Romney; Obama just hasn’t produced. I can’t stand Gingrich or Santorum.” (She went on to discuss Gingrich’s years as Speaker.)

    The sixth is not hot for Obama but she is so emotionally tied to her Dem roots and Mexican heritage that she’ll never vote for a Republican.

    As we are Californians, it’s hard to know just how representative or non-representative we are of the rest of the country.

    Food for thought….

  • gwashington2012

    Erick of Red State: Erick is looking more foolish each week from he writes by sounding like a tea party robot. Real tea party people are wiser and want smaller govt, less reg, cutting spending…so does Romney and he has proved that over many years. Erick is swerving off the tea party reservation with emotion and not common sense. Come on Erick, grow up and see the bigger picture…Romney the outsider is the best one to lead us to small govt, less reg, cutting spending…don’t let the social issues blind you to the bigger problem. If we don’t let Romney turn the Fed Govt around, none of the social issues will matter if we loose our freedom the statists like Obama/Dems. Don’t throw the baby (freedom) out with the bathwater (emotional, petty angst against Romney).

    Romney: I was the governor of all the citizens of Mass.—republican, liberal and conservative and got the state out of debt. I had to work with a legislature that was 85% democrat and still got the state out of debt. I was creative in dealing with healthcare but was out voted by the 85% democrats who changed much of my healthcare plan. My state health care plan addressed a Mass problem of people getting free healthcare funded by the middle class taxpayers. It was not a plan for whole nation. It’s not my fault the democrats wanted to copy a state plan and forced it upon American in the middle of night and with legislative dirty tricks. I have learned and studied and changed my opinion on things like Choice over my lifetime and become wiser for it, just like Reagan did.

    Reagan: I was a union leader before I was governor. I was democrat before I was the idol of conservatism.

    Gingrich:
    I’m going to be nice and then I’ll attack fellow republicans like Romney. I liked doing commercials with Pelosi before, now I don’t think it was a good idea. I think Ryan’s plan is Marxist, now I don’t, etc., etc.

    Santorum: I have no problem with gays, but I just don’t like their habits, I liked ear-marks before but now I don’t want to be seen as a spender.
    I believe in small government but I vote for big government policies.

    Obama: I’ll give you hope and change, but I’ll implement socialist policies, I’ve been to 57 States but there are 50,

  • jakeofalltrades

    I can distinguish San Diegans from Santeeans from L.A. and Fresno and Frisco. And they are completely different from Florida Crackers and Palm Beachers and Miami and Central/South Floridians. Northeast Tennessee is different from Middle and West and Southeast. Austin isn’t even part of Texas.

    We really just have to run it through the primary process and see, because this country is a quilt of a million different patches.

  • gwashington2012

    Who would want on your wealth mgt team? Romney (made millions and created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans) or Gingrich or Santorum?

  • gwashington2012

    Who would you want on your family’s wealth / prosperity mgt team?

    Romney (who made millions and created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans) or government beltway guys like Gingrich or Santorum?

  • gwashington2012

    Who would want on your family’s wealth / prosperity mgt team? Someone focusing on opportunity and prosperity (ROMNEY) or more government solutions (NEWT, RICK, OBAMA)?

    Romney (who made millions and created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans) or government beltway guys like Gingrich or Santorum?

  • goodgovernance

    cannot be taken as representative of the country as a whole (and this goes for everybody – you, me, the guy behind the tree) because the country has a whole lot of people you would never associate with, by choice or happenstance.

    It’s like when the wealthy East Coast iberal elitist heard Richard Nixon won re-election many years ago… she was appalled and said, “How could he have won? I don’t know a single person who voted for him!”

    We’ve all got the same problem, to a greater or lesser degree. That’s why they do polls.

  • goodgovernance

    it sure looks like Romney has a lot more to explain than Reagan, Gingrich, or Santorum!

  • captkirc

    What’s really maddening about the Republican Primary is that virtually no advertising dollars have been spent by anyone to attack Romney’s record in primary states yet Romney’s (and to a lesser extent Ron Paul’s) SuperPacs/Campaigns have relentlessly attacked Romney’s competition. One of the reason Romney has momentum that may soon be unstoppable is that no advertising targets him (the other candidates all pick off each other) while strategically his SuperPac attack whomever “they” perceive to be his biggest threat. As a result, his numbers continue to climb without any kind of meaningful battle testing whatsoever. The primary electorate, unaware of this dynamic, collectively start to believe Romney does well because he is a good candidate, oblivious to the fact that he has gotten a complete and utter free pass. While all the other non-Romney’s fight to be THE “non-Romney”, Mitt Romney sits back and continues to build a completely undeserved aura of inevitability. Once he is the nominee however, The Democrats will rain down the fires of hell and an untested Mitt Romney will crumble having never faced a meaningful punch in the primary. No matter which candidate you support, it is critical to the Republican’s electoral chances in November that Romney not breeze to the nomination, but unfortunately that is where we are headed. Maybe Newt’s idea of collaboration, as self-serving as it may seem, is worthy of consideration if for no other reason that it ensures that the ultimate nominee of the Republican party will be vetted and prepared for what is to come in the general election.

  • Adjoran

    It’s amazing how so many older conservatives have conveniently forgotten that it was House conservatives who forced Newt out as Speaker, his antics having become too embarrassing and counterproductive.

    Some people think guys like Gingrich and Santorum who, when they left Congress, did NOT go back to their home states, but bought houses in Northern Virginia to stay near the center of federal power – which they now consider their new homes, are NOT “establishment politicians,” of all things. Some even claim they were outsiders!

  • usedtobelib

    with that. I think it’ll still come down to economic numbers around the two months before the election. If people spot a trend, they’ll stick with Obama, which is, of course, a mistake.

  • Adjoran

    His own attacks are quite debatable, though.

    Back to good ol’ mean, nasty Newt – the one we knew so well and threw out of office (the House Republican Caucus conservatives did it, refusing to support him for Speaker any more).

    I’m not forgetting how he talked about conservatives who supported Doug Hoffman in NY-23. It was uncalled for – and then Dede endorsed the Democrat Owens, that shut Newt up at last.

    Cap ‘n’ trade, any “green” boondoggle, global warming – Gingrich has been wanting to suck up the enviro-wackos for years.

    Don’t let him stab us in the back once again.

  • goodgovernance

    Effective governor, sound conservative values, impressive intellect and a strong sense of duty. I know where he stands.

    I have to say, I’ve been a little skeptical of Gingrich all along, but I love this poster. It’s a stark, clear expression of all the reasons I’m not for Romney. It’s like seeing the Declaration of Independence posted on the church door for the first time… such a relief to see someone finally take a swing at him.

    If Romney survives what comes, though, it will make him a stronger candidate for the general, so all of this is ultimately for the good of the party.

  • nuclear139

    nt

  • nuclear139

    Mitt as the ads says is no conservative and if you want to know his true jobs record look at his state Mass.

  • nuclear139

    Romney does have a lot to explain and have to convince the 70% of Republicans about where he found his new conservatism.

  • captkirc

    Because the sniping amongst the various non-Romney factions is enabling exactly that. Reader’s on Redstate follow politics enough to make an informed decision about the various candidates. Most voters however are influenced a great deal by commercials. If Romney can attack whomever ever he wants in the primary states but never is on the receiving end, of course his numbers are going to rise. The dynamic that is playing out of every single candidate attacking each other while no one attacks Romney is painting a false picture of strength for Romney in the early primary states. This strategy of pairing the field down to 2 will fail because by the time that happens Romney will have secured a healthy majority of primary voters.

    As to Newt attacking Romney, Boo-frickin-hoo. I’m glad somebody is finally getting Romney’s record out to the voters. Newt may not have the money Romney does, but he has a media willing to publish his remarks (possibly at the cost of Newt having any chance of receiving the nominee). And I’ll ask you the same question you asked me, what has Newt said about Romney that has been untrue? Is it cool for Romney and his SuperPacs to deluge the airways with negatives ads, but some great crime that Newt return the favor. Romney still comes out way ahead in that exchange anyway since he gets the benefit of the negative ads without having to put his name on it.

    I’m not a shill for Newt. I’ve decided to support Governor Huntsman and pray he can get some traction in NH. I am however not a fan of Romney. I made that judgment based on his record and his words and I hope that other voters can learn about them as well during the primary because you better believe they will in the general.

  • circlegranch

    per the post I put up last night. www.thegatewaypundit.com shows the nice color flier going out to Iowans before the caucus that supports Romney and Santorum. If its reducing the size of govt, jobs and balancing our budget that we are REALLY after, then its not just Not Romney, but also, Not Gingrich, Not Santorum and Not Obama (who was included on this flier as being a supporter of ethanol subsidies). It would be interesting to be able to trace the funding sources for the promotion of ethanol in that primary. Who paid for what on behalf of whom..

    Perry hit a buzz saw in Iowa over this issue which explains alot regarding his 5th place finish. Boots on the ground for the last several days before the caucus kept sending out videos, photos and written reports of standing room only crowds. He was met with enthusiam and warmth—except from the Big Government Subsidy crowd. The subsidies ended this year but there’s plenty of folks that want to see them extended. 3 candidates do not support these subsidies: Perry (the only candidate consistent on all the points listed in the flier), Bachmann and Paul. The message? Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all hold the same views as Barack Obama.

    The Wall Street Journal dubbed Newt the “Cornpone King” in an online article of Jan. 30, 2011. A blog reports Newt’s receipt of about $600,000 from Energy Growth, an ethanol lobbying entity that paid for his consulting services. (The distinction is made that he didn’t lobby, just consulted for the lobbyists.) www.teapartyatperrysburg.blogspot.com/2011/12/gingrich-drew-600000-from-ethanol.html

    There are two take-aways:
    1. The leaders in the GOP primary race all line up with Barack Obama regarding this expansive govt subsidy and given the influence the industry put behind the campaigns of Romney and Santorum in IA, the stage is already set that if either becomes president, they will not be beholden to this? A simple web search of each candidate name and ‘iowa ethanol’ will produce a wealth of info that was never discussed in the IA campaign of any significance nationally.

    2. Millions upon millions were spent in IA to garner the favor of a state that catapaulted Barack Obama to the White House. The two candidates running this year that were also-ran’s in ’08 didn’t gain any support since, just stayed about even. In spite of the money Romney spent, he didn’t pick up any more votes than last time. Same for Paul. Of the Christian conservatives that didn’t vote Obama in ’08 and want change, put their weight behind Santorum because he delivered on most issues, including his support of ethanol. Perry and Bachmann had just as much ‘cred’ regarding family values yet Perry got ignored by Vander Plaats while Bachmann was simply told to drop out. It was Santorum all the way. There was apparently another box he checked above and beyond the other two: he supports government subsidies.

    There’s a post here that reports Santorum leads among tea party voters in SC. Iowa didn’t wake up and we know why; they want their goodies from Washington and are looking for a ‘conservative’ that will continue hand-out’s. Maybe there’s hope that SC conservatives can pave the way. Elections are based on hope these days, right?

  • 1rationalmind

    His biggest LIE: ” Mitt Romney has a record of supporting taxpayer funded abortions”.

    NOW the truth:
    Pro-Life Advocates in Massachusetts Say Romney is Pro-Life.
    A group of conservative leaders in Massachusetts, led by Kris Mineau, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, and Ray Ruddy, President of the Gerard Health Foundation have written what they say is ?an accurate statement of what Governor Romney did and did not do as Governor of Massachusetts.?

    ?For example, Governor Romney has been blamed for putting abortion in the Massachusetts healthcare insurance reform law,? they said. ?These accusations are simply untrue,? they added, saying the decision to fund abortions in the state?s health care plan was forced by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

    I hope all of you who are persons of morals and values and lovers of the truth read the full declaration at the following link:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/02/pro-life-advocates-in-massachusetts-say-romney-is-pro-life/

    Is Newt lying or is he a really really bad historian? Freddie Mac way over paid him.

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

    [this is why i adhere to RS[

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

    …but didn’t The Newt actually create this dedicated web-site weeks ago?

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ reaganiterepublicanresistance

    A must-see…

    Why is Newt SO ANGRY?

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

    …rather than skipping that minor-detail, ok?

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

    ?for huntsman-supporters [captkirc, goodgovernance, elayman, flgal208, septembergurl, dpmapper, katem].

    Is he ?history? if he remains in single-digits in NH?

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

    …after having read the statement:

    No where is it noted that Mitt mandated a governance slot for Planned Parenthood.

    Thus, the political forces behind this prouncement are suspect.

  • greyeagle

    Keep going and continue to tell the truth.

  • circlegranch

    interesting read at www.iowansfueledwithpride.com

    Phillip Brasher Gannett of the Washington Bureau writes that the ethanol industry was pleased with the results of the Tues caucus. Having long counted on the caucuses to garner political clout in Washingnton, they were not disappointed. The article discusses the ethanol lobby’s concern over the positions held regarding subsidies by Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann and complimented Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, who was cited as being the ethanol industry’s ‘biggest backer, by far’.

    Will this catch fire and be part of the national news before NH and SC? We know Fox won’t cover it, but what say you, rest of the cable and online news entities?

  • 6t9boss

    The GOP thinks that a Romney candidancey is the way to go. They are going to be in for a big surpirse when Conservatives do not turn out to vote this time. After the way the Carl Rove RINO pundents have crucified Conservatives in 2008, and now there is no way I will vote for another LIBERAL GOP candidate. We are tired of voting for the letter “R” and the fearmongering that anybody is better than Obama is a joke! Romney will not stop Obamacare, Romney will not stop the EPA, Romney is a LIberal/Moderate Mass. Repbulican and nothing will change!
    This is one Conservative the will show up to vote but not for Romney OR ANYONE ON THE DOWN TICKET! So kiss the Senate goodbye and possibly the House too!

  • score333

    A friend , who is for Romney, asked me why I don’t like Romney.
    I said, “I like him alright (not his beliefs) I just don’t feel he likes me very much”.

  • gtbw

    most informed conservatives know how dangerous obama can be in a second term. A romney rubio ticket would not only win but win big.

  • captkirc

    He probably would be although there is probably less pressure for him to drop out since conventional wisdom says he wouldn’t be hurting anyone but Romney by staying in. Money going forward would be an issue too barring his father opening up the purse strings in spite of a poor NH showing.

  • captkirc

    He is not loved by the base but if their guy goes he is seen by most anti-Romney types as superior alternative to Mitt that doesn’t sacrifice electability in the general. If he ever did catch on he could draw a lot of Romney supporters who had previously stayed away due to Huntsman’s poor poll numbers. For those reasons it may be worth it for him to stick around past his apparent shelf life.

  • btpull

    Romney has the resources, organization, network, and savvy to run an effective national campaign. All the other candidates tend to bumble and stumble.

    Santorum can only handle one state at a time. Huntsman and Perry are down to a one state last stand type of campaign. Gingrich cannot stay focused, cannot get on the ballot in his home state, and does not know when to fight back. Paul comes off as a nut from time to time.

    To get the job done of beating Obama we need a candidate that is actually capable of getting the job done.

  • marktx

    Although I’m not a Romney supporter, I’ll give him credit on at least one important issue regarding the foreclosure crisis. Unlike Bachmann, Newt, and other republicans, Romney has stated that the best way for the housing market to recover would be to end all government housing programs that are artificially propping up the market. Romney also stated that if housing were allowed to hit bottom on it’s own, the market would recover that much faster. I agree.

  • marktx

    In any other election cycle, a Romney nomination would spell disaster for republicans in the general. But in 2012, it’s extremely important to defeat Obama, and have a chance to repeal ObamaCare before it is fully implemented.

    If elected, Romney will be be pressured by the conservatives in the congress to stay on the right side of the political spectrum where much of the legislative agenda will be created. That’s why I think Romney might not be any worse than Newt or Santorum. Remember that all first term presidents hope to have a second term. It would be foolish for Romney to drift away from the party that put him in office.

  • bzip

    Well I am sorry but I can’t be a part of this not Romney clique, it isn’t because I don’t agree that he is liberal and progressive but because of the following:

    If we assume Huntsman bows out shortly after NH or SC then we have: Perry, Romney, Newt, Santorum and Paul

    Should Perry bow out, god forbid, can anyone honestly tell me that there is a huge difference between: Romney, Newt and Santorum. In my mind all three are bad, all big gov’t progressives and I would rather take Romney who at least has some governing experience and has a better chance at beating Obama,

    Santorum is a light weight and the DNC could easily take him down not to mention the election will turn into nothing more than: gays, and more gays.

    In the case of Newt, cripes if you think the little pouncing Romney is doing on Newt now wait till the general. Newt has so much baggage he is hopeless, Newt couldn’t attract independents or women voters, he would be hit so hard it would cuz the entire republican ticket to lose out.

    Nope, Perry is the only true person who can contrast against Obama very well, and the only candidate with true reforming abilities.

    Should Perry ever bow out, the conservatives lose big time and I don’t see much of a difference between the rest: Romney, Newt, Santorum so I would easily vote for Romney if Perry ever bowed out (not that I would be happy about it, in fact I would be sick about it).

  • trutexan

    of all backgrounds. Some are here because they chose to be and some are here because of an assignment by Uncle Sam.

    What I have found is that those who vote Dem are going to vote Dem again regardless of race. In S Texas it’s heavily Hispanic, and although the Dem party has largely ignored the Hispanics, and Hispanics live a conservative lifestyle, they will still vote Dem because that’s what they do. They’ve been convinced by charming politicians like the Castro twins (Mayor of San Antonio & Congressional candidate), that only the Dem party can save them from the policies of the big bad Republicans. Never mind that on 1 Jan the policy came into effect that if you live in Section 8 housing you can’t smoke in your home. “What? Are they going to be telling me how to live next?” Um, yes they are. You take their money to live in their house so they make the rules. But nobody ever puts it like that to them. Welcome to the Democratic liberal politician.

    The conservatives around the office are mute on a chosen candidate just yet. Most listen to Rush and compare notes from other sources as well. They are waiting to see who has the least amount of egg from the food fight before voicing an opinion. Perry does not come to top of mind for most but their problem is that they have not had to experience living under lousy policies from the others so they have no baseline to balance an opinion. We know Perry and most were unaware of his record prior to recent national exposure. We knew we were better off than most of the nation, but just didn’t know how much. It’s sinking in.

    As Rush says, it’s all about the independents. But I can’t seem to find too many of those. So even in the melting pot of a military installation which you would think would be representative of many areas of the country, it’s still about party loyalty. Even on my FB page, black friends are whining about hidden racism when somebody picks on BO no matter the facts and are pledging undying loyalty to him to the end. It’s the strangest thing.

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

    Perry is the only candidate who believes in federalism. Without him Romney is the best of the sorry bunch because at least he does have a lot of managerial experience and he is known as a problem solver.

    As a businessman he understands that we are headed to disaster and I have no doubt that he would at least make a good faith effort to try and get our economic house in order. Which would put him head and shoulders above Obama, and would also put him above Mr. big spender G W Bush.

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

    nt

  • clowngirl

    I haven’t noticed them ever being especially pro-Newt.

    The new print ad accuses Newt of being for cap and trade. My understanding is that he has never been for it — even when he thought man made global warming was real ( as a lot more people did at that time) he offered alternative solutions.

  • btpull

    What’s better for Perry changes in 2016 or 2020 getting pummeled in the first three States (he is 1% in NH and 5% in SC) or bowing out gracefully to cock and reload for next time?

  • bzip

    You know, I sure wish people would actually take the time and research their candidate. If it wasn’t bad enough that Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi touting his global warming position, we then have Newt in a love fest with Kerry on global warming BUT we also have as late as 2007 Newt touting Carbon Cap Mandates, in his own words and caught lying to the American people in the last debate:

    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

    Gingrich’s Alzheimer’s on carbon cap mandate
    http://youtu.be/NuPGlkpDqUw

    Newt Gingrich talks Climate Change in 2007
    http://youtu.be/IYv9yd3_3HA

  • AceInTX

    I’ve seen this meme repeated here a lot and that dog won’t hunt.

    Newt wasn’t forced out by anti spending, small government purists…he was forced out by people spineless weasels who were tired of fighting, and who wanted to spend more.

    I’m not a Newt fan, I don’t particularly want to defend him in the General election…but I’d rather it be him…and I’d have a damn sight easier time of it making the case for him than I could ever do for Wafflin Willard

  • geoph

    This election IS important, but I begin to wonder just how important.
    4 more years of Obama is not a pleasant scenario, but who would really alter our course over the next 4 years? Today we have a Congress that will not oppose Big Government Consolidation to the point of ignoring Constitutional Crisis after Constitutional Crisis.

    We empowered Congress in 2010 to stop the maddness – instead, they joined it. The intensity Cons brought to the Country in that election waned even as the new Congress was preparing to convene.

    Just how important is this election? I’m beginning to think not very.
    We see GOP leadership is disinclined to criticize, let alone confront, Obama’s agenda. Yet, we see little in challenge to leadership. In fact, in the crucial votes of last year, leadership carried the day.

    Money is Power, and Information is Power.
    The two parties control the money, especially on the National scale.
    The constituencies of America controlled the information during the response to healthcare, but prior to and since then – Information has been controlled by the media. The media drives the “debate” and controls the Parties. We saw them topple Nixon, neuter Bush, and usher in the trifecta of evil, giving us Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

    Yes this election matters, but I believe Cons recognize it is more so on the local levels. Give us Romney and we see just another moderate Democrat. I think many Cons may skip voting the top of the ticket in that case, yet support the GOP on the rest of the ticket.

    Yes elections matter, but so do candidates and policies. I begin to wonder just how close to writing off all of Washington as a lost Liberal Mecca for politicians and the media we are.

  • AceInTX

    he attracts them…and is repulsive to the Republican Party base…

    What the hell is the goal here…to attract more Democrats to vote Republican, or to elect someone who will reverse what the Democrats have done to destroy this country?

  • AceInTX

    the government will just revise the numbers down after O bama has been reelected with the false impression we are coming out of the malaise.

  • lalupa

    As long as politicos can claim the label of conservatives solely on their stances on social issues, government will continue to grow. Spending will continue to rise. Perhaps it is time for a new term that identifies politicians who are committed to reducing the scope and size of the federal government.

  • bzip

    I fully concur, the media will work over time promoting bogus positive trend, good job numbers, etc.

    It will be a tough road ahead, don’t think for a minute that Obama will be an easy mark.

  • macphisto96

    The new polls in SC look good for Romney and his negatives are known. The other problem is no one has any interest in creating a real alliance to go after Romney because they still need to go after each other.

    Perry needs Santorum’s constituency. Santorum will have to fend off Perry. And while Newt talked about teaming up with Santorum, he said Santorum should be the “junior partner” because Newt’s smarter and more experienced. Gingrich is all about ego and he doesn’t like his own record being used against him. If Romney takes the nomination, I wonder if Gingrich will endorse Obama just out of spite. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Gingrich is a small man and the new Yahoo article today also reveals him as a big-time panderer.

    If anything, this will not consolidate the vote but make things easier for Romney.

    New Hampshire should still be a big win for him. This will strengthen his inevitability argument and, depending on what happens, could destroy Santorum and Gingrich. If Huntsman does climb into third place then Santorum goes to fourth and Newt fifth. If neither climb into double digits their numbers will go down in SC. Then Perry will mount his assault, but unless those two drop out (and they won’t because Santorum will cling to Iowa and Gingrich’s ego is huge) people still won’t consolidate so Romney will end up with a solid win in South Carolina.

    And then he’ll take the primary here in Florida. Right now it looks like Romney will be the nominee as February begins. No one will have the money to keep going and their fundraising will tank because everyone will know who the nominee is.

  • Common_Cents

    It is downright amazing that we still have this moronic attack on Gingrich here at RS, where people are supposedly a little more informed. There is plenty to attack Gingrich on but regurgitating this mean Newt getting kicked out of congress should be a badge of honor if you look at the actual RECORD of congress with Newt and without him.

    People trot out the fact that Gingrichs former colleagues aren’t endorsing him, but in the next breath calling DC the spineless establishment? How the heck does that make any sense?

    Is there any depths, to which people will not stoop these days? Let’s restore a little intellectual honesty here.

    Heck, there was even a post the other day pointing out that Santorum got BOOED at a NH college in an effort to smear Santorum. But failed to point out Santorum was booed by college kids when he was talking about same sex marriage. Dishonest posts like that are pathetic and should not be tolerated at RS.

  • Common_Cents

    hmmm?

    Denny Hastert?
    John Boehner?

    If Newt was the problem, why don’t you do a little research and report back your results on how well the house has done the last 15 years in dialing back government, balancing the budget?

  • Scope

    or so it seems. A precinct caucus chair, Tony Seibert, said that Romney in fact only received 2 votes in his tiny 53 person caucus. He said when he checked the reports from the Iowa GOP, they reported Romney as having 22 votes. In another error correction Romney gained one vote somewhere else, which now show him winning by 9. If the vote is corrected then Santorum actually won the caucus by 11.

    Someone asked Santorum about the result yesterday, and he brushed it off as though he didn’t care. Why? All the hype from the Romney supporting talking heads are already declaring that he will win SC, and that he will have “swept” the first three early states, and that gives him the strong momentum to propel him to the nomination. He is inevitable, he has already been declared the winner and on and on. I’m not a Santorum supporter, but if I were him, I would be screaming to be rightfully given the win, even by a small margin. The fact that he doesn’t seem to care makes me believe that he is just acting as a spoiler to get Romney the nomination, as some have already speculated on.

  • clowngirl

    that doesn’t particularly resonate with me.

    you’re missing the point about Romney’s flip flops. It’s not that Romney changes his mind it’s that what his “conscience” dictates is always so politically expedient and most people don’t believe he’s sincere.

    How do you go from voting for Paul Tsongas in 92 to registering as a Republican in 93 and then almost immediately running for office?

    It’s possible. I know a few people who were originally for Hillary, were disgusted with how she was treated in the primary became Democrats for McCain in the general election and wound up becoming Republicans — and they are still Republicans.

    But it didn’t just happen. it took (to oversimplify) :

    1) being only moderately Democrats anyway and being appalled at the party’s sprint to the left.

    2) Working their tails off in the primary, seeing how remarkably unfair the process was/ how much their party disrespected their candidate/ how in the tank the media was for Obama, etc., etc.

    Leading to a profound antipathy for Obama and deep disillusionment with their party.

    Then

    3) being thrown in with a bunch of Republicans working intensely to try and stop the common enemy, almost certainly watching, watching and/or listening to a lot of conservative media because if you didn’t like Obama it’d be all you could stomach.

    In other words hanging out constantly with Republicans and being immersed in conservative thought.

    So, I can believe that a dramatic change in views over the course of a year is possible — but when I have actually seen it it took a dramatic series of events and a lot of time and energy invested.

    Romney has never spoken of anything of the sort. His changes in views have been, without exception, extremely politically convenient.

    There’s every reason to think he is insincere.

    It’s his job to convince people otherwise.

    But I’m not holding my breath. There was a Romney surrogate in NH yesterday making the argument that it’s not about picking someone who shares your beliefs — it’s just about picking the guy who can win and let’s get it over with already!

    No thanks.

  • jimmyg

    Jan. 6 was the deadline in Illinois for candidates to file petitions for delegates to the Republican convention. 54 delegates are at stake.
    Buddy Roemer was able to file petitions for three delegate spots. Gov. Perry was able to file a petitions for 1 delegate spot.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-santorum-gingrich-file-to-get-on-illinois-primary-ballot-20120106,0,6648828.story

    Santourm was able to secure petitions for 41 of the 54 delegates at stake. Romney, Paul and Gingrich were able to field the full 54 delegate spots.

    EE is right, Perry’s campaign staff is the gang that can’t shoot straight.

  • clowngirl

    I will take your advice and research what they are.

    But cap and trade is a specific piece of legislation which Newt has not supported. Saying he has supported it is a lie.

  • sunshinek67

    correct? Where did you get your information? Perhaps your title should have said is Rick Santorum a serious candidate. He has missed at least 6 states now.

  • sunshinek67

    and Mitt Romney is an extremely weak “frontrunner”. Perry staying in the race helps to rout out the deficiencies.

  • clowngirl

    The video was great — Newt talking in depth about many of the outrages under Obama juxtaposed with Romney laughing and saying ” I don’t know why he’s so angry” Romney’s interruptions get increasingly annoying and looks profoundly unserious. Especially as Newt’s anger about Romney’s lying attack ads shouldn’t be any mystery.

    Watching it I remembered how the media tried to dismiss the tea party by painting it as angry, unhinged, racist, etc.

    A lot of people probably remember that and might take the media’s disdain for Newt as a sign he might be a candidate worth supporting.

  • carolina

    We need to get this word out somehow.
    Voters need to be informed.

  • clowngirl

    and IF Governor Perry drops out of the race down the road, maybe then you might be willing to listen to them..

  • jimmyg

    Another screw up from the Perry team.
    snip
    On the last day to submit paperwork, Santorum filed only 41 candidates for national convention nominating delegates out of 54 possible slots among the state’s new 18 congressional districts.

    Perry, the Texas governor, filed only one delegate candidate. Romney, Paul and Gingrich filed full elected-delegate slates.
    snip

    Also filing in Illinois? Republican presidential primary was former Louisiana Gov. Charles “Buddy” Roemer. Roemer also fielded three nominting delegate candidates.

    snip

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-candidates-file-for-illinois-ballot-20120106,0,2643231.story

  • jbonham76

    Santorum didn’t care was because the same mistake was made in Santorum’s favor as well, which in the end netted romney one extra vote with a win of 9 votes.

  • mljones

    this is a repost – but VERY important to keep in mind since neither the MSM or the Romney campaign will ever point this out.

    Romney could win every primary between now and Super Tuesday and it wouldn?t make a difference when it comes to what really counts, namely winning delegates.

    To start with, less than 15% of all GOP delegates will be selected between now and Super Tuesday, and all in states where delegates will be allocated proportionately. So even if he wins every primary/caucus, Romney is not going to be able to amass a signficant delegate lead. In fact, I?d wager that on the morning of Super Tuesday, Romney will have less than 40% of the delegates awarded to that point.

    Secondly, the only reason that Romney is going to be able to win primaries is because the opposition to him is still fractured among multiple candidates. That won?t be the case by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, by which time it will likely be down to a three-man race (Romney, Paul, and either Santorum or Gingrich).

    Third, to win the nomination outright, Romney does not just have to win primaries/caucuses, he has to win MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT of the delegates. Otherwise, he?ll end up in a brokered convention, in which anything could happen. Given that he didn?t even break 25% in Iowa, may not break 40% in New Hampshire, and is stuck around 30-35% in South Carolina, that?s may be a pretty tall order. The key numbers to look at are Romney?s vote percentages as compared to those of all the religious right candidates combined (i.e. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, & Bachmann), since those four voting blocs will coalesce into one single anti-Romney bloc by the time Super Tuesday rolls around and the winner-take-all contests begin. And by that metric it doesn?t look good for Romney. He would have lost Iowa 25%-53%, would still win NH, but would lose South Carolina by double digits. Until he starts breaking 40% somewhere outside of NH, I?m going to remain highly skeptical of his chances at actually winning the nomination.

  • dpmapper

    He’s for getting rid of No Child Left Behind, putting Medicaid and many other health care issues onto the state level, etc.

  • AceInTX

    Nothing could be more foolish than calling someone else a fool and following it up with an asinine comment that is absurd on it’s face and demonstrably false.

    Erick of Red State: Erick is looking more foolish each week from he writes by sounding like a tea party robot. Real tea party people are wiser and want smaller govt, less reg, cutting spending?so does Romney and he has proved that over many years.

    Romney reduced the size of government in Mass.? Really? By creating Obamneycare and adding all the state agencies required ti administer it?

    Have all those additional agencies gotten smaller or bigger since he left office? Has Massachusetts spending on government grown or shrunk since Wind Sock Willard left office?

    Please tell me, what did Romney do to reduce spending and reduce the size of Massachusetts state government? and spare me the Romneybot talking points…give me specifics.

    Oh…and to what social issues are you referring? I don’t see anything about social issues in anything Erick wrote. Please tell me you are not slithering to the normal SMitthead fall back that the only reason anyone opposes Romney is because he’s GASP…A Mormon while ignoring all the factual reasons put forth to prove one’s opposition to Romney.

  • tngal

    From the Chicago Trib:

    “On the last day to submit paperwork, Santorum filed only 41 candidates for national convention nominating delegates out of 54 possible slots among the state’s new 18 congressional districts. Perry, the Texas governor, filed only one delegate candidate. Romney, Paul and Gingrich filed full elected-delegate slates.”
    __________
    The ballot, which most of the candidates are on is a “beatuy contest” says the trib. Apparetly the power in this state lies with the delegates.

    ____
    “While voters cast a preference vote for president, the “beauty contest” results are not binding in the selection of delegates. Instead, voters must directly elect delegates backing a candidate.”
    ______

    The article explains pretty well how their delegate system works. And notes if a campaign doesn’t field a bunch of delegates it lacks “breadth and depth”.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-presidential-filing-20120107,0,6751418.story

  • tngal

    sorry, didn’t know you were in the process of answering her.

  • renl57

    “…mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur”

    That’s a cap-and-trade system.

    Newt may not have supported this specific piece of legislation that would have created cap-and-trade, but all that means is that he would prefer to write the law some other way.

  • carolina

    If the Perry campaign did that poorly, that is pitiful.

  • Common_Cents

    Perry represents too big a (good) jump back for America. America just isn’t ready for it yet. We haven’t hit our bottom. We aren’t yet willing to rise up and throw out the DC elites for part time congress. We aren’t ready to dismantle much of the federal govt and restore more power to the states.

    Perry right now is a hail mary risky long bomb to the end zone. Too big a leap for chances for success. We’ll instead get an incomplete and turn the ball over on downs to obama for a 2nd term. Disaster.

    Perry’s timing is too early, 2016/2020 could be about right.

  • AceInTX

    That is a lie.

    Newt was overthrown for a middle of the road Midwestern spender and lazy, feckless RINOs who were tired of fighting and wanted to get back to a more “Civil” tone in Washington. He was NOT thrown out by Conservatives…It was only after Newt was gone that people like Delay and others came up with the idea of the K street project and permanent Republican majorities bought with taxpayer dollars.

    I have a lot of issues with Newt from his environmental record and trashing conservatives for opposing Scozzafava in NY….but to say it was the conservative caucus who threw him out is a damnable lie.

  • clowngirl

    “Newt may not have supported this specific piece of legislation that would have created cap-and-trade”

    then saying he did support it is a lie.

    They say the most effective LIES are those with an ounce of truth.

    I haven’t yet read up on these carbon cap mandates (Which Newt supported when?) but it’s likely whatever he had in mind was, in it’s totality, very different from the legislation Democrats currently want.

    To blur over all distinctions and act like Newt supports “Cap and Trade” which is generally understood to mean the specific piece of legislation Democrats currently want, is dishonest.

    Clearly Romney, with all his over the top advantages, isn’t confident he can beat Newt honestly.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Because Perry supporters want an electable governor and not a nineties retread from the House with more baggage than Delta Airlines.

  • bzip

    It looks like renl57 already answere4d you BUT what do you think this means, “mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system”?

    It may not be the same cap and trade legislation that is currently being talk about BUT it is cap and trade.

  • renl57

    …you need a credible spokesman and point man.

    Gingrich is not it.

    Gingrich is damaged goods from the 1990s. He was actually forced out of the Speakership by his fellow Republicans, some of whom were definitely conservative but still didn’t like what he was doing.

    The more Gingrich keeps yelling “We gotta stop Romney, that MA moderate!” the more it sounds like an act of desperation of a candidate who can’t move beyond his own baggage.

    There is ONE politician who could make the case against Romney in a way that wouldn’t be perceived as the last desperate act of a losing candidate.

    And that’s Tim Pawlenty.

    He’s not running anymore, so coming from him it wouldn’t be perceived as an act of political desperation.

    And he’s still respected as a decent fellow.

  • clowngirl

    another question: was the decision that forced the funding of planned parenthood made by liberal judges appointed by Romney?

    The deferring of responsibility seems to be a pattern with Romney. ” I had to appoint liberal judges to get them through” ” I have no control over what my Super PAC says” (Paraphrasing in both cases of course)

    But rational mind may have raised a valid question — one that bears looking into.

  • carolina

    Way too many fumbles

  • bzip

    Cripes, have some of you people lost it big time or what?

    So now we are down to wording – Look cap and trade no matter how it is worded or implemented is BAD! Have you gone nuts, now trying to find away to defend Newt’s support of a form of cap and trade – cap and trade in any form is BAD, period!

  • tngal

    I read the trib story, but still missing a piece or two of the chicago puzzle. the story pointed out

    “At least 3,000 signatures were needed for a GOP presidential candidate and 600 signatures to appear as a delegate candidate.”

    Ok, the actual numbers to get on the ballot by a candidate are not near as out of reach as Virginia’s was. Now there are 54 possible delegate slots and Rom-Pau-Ging filed a “full slate” . Santorum got 41, Roemer got 3, Perry got one and Huntsman didn’t get on the ballot or get delgates.

    The article pointed out there were 18 “new districts”. So what’s the deal? Is it 600 sigs per delegate per district? And how many delegates can a candidate get? Why bother getting a name on the ballot if its just a “beauty contest”, why not jsut use your poeple to hunt up delegates for you.?

    This mess makes Iowa’s caucus look simplified.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-presidential-filing-20120107,0,6751418.story

  • Common_Cents

    It was a pathetic attempt by media to paint tea party as extremist. It will just make it that much easier for Gingrich to get tea party support. He has had much of the support early on, not sure how he’s polling now.

  • Common_Cents

    You are stupid or anti American.

    I’d say anger is an appropriate human emotion to display these days.

  • trevorb

    has proven himself to be a weak frontrunner. He’s not good at handling attacks, as I’ve seen, and considering what Obama will throw at whoever the nominee is, that is a major liability on his part.

    Since it looks like Gingrich is launching a suicide attack, I’m hoping he’ll be able to damage Romney enough to keep him from winning the election. I just don’t trust the man.

    I have some serious doubt about whether Perry can win, although I’ve decided that he has the best record. He’s got the money to make it through South Carolina and probably Florida, but if it doesn’t pick up after that, he’s going to be out.

  • tjms

    by the group of Perry supporters I know. And my daughters college republicans say if no Perry, they def. will not be for gingrich, most are looking at the other “RP” as their second choice.

  • AceInTX

    therefor he did support taxpayer funding of abortion…

  • 1stRichard

    There is a possible document dump from Governor Patrick to worry about, this would expose the Romney lies on cutting taxes and much more. Yes, Romney cut some taxes but increased fees. Romney has ties to Former Governor Cellucci that could be spun in to Romney being responsible New York’s twin towers on 9|11. Former Governor Cellucci was fiscal conservative but anti gun and a social liberal as are most republicans from this state. Former Governor Cellucci?s had a pattern in his party of naming close political allies to key jobs and not by qualification, one of the most controversial appointees was to Logan and Massport. In 1999, the major airlines at Logan and Massport were fined a total of $178,000 for at least 136 security violations over the previous two years. After some 52 warnings of possible terrorist activity that were ignored Cellucci?s selected one we had 9|11. American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 took off from Logan. Within an hour, they had been taken over by terrorists and flown into New York’s twin towers. How much can you trust another republican governor from this state? Then there is the gun control laws. According to GOAL, ?Massachusetts lawmakers passed what they said was one of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Yet, in the decade since the laws were passed, firearm-related crime has increased dramatically. Gun-related deaths alone have increased by 68%, and gun-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits due to gun-related assaults have increased by a whopping 222%.?
    Look at what you get with Romney, close aid, supporter and former GOP chairman Jennifer Nassour, disciple of Romney. Of all the persons with the best chance of stopping Obamacare Jennifer Nassour had one of the best but she rolled over and played dead, some say on purpose. In so doing she totally dismissed and trashed the good people of this state. She had the most lame submission to stop Governor Deval Patrick’s enactment article II of amendment 48, The Referendum, II, declaring an emergency to enact the law allowing for an interim senator to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat and subsequent law. And then when it was dismissed she never submitted a challenge as if she was working for the other side. There are thousands of pages more that make Romney the least viable, all this will be spun however ridicules it may seem to defeat Romney.

  • dpmapper

    If he stays back in the pack at 8-9% I don’t see how he can get any attention in SC or FL. If he breaks out to 16 or so like the Franklin Center poll has him at, then he might get a Santorum-like boomlet going. A big endorsement might help as well, but that would probably be dependent on NH performance at this point.

    (On that latter note, I noticed that Alan Wilson, SC’s AG and Joe’s son, is a Huntsman endorser. Maybe he can talk his dad into doing something?)

  • lizzie

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220107headlinegoes/

    quoting some advice for Saturday NH debates – I am still slaughing at how true this all is:

    “…L Romney: Do try to stay above the fray and avoid getting into a prolonged back-and-forth with your rivals. If Gingrich attacks, tell him it?s ?sad? that he?s resorting to these tactics because he?s in single digits in the polls. Don?t get angry or tell anyone, ?You?ve had your turn, now it?s my turn.? It sounds like something a fifth-grader would say in the playground.

    L Gingrich: Do continue to say the word ?Massachusetts? when referring to Romney. New Hampshire is where people move to avoid Massachusetts. Even people in Massachusetts don?t like living there. Don?t keep comparing yourself to Lincoln and Reagan. You aren?t anything like them.

    L Santorum: Do focus on your middle-class upbringing and take a poke at Romney for jetting down to South Carolina this week. New Hampshire voters hate getting taken for granted and Romney is looking overconfident. And don?t bring the sweater vest: It?s so 15 minutes ago.

    L Huntsman: Don?t mention the Globe endorsement. Repub-licans here like the Herald. …”

    About the NOT-Romney?
    All I can say, again, is that Romney is NOT electable against Obama.
    I will not vote for either. In 2008, I voted for McCain – firsttime I have ever voted GOP for president since my first vote in 1972 – because I agreed with McCain’s worldview and knew he had superior economic advisors. I am horrified by the far left liberals finally destroying the Deomocratic Party – only took them 40 years! (my vote in 1972 was a protest against Nixon because Watergate was already unfolding, and I was in college in Massachusetts – because I wanted to see snow and find out what it was like to go to a really good school. Biggest single mistake of my life. Should have stayed in Florida.)

    Romney has less of a spine than Obama, and Romney really does NOT understand the REAL economy.

    No one in Massachusetts has a kind word for anything Romney did as governor. The nicest thing I have heard is that they did not even notice he was the governor.

    So hard to watch the GOP cave to the out-of-touch rich technocrat while the dangerous Ron Paul smirks all the way to anointing his son.

    I am 100% Perry, from the day he announced.

    But, in the remaining field, I just want to remind GOp that whatever his many flaws, Gingrich DOES remind voters of the 1990′s when everyone could still find a job and the budget deficits finally disappeared. I was not paying attention to how DeLay ousted Gingrich, but The Hammer is why the GOP continues to be clawing their way back since 2008.

    I will vote for anyone except Obama, Paul (who makes Obama look good), or Romney, although Santorum would solely be a protest vote.

    maybe y’all will get lucky and Obama will decide it is time to evoke LBJ in 1968. After all, NO ONE running as a Democrat wants to be seen in the same city as Obama; fundraising is a struggle, and even his base is demoralized.

  • lizzie

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220107headlinegoes/

    quoting some advice for Saturday NH debates – I am still slaughing at how true this all is:

    “…L Romney: Do try to stay above the fray and avoid getting into a prolonged back-and-forth with your rivals. If Gingrich attacks, tell him it?s ?sad? that he?s resorting to these tactics because he?s in single digits in the polls. Don?t get angry or tell anyone, ?You?ve had your turn, now it?s my turn.? It sounds like something a fifth-grader would say in the playground.

    L Gingrich: Do continue to say the word ?Massachusetts? when referring to Romney. New Hampshire is where people move to avoid Massachusetts. Even people in Massachusetts don?t like living there. Don?t keep comparing yourself to Lincoln and Reagan. You aren?t anything like them.

    L Santorum: Do focus on your middle-class upbringing and take a poke at Romney for jetting down to South Carolina this week. New Hampshire voters hate getting taken for granted and Romney is looking overconfident. And don?t bring the sweater vest: It?s so 15 minutes ago.

    L Huntsman: Don?t mention the Globe endorsement. Repub-licans here like the Herald. …”

    About the NOT-Romney?
    All I can say, again, is that Romney is NOT electable against Obama.
    I will not vote for either. In 2008, I voted for McCain – firsttime I have ever voted GOP for president since my first vote in 1972 – because I agreed with McCain’s worldview and knew he had superior economic advisors. I am horrified by the far left liberals finally destroying the Deomocratic Party – only took them 40 years! (my vote in 1972 was a protest against Nixon because Watergate was already unfolding, and I was in college in Massachusetts – because I wanted to see snow and find out what it was like to go to a really good school. Biggest single mistake of my life. Should have stayed in Florida.)

    Romney has less of a spine than Obama, and Romney really does NOT understand the REAL economy.

    No one in Massachusetts has a kind word for anything Romney did as governor. The nicest thing I have heard is that they did not even notice he was the governor.

    So hard to watch the GOP cave to the out-of-touch rich technocrat while the dangerous Ron Paul smirks all the way to anointing his son.

    I am 100% Perry, from the day he announced.

    But, in the remaining field, I just want to remind GOp that whatever his many flaws, Gingrich DOES remind voters of the 1990′s when everyone could still find a job and the budget deficits finally disappeared. I was not paying attention to how DeLay ousted Gingrich, but The Hammer is why the GOP continues to be clawing their way back since 2008.

    I will vote for anyone except Obama, Paul (who makes Obama look good), or Romney, although Santorum would solely be a protest vote.

    maybe y’all will get lucky and Obama will decide it is time to evoke LBJ in 1968. After all, NO ONE running as a Democrat wants to be seen in the same city as Obama; fundraising is a struggle, and even his base is demoralized.

  • AceInTX

    Romney has the resources, organization, network, and savvy to run an effective national campaign.

    I call BS

    Romney encapsulates all the losing candidates in the last 24 years

    The man is every bit as boring as Dukakis.
    He’s as unprincipled as Dole.
    He’s as wooden as Gore
    Flip flops like John Kerry
    Finally hes as mean, as petulant, arrogant and egotistical as John McCain…

    But it’s his freaking turn isn’t it?

    What a bunch of sucker we all are!

    Bah!!!

  • trevorb

    I actually supported Obama for a brief period of time in 2008. I changed my mind when his wife said: “For the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American.”

  • trevorb

    not called the stupid party for nothing. Even the parts of the establishment that may not be necessarily stupid are too set in their ways and haven’t been able to adapt.

  • carolina

    600 sigs per district (congressional dstricts that were redrawn per 2010 census) in order to earn a chance to get the delegate votes at the convention.
    Even if Perry won the primary in IL, he would only get one delegate at the convention. Delegate votes are the only thing that matter at the convention.
    I am totally discouraged now. Romney is inevitable.

  • carolina

    600 sigs per district (congressional dstricts that were redrawn per 2010 census) in order to earn a chance to get the delegate votes at the convention.
    Even if Perry won the primary in IL, he would only get one delegate at the convention. Delegate votes are the only thing that matter at the convention.
    I am totally discouraged now. Romney is inevitable.

  • lizzie

    not wanting to offend, but, with four of the past seven Illinois governors in prison, I hardly think it worth condemning any campaign for having problems with Illinois ballot access.

    Santorum did not even try to get on the Virgina ballot. He also totally missed the D.C. ballot deadline.

    Maybe all this proves is that you have to spend five years running for the nomination tolearn how to do it,

    or be a Chicago politician who knows how to cheat.

  • trevorb

    thanks for giving us some hope.

  • carolina

    The good news is that this anger will get a LOT of people to vote for anyone but BO.
    Surely we will throw the dems out of the Senate AND the presidency.

  • carolina

    The good news is that this anger will get a LOT of people to vote for anyone but BO.
    Surely we will throw the dems out of the Senate AND the presidency.

  • clowngirl

    where is the consistency in going from Governor Perry to Ron Paul?

  • sunshinek67

    my cup is still 1/2 full. :)

    Sure can appreciate your optimistic spirit~

  • tngal

    As a Cainiac I’m still grazing over the candidate clover field. But one thing’s certain, the caucus where anybody can vote muddles up a lot with its ‘chaos’ blitz. Virginia has gone over the line when it comes to getting signatures. And this delegate business is a whole different ball of wax.

    You literally have to have a full infrastructure in all states and DC several years before a race to get everything some of these states require. Only rich people could afford to buy that many people/signs/ buttons/mailers. And if you don’t make it out of the four early states you’ve wasted time and money trying to get signatures in a state that’s not voting until 5 months after Iowa.

    This is absurd.

  • Vegas_Rick

    No doubt about that. But just once I’d like to see statistics to back up the claim that HE created tens of thousands of jobs. I don’t see them.

  • tjms

    I observed over the holidays. Meeting up with a very large group of family & friends. Almost all were republicans/conservatives but the majority of the older, retired mlitary and their families are planning on voting for Obama. They say he is not doing that badly and really like his pulling the toops Iraq and giving him credit for getting Bin Laden. As others tried to convince them otherwise, they insist that the front runners for the GOP would be very much the same as Obama and they know where Obama stands,etc. Even with the younger pleading with them not to vote for him for their sake-they stand firm in voting for Obama. I think it is going to be much closer than expected by many, especially if there is not a candidate with HUGE differences from the current CIC.

  • vangoghssister

    I’d like to ask all Romney supporters here how they believe he would defend himself against Obama in a debate on the following issues. I’ll give my reasons why I think he will have difficulty doing so.
    1. First and foremost, Obamacare. It will be difficult for him to defend himself on this issue as his own Mass. plan was the frame on which Obamacare was built and is responsible for insurance premiums in Mass. the highest in the nation.
    2. Being the epitome of the so-called ’1%’. See jobs below. As an aside, why do people just ignore the fact that those like Obama and his minions are part of the ’1%’?
    3. Jobs. This one might be fun to watch, although I have my doubts any moderator would bring it up because Obama can’t defend himself on the jobs issue and everyone knows it. He can, however, attack and destroy Romney with this issue. How will Romney sell himself as a job creator at a time when we have record unemployment, in no small part due to people like Romney who acquire and disband or remake companies, eliminating positions along the way? He will be attacked for being part of the ’1%’ who have no regard for the fate of the “little guy, the worker, the provider” and for making a great deal of money as a result. Creating Staples is not enough of a defense.
    4. Overgrown government. Another subject Obama himself will have trouble with, but he can certainly attack Romney for it – Romneycare alone grew the size of the Mass. government.
    5. Flip-flopping. Someone here on another thread said all Obama has to do is say “Mitt, in (year) you agreed with me on this issue!”, whatever that issue may be.

    This is your chance, as a voter, to present your case for supporting Romney with specifics. There may be others here who have not yet made up their mind. Who knows, you might win them over to your candidate. In all fairness, I am not one of those people. I will not vote for Romney in the primary. I will vote for a man with a backbone, not a squish. I will vote for him, with a clothespin on my nose, in the general.

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

    Assuming the choice gets down to Newt, Santorum and Romney (IMHO we are pretty much there already in all but name), yes, there is a difference – Romney is a NE moderate Republican and Newt and Santorum are conservatives.

    Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have articulate and advanced conservative agenda items and positions in their years of service in public life. From welfare reform to balanced budgets to prolife to conservative tax reform, entitlement reform, budgets, values issues, they’ve been there and done it. Despite faults, you can point to a number of conservative accomplishments.

    In Romney’s 4 years as Mass governor he signed Romneycare as his signature policy accomplishment and managed to be more fiscally responsible than your average Democrat. He’s spent 6 years running for President trying to convince us he’s a conservative, but has the inconvenient videos from his Massachusetts races where he was trying to convince the electorate there he was not. What conservative thing has he done? being less liberal than Kennedy is hardly enough to be a conservative.

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

    Newt hung his hat on winning seats in 1998, gambled and lost, and GOP Appropriations folks like Livingston wanted to dump him. Newt resigned after GOP lost seats and almost lost their majority.

    Ace is right that it wasnt conservatives per se.

    “Newt was overthrown for a middle of the road Midwestern spender and lazy, feckless RINOs who were tired of fighting and wanted to get back to a more ?Civil? tone in Washington.”

    That’s precisely what we got with Hastert and Delay. Delay took the K-street money, Hastert let the GOP become big spenders. The GOP Congress lost its way after it lost Newt (and Dick Armey left in 2002).

    Newt oversaw the most conservative Congress (19954-1998) in our generation. The Boehner Congress is a let-down partly because we saw what more can be done with a House majority, thanks to Newt and his Congress.

  • circlegranch

    because its clear now that IA is over, the land mines were set for Perry, Bachmann and Paul before they got there. The powerful lobbies, including the one that had contracted with Newt, were able to stay under the radar of the media. There was a big initiative by the ethanol industry to stop any candidate that doesn’t support continuing subsidies. The article at www.iowansfueledwithpride.com comes right out and says they rely on Washington clout to support them.

    The top tier going into NH and SC are all lined up exactly with Obama on ethanol subsidies. It would be nice if they were asked about that position during an interview or debate.

    The tea party stands for small govt. and reduced spending. They believe in free markets and private sector innovation and development of energy and all other industry. In IA, there is not only big govt support of ethanol, they also have miles and miles of wind turbines, especially along I-80 and land owners get subsidies for those, as well.

    There is a candidate still in the race that represents those qualities that gave rise to the tea party revolution. Time is running short. We should all do web searches for tea party organizations, especially in SC and FL, get contact info and email some links to them regarding this issue. The media is silent on it because they want to downplay Obama’s support of bloated, unsustainable policy. Fox won’t cover it because that would cast doubt on their hand-picked candidates.

    Then there’s the audacity of telling us we need to ‘settle’!

  • clintonformccain

    NOT OBAMA.

  • WillWong

    Thanks! Who, iin the last 30 years has a better record than Newt in creating jobs, balancing budgets, and reforming government?

  • clintonformccain

    No one in Massachusetts has a kind word for anything Romney did as governor. The nicest thing I have heard is that they did not even notice he was the governor.

    I can give you one. As Governor, Romney did the unthinkable… got Billy Bulger out of his state job (as Chancellor of UMass at the time). IMO, that was probably the most signficant accomplishment of a Mass governor in decades.

    video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    1. Redstate “obtained”, or “is acting as a surrogate for distribution of”?

    2. Newt has jumped the shark. Looking unhinged is never presidential. Two words: Nuclear Football.

    3. Does Newt not realize that an alliance of conservative candidates HELPS Romney?

  • clintonformccain
  • kamiller42

    http://www.newgeography.com/content/002448-the-texas-story-is-real

    However, Newt of the 90′s has a very good record.

  • stumpy

    Newt is better than the rest, but Perry has the record without the baggage and big government solutions.

  • WillWong

    Pawlenty? You got to be joking! He endorsed Romney less than a week after he dropped out!

  • progressivelibertarian

    Axelrod already fired the opening shot in what’s to come by calling Romney a charlatan. Apparently, the Obama camp has decided to jump in and define Romney early. By the time the Obama Machine is done exposing Romney’s endless flip-flopping and attacking his record, Romney s going to look far worse than John Kerry did in 2004.

    Neither Santorum nor Perry is likely to win over independents when everything is said and done.

    Huntsman is an honorable guy, I have a lot of respect for him, but he seems clueless when it comes to dealing with the Afghanistan situation or to taking on China’s bull by its horns, and he can’t seem to get voters to support him. Still polling in single digits in NH after months of camping there is poor performance, but I do think that he has a shot at gaining some momentum after the two weekend debates.

    That leaves us with Newt with a plausible enough shot at getting the nomination, and a good chance at beating Obama.

    Newt does, however, have his work cut out for him (on the discipline front, among others), and he seems to be back in some stead now, but he can at least put together some coherent arguments for his platform and how it comports with his record, against Obama’s approach to governance, and against China and Radical Islam (and Islamism).

    This “Not Romney” poster is quite good. It draws a shaper distinction between Newt and Romney.

  • texashistorian

    Quico Canseco.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Bush was popular in 2004. He wasn’t at the peak of his game, but he was just coming off it.

    Barack now is more like Bush 2006. Much weaker.

    So you can’t really compare 2012 to 2004.

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/t

  • kamiller42

    A 27 minute hit piece. Ouch.

    Painting Romney as a “profits before people” kind of slick packaged, fat cat might work. Not saying I approve of the method. I am not into group warfare, especially one that stereotypes successful people. Even if Romney was wrong, the impression taints the image of many good capitalists.

    Then again, Wall St. overwhelmingly supported Obama, so screw them! ;)

  • thosjefferson

    You could add in Newt and make it a threesome, although Newt has made by far the most money selling influence in DC.

  • progressivelibertarian

    but he’s going to pick up his game. Recall that he looked tired midway through the 2008 Dem primary heading into TX and OH, but picked up his game and finished strong.

    Especially if the unemployment rate steadily drops, and it seems likely that it will, he will be tough to beat.

  • progressivelibertarian

    That’s another factor to consider.

  • Whacker77

    I’ve grown rather tired of this continued carping about Romney. He’s not the person I wanted to see as the nominee, but he is very likely to be the nominee. He has been blessed by the weakness and incompetence of his opponents. Even momentarily considering Herb and the gang as reasonable alternatives showed how far we’ve let our standards drop.

    Given the odds of Romney winning are extremely high, what purpose does it serve for nasty Newt and his cabal of whiners to needlessly attack Romney? Is the goal to stop him? If so, it’s going to be a waste of time. Or is the goal simply to get a pound of flesh to make us feel better that we couldn’t find a reasonable alternative?

    These worthless attacks might be fine if a knight in shining armor was waiting in the wings, but there isn’t one. Newt, Santorum, Perry, and the rest of the crowd have not the money, organization, or apptitude to go against Obama. I’m not saying Romney does, but at least he has a campaign organization that goes beyond a book tour publicist.

    If Newt corrals some support for his suicide bomber campaign, he’s only going to help one person and that’s Obama. Attacking Romney is only going to drive up angst among conservatives and make him a wounded candidate as happened to McCain in the Spring of 2008.

  • kamiller42

    For Californians to laugh off Rick Perry is absurd. It’s because of his decisions as executive along with the legislature that Texas has been vacuuming California clean.

    Texans thank you for the new businesses and residents!

    Tell them to keep up the status quo in California. It’s good for Texas!

  • westcoastpatriette

    myself included, and feel that Romney must be stopped as he will not be able to beat Obama. Squishes rarely win in politics.

    Point being, this is the primary where we are in a slugfest as we vet the candidates and there are strong feelings coming from supporters of each one of them. Frustrating and painful, I know, but as they say, may the best man win. We work on uniting after the primary.

  • progressivelibertarian

    suggesting. Then what is the purpose of the primaries?

    Your admonishments against negative campaigning should be directed at Romney, who spent $3 million hammering Gingrich 24/7in Iowa, and who’s the been the king of negative campaigning over the past two primary cycles.

  • olsmithie

    Regards

  • olsmithie

    A Taxachussets “moderate” taking SC?! It is too warm in the underworld for it to freeze, so I wouldn’t hang my hat on it.

    Regards

  • WillWong

    Decided to put my money where my mouth is! Go Newt Go!

  • trevorb

    at how California’s holding up in order to see how well their policies have worked. Even the illegals aren’t coming here as much anymore.

  • Ann_W

    Plus he had a hand in the Sports Authority and Domino’s Pizza. The people who’s jobs were lost were the result of getting rid of redunducies from merged businesses, and selling off non-profitable parts of a business (see Steelworker’s Unions making US steel non-profitable). Some of the job shedding that he was compelled to do is what needs to happen at the fed. gov’t level, and his business acumen made did create many US jobs.

    Sounds like a good fit for presidential job description to me.

  • Matthew Morris

    Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try our best to make the pass… and to catch it.

  • WillWong

    It was Perry’s race to lose and he pretty much lost it in the debates!

  • WillWong

    Perry’s gaffes were more recent and was there on national TV for all to see, unfortunately!

  • gekster

    His last three in particular were excelent.
    I take it you are here just to trash Perry and not promote anyone.
    Why does Perry scare you so.

  • WillWong

    On the contrary, i was for Perry at one point in time! Had great hopes for him, just like many who align themselves with the tea party! His poll numbers says it all!

  • gekster

    That’s the easy way out.
    That way you don’t have to think and have any convictions.
    I suppose you want the one most likely to win as opposed to the most conservative.
    Well, for each case I give you Reagan and McCain.
    But go ahead and let the polls tell you who to vote for.
    It is your choice.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    for the movement, sure some of the more moderates may have played a role, but this does not change the facts that Newt fought the very things he now claims he and Clinton made happen. Newt wanted spending all right; just he wanted in areas that benefitted him. This does not even get into the high dollar lobbying Newt did after he left office.

    There are many ways to establish connections when a lobbyist such as entertaining, gift giving, and campaign contributions. One of the newest forms of lobbying is to offer information, information packaging is done by people who have vast knowledge of how things work or have deep connections with elected members of government.

    Facts are stubborn things, I know the man can debate, but a spade is a spade, It cracks me up people are trying to act like it is a diamond.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    which if that is the case, then we should be hoping for a Newt vs., Hillary Clinton election, why not, either way we will see conservatives in the White House, what a joke. You have to look deeper into what had happened in the 90′s to know the role Newt or Clinton played. It is more than hey this got done, so it had to be Newt, No it did not have to be Newt, in fact it was in spite of Newt.

    I’ve learned that people do not want to look at the real Newt, Beck did, and he did not like it. Newt is on record saying over and over that he is a Rockefeller Republican, and why do you think he is suddenly taking the climate change stuff out of his book. Why do you think he sat on the couch with Nancy. Newt is turning himself into this Reagan Republican now, but he has not always stayed true to that, and there is ample enough video evidence if you want to find it.

  • jaykali

    …when he would have obviously garnered enough republican support to win the primary. If he can’t get enough conservative support then he won’t win the primary and thus the general election is moot point. It’s stupid to say even tho millions of people would have voted for him in the primary all of a sudden he would not get any republican votes in the general bc they are voting for…..? or maybe they are just sitting at home refusing to play. i will believe it when i see it. if you are willing to sit at home and in effect vote for obama with your protest ‘stay at home vote’ then fine go ahead. i don’t think mccain lost because he couldn’t get enough conservative votes.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    here is the real Newt.

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9188-how-speaker-newt-gingrich-betrayed-the-republican-revolution

    Newt is a big government Republican, he always has been. In his own words he has always been. He calls into Rev Al Sharpton on his MSNBC show to say happy birthday. Newt has the baggage, and it is not all cheating and ethics stuff, much of it deal with money, power, and statist ideas.

    He has done some conservative things, and he has been involved in so stuff, but you can go to the site I just linked and see some of the great things Newt tried to fight.

    I would not call people morons when you clearly lack the knowledge to know what really happened in the 90′s.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and I will never think he is any better than Romney, they are both the same on big government solutions like Mandates, but at least Romney is a governor. I take a big government governor over a big government baggage holding ex-speaker of the house. I see no way Newt win against Obama with his record; Iowa showed us how the rest will act once they know Newts real record.

  • jakeofalltrades

    not everyone who votes in a Republican primary is conservative. You can win a Republican primary with moderates. I give you: McCain.

  • jaykali

    I think to conservatives Romney definitely is a squishy moderate but I don’t think he will appear squishy in a general election. On all the important stuff Romney holds (or at least expresses) generally agreed upon conservative values. This isn’t going to be an election where SNL makes fun of how much stuff they agree on like they did with Gore v Bush. Times have changed and it is more clear than EVER the differences in liberal and conservative thought.

    Just go down the list:
    +Economy/Jobs
    +Taxes/tax reform
    +Government Spending
    +Entitlements
    +National Defense
    +Healthcare (I know you say RomneyCare! but that wont stop him from railing against the current healthcare law as he should)
    +Immigration

    At least when you look at conservative ‘talking points’ as it relates to debates or campaign speeches, he will sound virtually identical to any other republican candidate you put out there. The only thing he wouldn’t might be on social issues, he would be much more likely to dance around social issue stuff and that’s fine bc you know what those aren’t high priority items this election.

    And don’t discount the fact that the general public who will be voting is not going to know nuances of republican conservative thought, they will see romney as a business guy republican who has a very different plan for the economy and that would be their choice against obama who will be basically offering more of the same. Now maybe his attack ads will turn Romney into a wall street crony but if so then they could have done the same with ANY of the candidates. Perry would be Bush 2.0, Bachman would be the crazy lady, Santorum would be a the extreme religious zealot, so on and so on. They have enough ammunition to do real damage, we will see if the swing voter buys in. I tend to think they wont.

    My guess is that even marginal republicans will be extremely motivated, and the swing vote in my mind has already gone republican I dont see it heading back to Obama.

  • jakeofalltrades

    We’re all weeping. /sarc

  • jaykali

    but i would tend to think people who are motivated enough to get off their coach and go vote in a primary and usually going to be the ones who will end up voting for the republican. the only ones voting in these primaries that wont vote for the eventual nominee in my mind are ab half of ron paul supporters. I hope he does run as a 3rd party candidate bc I think he’ll steal more obama would-be votes than he would republican votes.

    the argument i say that is stupid is that conservatives wont get off their coach and vote for the republican nominee bc he isnt ‘conservative’ enough. yes they will. we have a presidential election every 4 years and this incumbent is universally despised by conservatives, so yes republicans are going to vote for the republican nominee.

  • westcoastpatriette

    You say it’s hard to know just how representative you and your friends are to the rest of the country and let me just say, not very. For starters, you are all government employees and all six of the others (besides youself) are dems. I rest my case.

  • JSobieski

    My brother is reluctant to invest in Company A. I keep arguing with him to do so—pushing, nagging, etc. He keeps refusing.

    Finally, I say—just try it ….even if you don’t invest alot just try putting in $X.

    He relents, and does so and the investment pays a sizable profit.

    Who deserves more of the credit? The person who kept pushing and pushing and pushing, or the person who went along almost involuntarily?

    The only credit Clinton deserves is for finally going along and giving in — a totally different magnitude of credit than the person actually LEADING on the issue.

  • lizzie

    what makes GOP voters think us independents and conservative dems want a soulless squish as y’all describe Romneywhen what we want is the opposite of the soulless squish that is Obama.

    I do not care WHAT the national polls say about Romney’s “electability”.
    All that means is Romney has NAME RECOGNITION and his name is NOT Obama.

    The poll that counts is 75% of Americans think America is going in the wrong direction.
    All of Congress has about 10% approval rating.

    No one is going to believe that Obama has finally turned the economy in the right direction based on the unemployment number. Besides, that goes up as soon as the “totally disillusioned no longer counted” return to looking for a job.

    Romney is the worst possible candidate besides Ron Paul to nominate.

    The 2012 election is about finding the OPPOSITE of Obama, and also the opposite of Bush43 who together since 2000 managed to explode, more than TRIPLE, the deficit, and essentially eleven years of no new real jobs (75% of the job creation during Bush43 were linked to the housing bubble).

    well, enough on that. BUT, the last person who can win is another Harvard MBA+Lawyer. Romney is the worst of Bush43 AND Obama.

    Maybe America can survive four years of a spineless squish Romney, but he will not really repeal Obamacare unless repeal is passed with a veto-proof majority (so he will feel it is a mandate).
    I am positive America and the world will not survive Ron Paul.

    btw, for the commenter who pointed out that he agrees with Romney’s free market solution to the housing crisis by allowing it to hit bottom?
    THAT is the Obama campaign’s anti-Romney talking point today.

    They are BOTh wrong. This housing crisis is unlike any ever seen before since the 1930′s, and, in some ways, worse because it was created by Federal government stupidity, and is prolonged by new Federal Government stupidity that has made it so much harder for people who would have gotten mortgages in the pre-Clinton era when you needed 20% down and a good credit score. The new regulations put in place 2010, and more new ones in 2011, have returned the American housing market back to the 1880′s when you needed 100% cash.

    my rant is over on the Not-Romney subject.

    The GOP is devouring itself. At least Bachmann understood the peril of both Fannie & Freddie and then Dodd-Frank.

    And Gov. Perry has never mentioned the housing crisis.
    Why? I guess because Texas did not have one.
    Why? Texas learned from thelate 1980′s Savings & Loan crisis, and kept in place Texas regulations that kept their housing market mostly immune from the virus.
    And Gov. Perry does not want to remind anyone that he did lure Countrywide into Texas towards the end, before Countrywide could do much damage. a small oops.

    Romney is a clone of Bush43+Obama, without any of their personal affability – not that Obama’s is sincere, but he does a better job faking it than Romney ever will.

  • lizzie

    (hey I tried to become a teacher at age 50 because I wanted a few more years of being useful and working),
    but, the teachers’ unions are the heart of Obama’s base.

    a less representative sampling of opinion would be 7 out of 7 teachers in New York City. Even if they were not union public school teachers, in NYC, most private school teachers have phDs, also Obama’s base.

  • WillWong

    If i let the polls decide for me, i will be on the Romney bandwagon! I was just trying to tell you that Perry was the front runner for a while but screwed up when he cannot remember which department he wants to eliminate, and for calling conservatives who are anti-illegal immigration heartless!

    I gave money to Bachmann when she was stuck in the single digit! I gave money to Newt when he was dropping!

  • AceInTX

    I think Gingrich has a lot of problems…I’d vote for him to stop Romney in a second…but the truth matters to me…and the…Conservatives ran Newt out of congress on a rail” is BS of the first order….it is a damned dirty lie worthy of contempt from those who care about honest debate and truth.

  • AceInTX

    and it hacks me off every time I hear the lie repeated.

  • AceInTX

    and it was Newt’s doing that got him there.,…

    The rest of what you are saying may be true….but it is a lie that he was run out of town by conservatives…he was run our of town by feckless, lazy and unprincipled RINO’s who were tired of fighting and wanted to get back to the good old days when Democrats ran everything…and Republicans ate the crumbs that fell from their table.

  • AceInTX

    ?

  • AceInTX

    Newt went off the rails later…and I’m no Newt fan. But it’s a lie to say he was forced out by conservatives…so…stick to your lie of you wish….that just proves you to be an unprincipled and shameless liar who has no concept of truth.

    you want to discuss Newt’s real and many sins and heresys, I’ll likely side with you and back you up…but say Newt was forced out by Conservatives and I’m calling BS on the lie.

  • Vegas_Rick

    And, while I recognize that if one has no job, a retail job is better than nothing, I would be much more impressed by the creation of manufacturing or other higher paying jobs that directly help the middle class.