« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mitt Romney, of the Private Sector

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2012 at 07:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Apparently, in a rush to conduct two debates on the same days as the opening round of the NFL Playoffs, there was another debate Sunday morning. If I was only vaguely aware it was occurring, I cannot imagine the audience was all that large. I mean, really, if you were a) awake, b) not at church, c) not watching the NFL pregame show, and d) actually tuned in to watch a political debate at 10 in the morning, you probably have already figured out who you’re going to vote for. That said, everyone who missed the debate missed the probable end of Romney‘s horribly phony “I’ve spent my entire life in the private sector” spiel, as Newt Gingrich apparently finally decided he’d had enough. This happened:

In fact, Newt really only touched the tip of the iceberg with respect to Romney’s many, many attempts to leave the private sector. Including primaries, Romney has participated in an astounding 22 elections (compiling an abysmal 5-17 record). Romney may have spent most of his life in the private sector, but that’s only because voters kept refusing to send him to the public sector. Romney has other things he can run on; this is one he should give a rest.

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • TopGun

    When you continuously misrepresent your background, there comes a point in time when it has to be called what it really is. The person is a Pathological Liar.

    What can you accomplish by replacing the present Pathological Liar residing in the Oval Office with another Pathological Liar?

    • score333

      From a different time but interesting comparison.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmcN1z_qOM&feature=related

    • BrendanW

      the 5-17 record is a terribly orchestrated statistic. Brings to mind the old Simpson’s quote. Homer: “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”

      It includes the primaries and not the caucuses from 2008. That’s like counting all the state by state votes in the general. The primary is one election – to be the party nominee – you either win or lose it.

      Romney ran in the following elections:

      1994 MA Senate primary (win, but not meaningful)
      1994 MA Senate general (loss, but not meaningful)
      2002 MA Gov primary (win, moderately meaningful)
      2002 MA Gov general (win, meaningful)
      2008 US Pres primary (loss, meaningful)

      That’s 5 election, and he’s 3-5. In the meaningful ones he’s 1-1.

      That’s not to say he can argue he’s not a career politician – he’s been running for office since 1994 – that’s 18 years. Pretty much a career. Sure he wrote a book in between two presidential elections (typical politician move.) I consider the Olympic Games in Utah a pseudo gov’t job. He did go back to Bain Capital after the 1994 race, so take a few years off. That’s still 14 or 15 years in public sector.

      I think he can credibly argue he’s not a Washington DC insider – an argument Santorum and Newt cannot make. He can argue that he had a career in the private sector (and a highly distinguished one, even if it has bad populist optics) – something Newt, Perry, and Santorum cannot. On the other hand those guys can argue they understand even better than Romney how politics and policy impact, but they haven’t mostly because it’s an insider argument I guess.

      • cbs

        Good to see a well reasoned and fair post amidst…..

        • BrendanW

          he lost the re-election for Gov in MA by default. Let’s assume he was polling great, would he have run for re-election and run for president? Or would he have run for re-election and bided his time for one more cycle (seeing the juggernaut the BHO was becoming)?

          Who knows… I don’t believe his story that “having accomplished all I I set out to I decided not to seek reelection”, plausible explanations:

          1. Working with the MA legislature became obvious he couldn’t make the next round of changes to improve the state. He did best to route out corruption and balance budget, but more progressive conservative reforms were not possible. (Best sounding answer.)

          2. Running for re-election was too big of a risk to political future. (Most likely answer.)

          3. He didn’t want to be sitting Gov while running for president. (The compromise, believable and acceptable answer.)

          They are all sides of the same triangle – but in the center is the knowledge that reelection would be difficult if not impossible. So I say counting that as a loss is OK.

          • vaaztx

            When Mitt had to make the call about whether to run in early 2006 BHO was a backbencher barely on anyone’s Presidential radar. As far as anyone with sense was concerned in 2006, Hillary had already sewn up the 2008 Democratic nod.

      • vaaztx

        If you count the 2008 primaries as one race, then Mitt is 3-2, not 3-5, but only 1-2 in meaningful races (you can’t call 2002 meaningful while saying 1994 is not). OTOH Mitt was 11-19 in the caucuses and primaries he participated in prior to withdrawing from the race on February 7 (3-18 if you ignore the caucuses and look at primaries only).

        Or by my math Romney is 14-20 in all elections and 4-19 in meaningful elections, or about as successful as Todd Haley was in Kansas City.

      • haners

        Romney Derangement Syndrome apparently is still well and alive among the Redstate editors. Is this their Final Stand or something?

    • mine

      I’ve been a fan of the Newt and have been on his mailing list for about a dozen years. Having said that I’ve probably only read his mail a dozen times over that period because he can be such a pompous windbag. And I don’t support his run for President. In fact his comments are really annoying me. He has a video coming attacking Romney for job losses at Bain companies. Yet isn’t the Newt going to cut jobs in the Government if he is elected? He says he believes in capitalism but not in the Wall St version. Well I’d like to know more about what he means by that. Does he support the bucket load of additional regulations put out last year opposed and opposed by the republicans in congress? Look, the Newt has been running for President ever since I’ve been on his mailing list and is still a second tier candidate. His three marriages is an offense to my wife and most other thinking women. We are appalled he is collecting up to $20m from a casino owner to finance his campaign. He’s got to pack it in. He is really offending me by how he is running his campaign.

      • WillWong

        ever since you have been on his mailing list….and you have been on his mailing list for about a dozen years and during this dozen years…you only read a dozen of his mails? Math doesn’t add up!

  • gpclaw

    I love watching a politician squirm, and try to force a smile, while getting hit over the head with the truth. Great way to start the morning!

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

    …so the introductory observation is to invite y’all to look into Perry’s eyes as he was handshaking Santorum after the debate…

    http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120108_candidates_simon_ap_.jpg

    …as a reflection of his steely resolve, for he recognizes the profundity of the challenge that we all must confront.

    ***

    The second observation is that the “Conservative” Pundits continue to kill-off Perry by issuing faint-praise:

    “As for Rick Perry, all you have to do is watch that agonizing 53 second brain freeze again. Perry’s weakness is that he’s never had a secret ambition to be president of the United States. He got into the race when other politicians’ decisions not to run seemed to create an opening for the governor of the nation’s second largest and best job-creating state. But his sketchy knowledge of national and foreign issues revealed him as a man who had already achieved his life’s ambition as governor of Texas.” {Michael Barone}

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/09/the_weakness_that_saps_the_strength_of_gop_candidates_112687.html

    *

    “[T]he strongest performance among his rivals was turned in by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is at the bottom of the New Hampshire polls. If he gets any lift, it is likely to be at the expense of other not-Romney candidates. Back-to-back solid debate performances from Perry may also revive his fortunes in South Carolina, posing a problem for Santorum, who now seems to have plateaued in the polls. Perry?s answers were generally crisp and on the money. To the laughter of the crowd he finally ticked off those three agencies he would do away with. He was relaxed but not sleepy.” {Jenifer Rubin, Mitt-supporter}

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/they-swing-and-miss-at-romney/2012/01/08/gIQAv48MjP_blog.html#pagebreak

    *

    “Perry’s campaign isn’t a parody, though it has vastly under-performed and is the verge of being one of the worst in modern GOP history. Perry’s playing, it seems, more and more like a joke – or a place where his only mission is to disagree with all things not his own. The joke may have been on his financial supporters. Pretty soon, the only thing Perry will truly be able to call his own is the timing and location of his exit from the race.” {This is how Major Garrett ended a piece that had PRAISED Perry throughout.}

    http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/perry-unplugged-at-new-hampshi.php#disqus_thread

    ***

    The third observation is that “disinterested” pundits perpetuate the negative-meme of Perry; it’s so tiresome to read it:

    “FreedomWorks sponsored an August protest of one of Romney?s few tea party appearances ? a New Hampshire stop on a Tea Party Express bus tour that was supposed to drum up excitement for the GOP nominating process among movement activists. And Kibbe said he?s concerned that if Romney is the nominee, the reaction among tea partiers and other fiscal conservatives will be ‘a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of energy and people staying home.’ ? {The only reference to Perry in this 3-page piece–”Perry, the Texas governor whose debate stumbles sent his campaign reeling”–was technically-true, but meritorious of being updated.}

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71219_Page3.html#ixzz1ixrPnu00″

    ***

    The fourth observation is that a review of comments by Dick Morris [tweeted during the Saturday-p.m. event, provided to RS-readers previously, and the Sunday-a.m. debate, available @ the below-hyperlink] indicated that he issued only one, which was complimentary to Perry:

    DickMorrisTweet Dick Morris
    #nhdebate #hannity #tcot #gop @talkmaster Good answer by Perry on right-to-work.
    21 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    https://twitter.com/#!/dickmorristweet

    He has been otherwise negative [critiquing his intellect], as has been FNC’s Greek-Chorus, but the lack of justification for such commentary is glaring.

    *

    • david1313

      He will have more serious ‘gaffes’. He is a very smart man, but is prone to saying odds things, that will hurt him if he is succesful later on. I live in ‘Texas and have watched him for a long time. He does have a problem at times thinking on his feet. If he is the nominee you will see it again. If you can handle that then ok. I know that Newt is a better choice and is the only one Mitt fears. There will be more millions spent to discredit Newt in the days to come. There is a reason for that. He can beat Mitt and Obama

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

        …such as proposing judges be arrested so that they can be forced to testify on behalf of previously-issued Opinions?

        • david1313

          on gaffes? Hmmm, the position paper on the judges is on Newt’s website and is excellent. It was not a gaffe, it was the main stream media wanting it to be. There is not comparrision between Newt and Perry on mis-statements or ability to think on their feet.

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

            arresting judges?

          • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

            Impeaching them for opinions based on their own opinion rather than law or precedent? Absolutely frickin’ YES!!!

            Long overdue.

            Gingrich deserves to be elected for this, not bashed.

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

            How ’bout his [tired] rambling/rationalization of Freddie-Mac, a few weeks ago, when he essentially attempted [without releasing allegedly supportive data, as FM has officially allowed him to do] to claim he was delivering “history” lessons?

            Gimme a break!

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            If Cain, Bachmann, or Perry had said that about judges, people would be saying

            It’s about time someone did something about those activist judges.

            But because Newt said it, it must be crazy. I’ve really just had it with this whole primary season. Republicans now use media tactics to argue, e.g. 5% unemployment is bad (Bush), but 8 1/2% unemployment is good (Obama). Ideas that have been conservative for a long time suddenly aren’t, and moderate and/or liberal ideas are suddenly conservative. Words no longer have meaning.

            I’ll just be glad when the silly season is finally over.

        • red_oakster

          Perry may be ahead of Huntsman in South Carolina, but that’s about it. He seems to low on money. Newt certainly has greater resources than he does at this point. And Santorum probably has enough money to compete in South Carolina.

          I’m looking ahead to a race without Perry. What I see is either Newt or Santorum emerging as the only alternative, or a prolonged multi-candidate race in which Romney wins pluralisty after plurality against a divided field.

          If Santorum can finish ahead of Newt again in New Hampshire, I think Santorum has the best chance to become that singular alternative at this point, but truthfully who knows? The only thing that seems clear is that Perry needs a miracle.

          • Common_Cents

            “Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, appears doomed to a fifth-place finish in Iowa. Unless he drops out, that would make South Carolina his last stand against Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney.

            The problem is that he might not receive an invitation to an upcoming South Carolina debate (given the debate criteria).

            Candidates can qualify to participate in the CNN/Southern Republican Leadership Conference debate January 19th (two days before the South Carolina primary) in one of four ways. First and second, they can place in the top four in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Third and fourth, they can qualify by averaging seven percent support in three polls conducted nationally or in South Carolina by certain approved media and polling organizations.”

            http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/iowa-finish-could-knock-perry-out-sc-debate/289801

          • sunshinek67

            After 15 debates haven’t the folks heard what they’re going to hear from the candidates by now? Incidentally, Santorums meteoric (short lived) shot in the polls has afforded him an opportunity to get more air time in these God forsaken dog and pony shows. Absurd.

            What I hope if the case for exclusion holds true, perhaps Governor Perry can hold a massive townhall with an exhaustive question and answer session. Headline grabbing “soundbites”, something extraordinary, because as you can see with your own eyes these silly debates are doing nothing but generating buzz for the networks sponsoring them. As a matter of fact, Perry has been the only one with striking proposals, sanction Iranian bank, reassess Iraq, part time Congress. His time has been limited but his ideas are huge and groundbreaking.

            I will offer this, Newts baggage is a problem, to a degree. After seeing the attack ads against him in Iowa from Romney SuperPac deflate his Iowa bubble, I am glad Newts SuperPac is going after him now, because at the end of the day it is still anybody but Ron-Romney.

          • Common_Cents

            Perry should be invited to the debate. It’s ironic that supporters were giving CNN praise on Perry coverage and he may be excluded from a CNN debate.

            Perry not getting more support just shows how far left America has slipped. Someday America will be ready for Perry. We haven’t hit our bottom yet and learned the lesson, all over again.

          • jakeofalltrades

            He got more than that % of the popular vote in Iowa.

          • znjs

            And no, the Iowa results don’t qualify him that way – in Iowa you had to get in the top 4. The polls have to be ones that cnn thinks are credible and during the month of Iowa. Basically look at the ones the rcp uses for their average, and only ones since Jan 1.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Proof please.

          • znjs

            Perry did poll above 7% in some national or SC polls in Dec, but I haven’t seen any (other then online ones which obviously don’t count) in any poll taken since the start of January. The CBS and Gallup national polls have him at 6%, and Rasmussen puts him down at 4%. And the PPP, CNN, and Rasmussen all have him at 5% in SC.
            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

            If you can find polls by these organizations

            ABC, AP, Bloomberg, CBS News, New York Times, CNN, FOX, Gallup, Los Angeles Times, Marist, McClatchy, NBC, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac, Reuters, USA Today and Time

            which polls only in January that have him above 7% either nationally or in SC I’d like to see them.
            http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/criteria-announced-for-southern-gop-presidential-debate/

          • jakeofalltrades

            nt

          • jakeofalltrades

            I only need two polls that agree.

          • znjs

            *month of January.

            Too early. Grrrr to no edit button.

            And to be clear it’s possible that polls exist that would qualify Perry that I haven’t noticed, but no one has pointed any out to me.

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

            …because no one offers the fundamentals that Perry champions.

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

            …it’s necessary to assess updated polling-data.

          • explodinghead

            The Perry resurgence or not apart, can you support Santorum if he supports SOPA? I listened to the video Constitutional linked and it sure sounds like Santorum supports regulating the internet. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge that this is the slippery slope through which the “government” gets involved in regulating speech. Remarkable how it is always the right-leaning speech that is censored. This position is not palatable to me. Freedom of speech is for everyone. If it comes down to Newt or Santorum, this support of SOPA could absolutely be a deal breaker for me. I am trying to find Newt’s position on SOPA.

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

            He didn’t explicitly support SOPA, otoh his “I reject that (you can’t regulate internet)” was disturbingly pro-regulation of this.

            We need a more targetted, sensible and tailored GOP position on stopping piracy without regulating the internet.

          • sunshinek67

            and big spending. Face it, if he is the nominee nothing changes in Washington in regards to our debt. For religious leaders to come out and support him makes me begin to question their motives and whether or not they even understand how stuff works in Washington. Declaring a big Government regulation and spender politician a warrior on social values does nothing for the bottom line. Absolutely nothing. I may be not be a seasoned politico, but I don’t think you have to be a veteran to understand that spending is out of control, Government is getting that much bigger, and Obama has cut $1 trillion from the defense budget.

            So now, back to Clinton years when he downsized military, thus making us a substantially weaker nation in the process. 9/11 plotted under his Administration. Less focus on defense and keeping our border secure trumps domestic policy. I’ve said it before, domestic policy is null and void when borders are unprotected and our military is decreased. If a Romney supporter pays attention to what he is saying in regards to foreign policy, he hasn’t a clue. I am sure he will surround himself with competent “generals” though, please go back to the private sector Mitt Romney, it made him billions at the expense of the little guy.

          • sunshinek67

            MORE focus on defense….sorry making chili and multitasking again lol

            Cold rainy day in Texas friends, but the sun always shines regardless :D

        • NeoKong

          ?such as proposing judges be arrested so that they can be forced to testify on behalf of previously-issued Opinions?

          That’s one of the reasons I like him. I would love nothing more than to see some of these glory seeking activist judges hauled before Congress to explain where they think they get their authority.
          It’s long overdue.
          After that then maybe we can include a few cabinet secretaries as well.

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

            …for this action would serve only to intimidate, hardly rebalancing the branches.

          • gpclaw

            how would a future leftist president wield the same power?

      • tjms

        I sure have not seen/heard these “gaffes” could you please give some examples? If you mean that Gov. Perry usually says what he means and means what he says that could be a possibility otherwise I am unaware of the serious gaffes he has made.

        • david1313

          and that has been often over the last few years, he has that ‘deer in the headlights look’ like you have seen a few times during the debate. You might not think that is a problem, I do. Having said that if he is the nominee, I will fight tirelessley to help him get elected, and put my money where my mouth is. I do not think he has a prayer against Obama, or Mitt for that matter.

          • tjms

            I am still not aware of. We all have different expressions and that is not a disqualifier for me and would hope most voters would not base their vote on such.

          • david1313

            It is not so much gaffees, it is his expressions that give me pause. I do think if he becomes the front runner again, he will freeze up again. Also there is baggage that will come up. If you have lived in Texas all your life, like I have, you already know what they are. And no, I don’t want to list them, they will come out if he becomes serious contender again.

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

            …because your argument has been reduced to personal-perception, a favored technique of the MSM/LSM/ELM.

            Furthermore, he has already been thoroughly vetted, so let’s not raise the spectre of the unknown to impugn his stature, ok?

          • david1313

            That does not describe me. I will support and work hard for Perry if he is nominated.

          • tjms

            been exposed I do not follow you. The rumors that have already been dismissed are all I know of.

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

            …and, thus, it’s unlikely anything else substantive will emerge.

          • david1313

            there is nothing to worry about. We will see.

          • irishgirl

            and I have no idea what you’re referring to, David.

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

      …which will also be used to analyze the parent-piece….

      * {denotes programmatic breaks}

      NEWT comment on Mitt: need bold RR-conservative with economic plan vs. moderate-Mass. Noted in handout that he?s ?not electable? softened to ?would have great difficulty.?
      MITT replied he has quality record, created jobs, endorsements illustrating accomplishments.
      SANTORUM comment on Mitt: Noted he refused to run for re-election; in contrast, Santorum ran for re-election. Cited his ?94 victory compared with Mitt?s loss to Teddy Kennedy. He was reminded of endorsement of Romney over McCain.
      MITT didn?t run for reelection because, otherwise, it would have been ?all about me.? Testy exchange with Santorum [you won?t run for re-election if POTUS?] yielded answer to his query [yes]. Portrayed desire for term-limits.
      NEWT noted Mitt ignored red-light [because he?s the front-runner]. And he then noted he was disingenuous when he claimed he was only sporadically running [?pious bologna?].
      MITT said his father advised him to only get involved in politics if he could make a difference [and had already raised a family]; admitted he wasn?t going to beat Teddy Kennedy, but felt compelled to oppose him [and that he had to take-out a mortgage to beat him].
      PAUL doesn?t believe Mitt is true Conservative, per review of issues [TARP, Fed, RomneyCare, overseas spending] instead of character.
      MITT said he has conservative record and documented views in his book.
      PERRY said we must beat BHO, involve TPM, dismantle big-spending D.C. [referring to all competitors]. He noted BHO has poured gas on fire; problem existed but was exacerbated. Emphasized importance of manifesting TPM movement?s fundamentals.
      MITT wants to convey passionate need to get USA back on-course.
      HUNTSMAN attacked Mitt for attacking his loyalty to America during last night?s debate.
      MITT replied in partisan fashion, and?
      HUNTSMAN said America was divided due to attitudes such as that; regarding painful spending-cuts, he endorsed the Ryan Plan [entitlements including means-testing in SS/Medicare, cut spending rather than adhering to links to GDP].
      SANTORUM concurred with these potential-cuts, citing Welfare Reform.
      NEWT thought Ryan was a bridge-too-far, noted Wyden plan [just introduced] as transition. Would change bureaucracy to place ?pain? onto crooks.
      PERRY said he would cut bureaucrats in three departments [!]; wants to create jobs rather than focusing upon government assistance?by altering environment. Has executive governing experience to create jobs [only one]. {Dick Morris noted inherent humor in his presentation.}
      *
      SANTORUM said we should implement Ryan [premium-support] as Congress already has, comparable to Medicare-Voucher; wants to emphasize people should make choices. {THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR HIM WITH SENIORS.}
      MITT opposes tax-increases [supporting Norquist over Buffett] due to need to shrink government [e.g., OBamaCare]; would NOT change entitlements for current Seniors.
      HUNTSMAN supports elimination of deductions [loopholes supported by lobbyists].
      NEWT must work with opposition [citing experience] and got 1/3 of D?s to support RR tax-cuts. Must seek common-ground rather than compromising fundamentals. It can be done.
      MITT claimed he was able to do so, as well, when he exerts unilateral power to cut spending [after having been granted this power by his 85%-D legislature]. Cited charter-school achievements, too.
      PAUL works with other groups due to need to emphasize freedom; would only implement ?pain? on those who have benefitted via status-quo.
      SANTORUM cited welfare reform achievement. {Dick Morris said he was bit-player; Clinton did it all.?
      HUNTSMAN discussed trust and need for term-limits.
      PERRY agreed with need to continue discussion of leadership; when would you buck party? [makes them uncomfortable when cutting spending.] Biggest problem is not overseas [per Dr. Paul] because it?s actually bloated government [citing part-time Congress and implementation of term-limits] plus balanced-budgets. Would this be threatening to GOP? YES, because a bunch of people up here say they are conservative but their records say otherwise. {Dick Morris: ?Perry’s outside theme is good. So is term limits. But to him they are just sound bites.? Guzzardi asks: ?How many jobs has Morris helped to create??}
      SANTORUM attacked Paul for never having passed anything of consequence [despite desirability of his economic plan]; then attacked Paul for potential to implement Foreign Policy of neo-isolationism.
      PAUL replied by defending status [?we don?t accept elections overseas??] of opposing nation-building; also wants to change monetary policy [increasing support for auditing the Fed].
      *
      HUNTSMAN supports heating-oil subsidy, but emphasized need to undermine oil distribution monopoly to achieve energy independence.
      PAUL opposes subsidies philosophically, preferring deregulation and noted prices rise when government prints $. {Dick Morris: ?Ron Paul is wrong. Energy prices are a function of global demand and OPEC not monetary policy.?}
      MITT would not make D.C. responsible for social safety-net, instead bundling and sending back to states.
      MITT advocated more support for Gays previously, as illustrated by his appointments [executive/judicial], but still opposes same-sex marriage.
      SANTORUM [?surprised it?s coming to me? testily] feels all Gays should be respected, but wouldn?t change laws to allow for adoption/marriage.
      PERRY sees right-to-work as federal issue; endorsed DeMint?s effort to repeal state-level compliance. He is pro-job [taxes/regulations].
      MITT supports unions [training, etc.] and supports right-to-work [and would pull-back government unions? power by tying reimbursement to private-sector levels].
      SANTORUM defended opposition to right-to-work due to PA?s status.
      *
      NEWT would open-up additional energy supplies to increase competition and cut costs; BHO weakened us against Iran.
      MITT blames BHO for prolonged/tepid recovery, noting NLRB is stacked with labor-stooges. Also attacked ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank because they hurt good-guys [rather than just getting bad-guys].
      MITT views EPA regs regarding whether NH is Mass?s ?tail-pipe? need study; would not discount Federal role in this regard; emphasized need to develop fracking [citing PA].
      NEWT views ?Environmental Solutions Agency? [rather than radical/imperious/uncooperative EPA] as problem-solving that wouldn?t depend upon regs. [such as ?dust?-related efforts]. Would attack efforts in Arizona [incentivize change, not punish it] to forget this is occurring in desert [got applause].
      PERRY endorsed McCain over BHO?s socialism, in-variance with Founding Fathers; emphasizes 10th Amendment.
      SANTORUM said vote for Medicare D [no funding] supplanted concern with HSA and Medicare Advantage.
      PAUL said entitlements [including healthcare] are not ?rights.? Only ?right? is ?right to liberty.? Opposes affirmative-action [women, blacks, gays, etc.].
      HUNTSMAN views ?leave free or die? [NH motto] as manifesting recognition of life/liberty/happiness-pursuit. Doesn?t like bashing/vilifying [of unions, etc.] and likes unifying [attacking trust-deficit].
      *
      30-second answers request:
      {Note Perry was ignored, while Santorum was queried twice.}
      SANTORUM on Iran: why can?t we live with nuclear iran? Would push to war? Because it?s a theocracy. Quotes Ahmadinejad as seeking martyrdom. Pakistan? Not a theocracy, but still a serious threat [BHO bungled].
      NEWT on Mitt?s super-PAC, now claiming Mitt is ?predator? [Bain] and ?liar.? Consistent? Based on facts.
      MITT agreed super-PAC is dominated by his aides, but can?t direct them; those that were seen were correct [citing Pelosi, loss of speakership, etc.]?and then said Newt?s rhetoric was over-the-top.
      SANTORUM would use bully-pulpit to shape American culture by emphasizing family.
      PAUL would use bully-pulpit by preaching Gospel of Liberty, as per Founders/Framers [$, property, defense].

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        This was on after my bedtime in Thailand xD.

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

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/45918147#VpFlash

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

      …and let’s see if something new emerges in the process….

      *

      Newton’s Third Law is of-interest:

      ?Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et ?qualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse ?quales et in partes contrarias dirigi.?

      ?To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.?

      A more direct translation than the one just given above is:

      LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. ? Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in the next scholium. {“Principia” on page 20 of volume 1 of the 1729 translation.}

      *

      We know that the long-knives were out for Perry after he announced but?na?vete having been the entry-attitude?we didn?t know the profundity of the fear he struck into the GOP-Establishment. As transient as were the initial issues [Ponzi Scheme, Gardisil, tuition-break], all the moreso were the lost opportunities to tackle the underlying issues [jobs, economy, federalism]. Essentially, the equilibrium was threatened.

      That?s why a ?reaction? emerged, ?equal and opposite.?

      Indeed, ?the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts,? for the existential crisis he triggered among the DC-insiders [and pretenders to this status] ?triggered? an antipathy which rippled through the MSM/LSM/ELM [?Establishment Leaning Media?]. Actually, it was this last component that proved [via FNC] to be the most potent.

      But the stabbed Governor decided last Thursday [while jogging] not to utter ?Et tu, Fox? Then fall, Perry!? He is pushing back.

      *

      Our error was manifest when we ignored this sub-aphorism: ?Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.? Essentially, the Perry-opposition was as drawn to his ?outsider? status [to oppose it, of course] as was the Perry-advocacy motivated to proclaim it. Such symbiosis, if recognized, could have been prophylaxed via prior preparation of position-papers/strategic-contingencies, etc., but there was a compulsion to initiate the unique re-education of the electorate that this August announcement portended; the 10th Amendment had been ignored during the modern era of discourse.

      This is why ?If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.? Perry, on some level, NEEDED to maintain a taut-rope by being prepared to reply to anticipated reactions to his programme [as detailed in ?Fed Up!?] before the ?agenda? had been [now successfully] reformatted by his opponents.

      Instead, because of laws-of-unintended-consequences [?If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part.?], Perry was buffeted by countervailing forces. We had not remembered Guzzardi ?s adage: ?We were playing checkers, foolishly, while they were playing chess.?

      *

      What is the remedy?

      We must apply the tag-line principle [?The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies.?] We must ?hinder? the reaction by insertion of ?impediments? that could protect Perry while he continues to make his case unimpeded. We must focus on his themes, transitioning anything seemingly-tangential [including Faith-based ads, @ this point] into the focused message of GOOD GOVERNMENT.

      • westcoastpatriette

        could be developed using the principles of gravity whereby the principles of power and lift supercede the principle of gravity and propel a plane to fly. The analogy being that Perry just needs enough power (via superior qualifications and proven conservative results) combined with lift (people convinced of his superiority who are devoted to seeing him win) to propel him beyond the powers of gravity (all of the opposition on the ground.)

        Sounds good, eh?

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

          …and one might even cite “e=mc2″!

          • tjms

            but I had read a previous post by you regarding getting Gov. Perry into PA. I have a huge amt. of family in the southwest(Beaver valley) area of PA. 1/2 of them supported Obama in the previous election and have no desire to do so again. One called yesterday asking my opinion of why republicans(this one is a conservative repub) would attempt to put up Santorum, as they are well aware of him, and ignore Perry. They(the previous Obama supporters) have decided they will just vote down ticket if any of the current front runners are the ticket. Just wondered if you do get the Gov. to visit if you would be sure and advise so they might have the opp to hear/meet him. They all love what he has done in Texas and would move south in a heartbeat, other than our summers! just hoping you have luck and will keep us updated. thanks for all you do in support of Gov. Perry.

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

            work-in-progress

        • JSobieski

          The power/lift analogy does not factor in the critical limitation of distance/time from a point of no return.

          At this point, the campaign is up against not only the requirements for lift, but must achieve those requirements in a dramatic and timely fashion. Otherwise, the campaign will find itself at the point of no return.

          Your analogy would have been appropriate in August, but it is now January.

      • halothane

        It’s actually less of a physics lesson than that.

        Perry is in trouble because he entered the field unprepared. I totally buy his capital C Conservative street cred, but I and most of America are not very forgiving of folks that show up to play in the Big Show and are unprepared. There is NO excuse for entering any debate without a fair idea of what will be asked, and you had better have polished answers for the questions.

        Perry simply needs to adhere to the principle that proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

        He has the Conservative credentials. He has an excellent record of job creation in Texas. He has some ideas with potential to move forward. He simply has to execute flawlessly. This is not the minor leagues here, and there is no room for anything less than excellence.

        If Gov. Perry can shed the fail sauce that he has amply coated himself with and execute like a chief executive, then he has both my vote and my financial support. We simply cannot afford and should not accept anything less than the relentless demands of excellence in a presidential candidate. If the last three years have made any point abundantly clear, it is that we cannot accept polished mediocraty.

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

      …is that Mitt’s disingenuous presentation of his sense of patriotism has been punctured.

      The initial foray was provided to illustrate that there are no available “reinforcements” for such an argument among most “Conservative” bloggers; subsequently, a comparable conclusion was drawn regarding broadcast-journalism.

      The Newtonian Physics discussion was provided to illustrate how high the stakes have become [or rather, "have always been, although we didn't know it"] regarding how to strategize.

      Now, quotations from the “paraphrased”-transcript can be used to illustrate why the “ad hominem” anti-Mitt foray was successful [as validated on PMSNBC, albeit not on FNC...predictably].

      The “inevitability” argument has been forestalled, masked by hyped-up praise for Huntsman’s clean-intellect. That’s why Mitt was soooo wrong when he attacked the patriotism of his Chinese Ambassadorship [no matter how problematic his support for BHO's policies had become] based on a petty-partisan argument. And Chris Christie’s reinforcement ["one wonders whether he deviated into personal interest when lunching with visiting business-people"] was an extension of this error, for there is not a shred of proof to support such an accusation.

      But Huntsman clearly is desperate, “pandering” ["HUNTSMAN supports heating-oil subsidy"] just as Santorum did in Iowa [ethanol subsidies]. This, again, illustrates why ON-THE-ISSUES, Perry is predominant.

      *

      What to do?

      Perry issued his not-so-covert request, amplified by a piece on Politico about the silence of the TPM ["PERRY said we must beat BHO, involve TPM, dismantle big-spending D.C. (referring to all competitors). He noted BHO has poured gas on fire; problem existed but was exacerbated. Emphasized importance of manifesting TPM movement?s fundamentals."].

      It’s time for Sarah, etc. to be aggressively invoked!

      *

      • red_oakster

        The Governor is on his own. I wish it weren’t so.

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

          …based upon direct observation of those in Des Moines.

  • david1313

    He said he had not seen the ads in Iowa again Newt, then turned around and quoted them almost word for word. The man needs to be exposed.

    • circlegranch

      Mika noted this morning that Romney is now exhibiting an ‘amused condescension’ toward his fellow candidates. Another commentator also nailed it by saying Romney ‘just wants to get to Sept’ because in Sept, he can run as himself. He’s bored with this ultra right position he is forced to take in the primaries. He wants to get back to his comfort zone which is middle and to the left here and there. In the meantime, he must suffer we conservative fools.

      • david1313

        junk food in the morning. Hmmm. Mika is a hottie, but dumb as a brick.

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

          …when she engages in live-appearances, although her ability to run around with a mic while wearing 4′ heels is remarkable, as The Bob noted eight days ago.

  • bdirks

    I was waiting for the kitchen sink to come out. There it is.

    The primary for a Presidential nomination is a multistep process. It’s one election though. I suspect this is the first and last time anyone will use all the primaries as part of a politician’s “lifetime score”.

    • buddyp

      I agree. That struck me as a strange, obviously grossly unfair contrivance (counting all the primaries rather than viewing it as one contest).

    • Leon H. Wolf

      The individual states’ primaries do not each count as a separate election in that tally. The entire 2008 primary season counts as one primary for the purpose of that tally. However, the 2002 Gubernatorial election counts as 2 elections because he won the GOP primary and the general. In other words, counting it this way is actually helpful to Mitt.

      • bdirks

        Here’s what it says, I will let the readers decide whether the 5-17 record includes the individual states’ primaries – I don’t think it could be any more clear. Also, I didn’t even realize until checking this out that they also threw out caucus wins as well in their totals, probably because he won a bunch of them in 2008.

        –
        Over the years, Mitt Romney has faced voters in 22 contests. He won 5 of those races and lost 17 of them. (This total includes a win in the 1994 Massachusetts Republican Senate primary as well as results from the 19 primaries he participated in during 2008. It excludes caucuses because their rules make them complicated enough to be considered distinct from straight-up lever-pulling.)
        –

        • bdirks

          this is from Wikipedia, so I am holding a tablespoon of salt in the other hand, but according to them Romney won 11 states in the 2008 nomination contest. Even when you toss out the Nevada and Montana caucuses, that still leaves nine states won. Let’s assume he won a primary for senate in 1994, primary and the general election for governor in 2002. Three W’s. How did they get to 5? Are they just making it up?

          Michigan,
          Nevada (caucus),
          Wyoming,
          Maine,
          Massachusetts,
          Montana (caucus),
          Utah,
          Minnesota,
          Colorado,
          North Dakota,
          Alaska

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    Among Romney’s many problems is that he’s a career failed politician, which is worse than just being a career politician like most candidates, who at least have winning (and therefore a record of electability) to their credit.

    • izoneguy

      iwantedtobeacareerpolitician.com

      He slammed Perry early on for being a “career politician”.
      I would say Perry was a winner, Mitt is a loser.

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

      Here’s the funny thing.
      Romney’s Dad was a Governor and almost a President.

      There is no freakin’ way Romney was oblivious to political ambition. Nor is it something to be ashamed of. Romney’s political heritage is an asset if parlayed right.

      Had he been more honest and said that he wanted to follow his father’s footsteps and serve in public life (which is really what is going on), after spending 20 years in private sector, he’d be fine.

      His dancing around his passing up on 2006 election – which he did no to go into private life but so he could run for President fulltime – was as big a gaffe as Perry’s ‘oops’. Now this obvious fib will dog him.

  • Spartan4Life

    I like genuine, plain-spoken, honesty.

    I have found this whole “I spent my life in the private sector” meme just phony from the get go. He is trying to portray himself as Henry Ford. Doesn’t have the ring of truth.

  • clintonformccain

    And, in other news, dog bites man.

  • williamjameson

    thinking that running for office doesn’t count as someone who wants to be a politician. Most would have stopped running after 3 attempts…..a bit obsessive.

    This is the guy who plays Nanny Timer with debates and thinks people should wait their turn. Romney is trying to control who speaks as if he’s a moderator, its up to moderators to stop someone from interrupting. I’ve seen a couple of politicians saying when someone asks you to wait your turn you walk all over them and agitate them with facts.

    Control freaks can’t stand it when they set rules in their mind and no one wants to be submissive. This is the same man who made his kids take 10 minute showers instead of focusing on something more important.

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

      for trying to take over 1/7th of the economy.

      I dont think trying to stop others from over-talking you rises to that level of control freakishness.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    The big difference is that Romney at times dabbled with becoming a politician, often in a half-hearted, amateurish manner. Then he returned to the private sector where he had continually been successful.

    On the other hand Gingrich spent almost his entire career as a politician and occasionally dabbled in the private sector…after he got fired as a politician.

    Yeah at this point if I am forced to choose between the two, gun to my head, I’ll take the guy with plenty of real-world experience and part-time political experience. The portly, angry, unhinged, career politician and part-time private sector guy? Not so much.

    But Newt does have plenty of ideas. No. Really. Stop laughing.

  • joayn

    bring up a Wiki bio which would disprove many of his statements on Sunday. Even his supporters here would have to agree on that. So why would he make such outrageously untrue claims in the age of YouTube and the internet?

    Since I don’t think he’s delusional and really believes this rewrite of his own political and professional history, the only conclusion I can come to is that it’s a calculated effort to mislead the many undecideds out there who will do no research and take him at his word. He’s counting on any blowback by his opponents to be viewed as sour grapes or minor disagreement, which is common and expected in such circumstances.

    In other words, he’s counting on the millions of chumps out there who are either too lazy or too busy or too dumb to do any of their own research. He wasn’t talking to those of us who were watching and who actually know his history; he was tallking to all of them. And he needs them to win.

    I know a lot of people think Romney’s biggest weakness is his private sector experience, but I disagree. I remember thinking while watching the Sunday debate that in comparison to the Saturday debate, his governmental record and failed ambition together is his Achilles heel. And by making those patently false statements about his record, he’s just opened the door for his opponents to use it against him.

    Is Mitt Romeny willing to say anything to get elected? Sure sounds like it.

  • thosjefferson

    Newt loses his office because of corruption and pays a $300,000 fine, Santorum loses an election by 18% in a critical swing state, and these are the guys we think are better than Romney losing a Senate race to Ted Kennedy?

    Come to your sense, RedStaters!

    True, Romney lost the primary in 2008, mainly because anti-Mormon Christians supported Huckabee in Iowa. But he’s never been blown out like Santorum or run out of town for corruption like Newt.

    And Romney actually ran a business and ran the Olympics while Newt and Santorum were DC insiders selling influence and access.

    • jakeofalltrades

      This alone should have prevented Romney from ever being a national candidate.

      • thosjefferson

        That’s not even close to true, in any sense.

        • onionman

          Mitt ran to Kennedy’s left on abortion, affirmative action, and just about everything else

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5FGtR0bHkI

          Evidence for your assertion?

    • bob08034

      The way you wrote it makes it sound like the house censured him. He stepped down, in no small part, because his party’s loss of 5 seats was seen as a referendum on his leadership.

      My wife and I got up early (after a long drive the night before) to watch the debate. That one and the end of the one the night before are the only we’ve seen. The last hour was pre-empted by a paid church broadcast, so we went down in the basement to watch it stream on the PC.

      My wife isn’t very interested in politics, btw, and will definitely vote for either party in any given race. She disliked Perry and Santorum, and liked Huntsman and Gingrich. She thought many of the things Paul said made sense.

      • thosjefferson

        Do you think Gingrich paid the $300,000 fine just for fun? Of course he claimed he stepped down because his party lost seats, but that’s pious baloney.

        :)

  • crosley

    This is stupid line of reasoning. Reagan lost multiple primary cycles before he became President. Is that the criteria for choosing Presidents, that they’ve never experienced failure?

    Romney ran as a Republican in what many consider to be the most liberal state in the nation, Massachusetts. Of course the odds were against him, especially against a dynasty like the Kennedy’s. But the second time around he DID win statewide for Governor. He overcame his failure.

    If Romney does not qualify as having been from the private sector, than who does in this Primary? Where do you think Romney made his considerable fortune? We have NEVER had a potential President this knowledgeable and experienced in the private sector. He is not a lifetime politician like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

    Also, working on K Street doesn’t qualify as experience in the private sector, which is the only work outside of a government paycheck these other clown have made.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Reagan first ran for political office (I’m not counting union offices and he was president of SAG) in 1966 and he was elected Governor of CA. He ran and was reelected in 1970.

      He ran for President in 1968, achieved a plurality of primary votes nationally but lost to Nixon who had a solid national organization. He ran again in 1976, narrowly losing to Gerald Ford and won the nomination in 1980.

      So, he ran a total of 5 times: won twice in CA, lost two Republican presidential primaries and won two presidential elections (I didn’t double count the primary/general elections where he won). The key here is that Reagan never change what he stood for, he had well formed core beliefs by the time he was Governor of CA and never wavered on them.

      Romney, OTOH, has made a career out of running for public office and has held every possible position on every possible issue over the course of that career.

      You’re right, he’s not a lifetime politician, he’s a lifetime wannabe.

      • red_oakster

        With Perry about to disappear, the question remains whether either Gingrich or Santorum will prolong this race. I’d prefer either to Romney.

      • thosjefferson

        Let’s see, Reagan went from being a Democrat to being a Republican, changed his views on many issues, was a union officer and president…

        The RedStaters would never support Reagan using their anti-Romney logic. They’d be moaning about supporting a former union boss who only became a Republican for political purposes.

        Any sane conservative would be glad someone challenged Kennedy, sucking up DNC resources that would otherwise have supported other Democrats; they would be glad Romney had governed Mass and battled the Democrat machine there; and they’d be glad he’s running now because he’s the only viable Republican who can beat Obama.

        It’s hilarious to characterize a successful governor, a successful businessman, and a successful Olympics Chairman as a “lifetime wannabe.”

  • crosley

    So Reagan ran for President 3 times, losing the first two primaries. Glad we didn’t use this ridiculous line of reasoning to disqualify him.

    And Mitt Romney should be ineligible because he lost the GOP Primary in 2008, with some ridiculous poster is trying to count every primary state that Romney lost as an election loss? How many states did Reagan lose on his way to the White House? Well over 100 states I’m sure.

    It’s a dumb road to go down, especially since Romney’s token competition right now is Rick Santorum, his last election he was tossed by one of the largest landslides for any incumbent Senator in history, nearly 20 points and he outspent his rival by nearly 2 to 1. Newt Gingrich was tossed by his peers as Speaker and he resigned in disgrace. Neither have been able to win an election since, and they never will.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      with your ability to find “Reply To This”, I’m not wasting my time. I will note, that Reagan lost two primaries, won four general elections.

      Mittens has lost 12 times. I suppose facts are pretty meaningless things to you. Oh well.

      • crosley

        Please tell me how many elections Reagan lost using your same ridiculous standard for Romney’s 12 losses (p.s. you won’t, you’ll just throw some lame insult out)

        Prepare to fall in line in 2 weeks.

        • lineholder

          And setting up people’s back in the process….yes, that’s the way to win them over to the candidate you support.

          Just accept it already…most of us will back Romney if he wins the nomination, but we don’t want him to win the nomination and aren’t likely to ‘fall in line” as you call it is final.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Had you read the post you couldn’t properly reply to you would have found your answer, which, of course, was there long before you drug up your attitude.

          So, he ran a total of 5 times: won twice in CA, lost two Republican presidential primaries and won two presidential elections (I didn?t double count the primary/general elections where he won).

          So, in conclusion, two. Both were presidential primaries. He was in both of them until the very end and made excellent showings in both.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • crosley

            Please list the 12 elections Mitt Romney has lost? You’re obviously counting primary state elections in that figure.

            If we ARE counting state primary election losses, Reagan lost every state but one in 1968 (hardly a “excellent” showing) and also lost a majority of states in 1976. That was a far worse “loss” record going into 1980 than Romney is going in 2012. Again, good thing we didn’t disqualify him with such a dumb standard.

            It’s easy to make a weak case when your using different standards to compare. I get it, your guy is not even in contention anymore, but that doesn’t mean we start using dishonest stats to make your case.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            it doesn’t matter. What matters is that Romney has been trying to be an elected official since at least 1994 and his criticism of Newt and Santorum is that they’ve spent a good part of their lives as elected officials and he hasn’t. The point here, dumbo, is that the only reason he hasn’t been an elected official for the last 18 years is because he couldn’t get elected.

          • crosley

            So now we’re starting a whole new argument, not how many election losses.

            Enjoy the next few weeks “Dumbo”

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Go read the OP in context. The story is about Romney wanting to be an elected official and then claiming he wasn’t.

            My next few weeks will be just fine. Yours, I’m sure will be difficult, trying to find someone to dress you and all that.

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

    so I?m am thinking that Romney is about to place third on my list behind Huntsman (who I know has a great record, but I worry because liberal like him, that makes me think he cannot be too conservative), and the number one person is Rick Perry, far above the rest.

    I make tons of arguments on why Perry is the best candidate to face Obama, and why I think he is likely our best chance at beating Obama. I think this is still true, even if the conservative media does not think so.

    I am arguing that Mitt Romney is better than Newt or Santorum, all three are big government conservatives, they have been for years. All three have some major issues with their past that does not make them seem very conservative to me.

    Romney is the only Washington outsider of those three, and Romney is the only one who has not worked as a lobbyist out of those three. Romney is the only governor out of those three.

    Now do not get me wrong, I do not think Romney can beat Obama, but I think the other two have even less of a chance. Santorum has no executive experience, and he himself is a big government guy. The argument of running a governor is a strong one, and we have only three in this race.

    I cannot stand the thought of Romney being the nominee, but I also cannot stand the thought of Newt or Santorum being the nominee either. Newt, Santorum, and Romney are all lying about their records, and I suspect they know they have too.

    But Newt and Santorum both have shown that they are part of the Washington society that gets elected, goes to the private sector after that to make millions. And Romney has at least not been part of Washington.

    So I am not arguing for Romney, I am just saying that I’d take Romney over Newt or Santorum, but there are so many reasons that I think Romney would be a horrible nominee, but I cannot wish to see two people have betrayed conservatism win the nomination.

    It such to even think Romney would end up being my third choice, but the more research I do on Newt and Rick Santorum, the more I do not like about them and the more I think this race should be between the three governor we have in it.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      In fact, as long as Newt was in the House, he had a very conservative record. If you bother to actually do some research of his time in the Congress, Newt was the leader of the conservative faction and has a solid record as an elected official, both on the legislation he wrote/sponsored/supported and his leadership. Did he stray? You can probably find something you don’t like, but overall he is easily the most conservative member of the House Republican leadership from 1970 until today.

      Newt flew off the rails after he left of Congress and his flaky period really did no one harm.

      Santorum OTOH, was a big government, big spending disaster in the House and the Senate and took zero leadership on anything while he was there.

      Romney has never had a conservative breath while holding elective office.

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

        just telling me to do research does not cut it, Ive done it already, Newt in his own words is a Rockerfeller Republican. Ive never seen Perry sit down with Nancy Pelosi in a national ad touting climate change legislation.

        Newt at one time did lead the conservative faction, then he but since you clearly do not want to do the research, Ill do it for you, go here.

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

        Here is an example of that conservative leadership. This is the best summed up version of how Newt betrayed conservatives, he was not the pusher of conservative reform some think he was.

        The opening days of the 105th Congress in January 1997 show how little interest Gingrich had in fighting Big Government. Upon being re-elected as Speaker, Newt Gingrich gave an acceptance speech based on promoting on what he envisioned as the new ?great mission? for Republicans: Saving poverty-stricken children from hopelessness, violence, ignorance, racism, and drugs. Gone were the calls for a smaller government. Gone were the acknowledgements that the federal welfare state with its barracks-like public housing projects and top-heavy education bureaucracy was the biggest impediment to economic and social advancement for inner-city youth.

        The lack of a conservative agenda led Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal to wonder if the Republican centerpiece for the next two years was a ?Contract with Ambivalence.? Joe Scarborough of Florida, then a sophomore congressman, summed up the feelings of the hard-charging freshman class of 1994: ?Quite a few members are obviously concerned over the direction that the leadership has taken in these first three months. We have a concern that our leadership remains shell-shocked from the government shutdown a year and a half ago. Most of us are ready for them to start leading again rather than sitting back and reading from Clinton?s song sheet.?

        But what afflicted the GOP leadership wasn?t a lack of direction. Gingrich did have a direction in mind. The problem was it led down a path away from smaller government. As prominent neo-conservative William Kristol observed, ?He seems to be trying to rehabilitate himself personally instead of leading the conservative movements. He?s not trying to be an ideological leader; he?s trying to be a nice guy.?

        The first of many battles between Gingrich and the budget-cutters was over the funding for House committees. A bill the Speaker was pushing would have reversed the hard-won cuts of the previous year. In fact, the legislation would have trashed a key element of the Contract with America: in 1995, when the House cut congressional committee funding by a third, House leaders touted it as one of the first Contract promises kept.

        ?It should have come as no surprise that some of us were going to say no when they want to hire more Washington bureaucrats,? said budget hawk Mark Neumann of Wisconsin when he declared he would vote against the bill. ?When we go out and tell our people we?re going to balance the budget, we can?t start with an increase in our own budget.? With all Democrats opposed to the bill, the swing votes came from eleven GOP budget hawks. It went down to defeat by a narrow margin of three votes.

        Gingrich was furious. A few minutes after the vote, he announced an unusual mandatory meeting of all House Republicans in the caucus room right outside the House chamber. The session was going to begin with a roll-call and the Speaker threatened to send the sergeant-at-arms to round up any absent GOP congressman. Once the meeting started, Gingrich fumed. ?The eleven geniuses who thought they knew more than the rest of the Congress are going to come up and explain their votes,? he said. It was an unusual step and one that seemed to be motivated mostly by anger. It even surprised the more senior members of Congress, none of whom had ever heard of anyone being asked to explain their vote in this way to the entire caucus. Gingrich?s goal was to humiliate, and he derisively referring to the dissenting members as ?you conservatives,? as if they were a distinctly different and unacceptable breed of Republican. He derided them for not being team players and threatened to delay a two-week recess until each of those members explained himself and until the leadership had enough votes to pass the committee bill.

        Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma, former wide receiver for the Seattle Seahawks, pushed back. ?The Speaker tonight talked about the eleven of us letting the team down. The more significant question and the question that never gets asked in Washington, D.C., is whose teams are we on??

        Many in the room began to nod their heads. The mood had turned against Gingrich. When he was done speaking, Largent received enthusiastic applause from most of the Republicans present. Gingrich never tried a stunt like that again.

        Instead, he worked behind the scenes ? and not for the last time ? to upset the plans of the fiscal conservatives. He struck a deal with the eleven GOP budget-cutters to freeze committee budgets for 30 days so a compromise could eventually be reached. But instead of negotiating in good faith with the conservatives, Gingrich used that delay to cut deals with a handful of Republicans eager to increase spending. In the end, the committee budgets went up by roughly the amount originally proposed.

        The next battle was over the federal budget. The 1997 budget deal that Gingrich helped craft was replete with retreats on budget discipline. The spending caps that were in place in the Contract with America budget were abandoned: the 1997 budget ended up hiking overall discretionary spending by 11.5%. The GOP talking points on the budget compromise reminded reporters that the agreement gave Clinton less than he?d asked for. That?s certainly true. But Republicans voluntarily gave up more of their own territory than Clinton did and much of it was encouraged by Gingrich.

        Then came the highway bill in 1998. It, too, was a bloated and very expensive venture that highlighted the disconnect between the rhetoric of budget cutting and the reality of what was being pushed. When budget committee chairman John Kasich urged Gingrich to help him persuade members of the Congress to shave off some of the spending, Gingrich shut him down. The bill passed, as these things often do, largely as a result of the hundreds of earmarks stuffed into the bill.

        The final straw for many was the 1998 budget. When Kasich presented a budget that harkened back to the Contract with America days and included real budget cuts, Gingrich lambasted the budget-cutters in a closed-door meeting. Gingrich?s pushback against fiscal conservatives was a prelude to Congress, a few weeks before the midterm elections of 1998, passing a budget that hiked non-defense discretionary spending by over 5% that year ? twice the 1997 budget deal?s increase ? and funded a record amount of pork-barrel projects. It was in every way a rout of the very ideals that won the GOP a majority in Congress in the first place. When presented with an option by then-Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and a number of other conservatives in the House to offset some of these hikes with spending cuts in other parts of the budget, Gingrich nixed the idea outright.

        Today, the nostalgia many seem to have for Gingrich?s days as leader of the House greatly clouds the reality of how conservatives actually felt about him after 1996. As Robert Novak reported at the time, on the first business day after the 1997 budget deal was announced the switchboard of the Republican national headquarters was swamped with calls from rank-and-rile GOP voters protesting the budget ?sellout.? The 1998 election was seen then as a referendum on Gingrich?s attack-Clinton-but-spend?like-him strategy. Conservatives were already pondering whether a world without a Republican congressional majority would be all that bad. As George Will speculated in an October 1998 column, ?it is unclear that having more Republicans in Congress would be good for either the Constitution or conservatism.? Two weeks before election day 1998, Gingrich grandiosely predicted that his new approach to governing would gain anywhere between 10 and 40 seats. Republicans actually lost three seats, narrowing their majority to five votes in the House. Gingrich stepped down from his Speaker post three days later.

        Simply put, anyone who seeks to base Newt Gingrich?s sincerity to the cause of restraining government simply cannot use much of his tenure as Speaker of the House as their basis for that conclusion. A look at the historical record alone should be enough to give pause to anyone who thinks of Gingrich as someone with a long record of leadership in the cause of smaller government. It instead indicates that he was more often part of the problem than the solution.

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

          The parts I posted is from this article from Stephen Slivinski, of United Liberty.

          Stephen Slivinski is senior economist at the Goldwater Institute. Previously he was director of budget studies at the Cato Institute, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, and a senior editor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Mr. Slivinski is the author of the book, Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government, published in 2006.

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

        • lineholder

          of attack if that is what you choose to do. But for those of us old enough to remember it, we do see the Conservative policies that Gingrich succeeded in implementing during his tenure as Speaker as being an accomplishment, especially given the fact that it meant standing in opposition to establishment Republicans.

          We are not likely to forget that he did succeed in those things, regardless of what you or anyone else might say, and we are not likely to simply stand by and have those accomplishments discredited either.

          This doesn’t mean that we see the man as being perfect…only that we do respect what he accomplished.

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

            what exactly do you remember, what you watched on TV, read on an internet site, please give me a break. Why do you think all the conservatives form that tome period say the same thing about Newt, do you think that is just some random thing. Did you even bother to read the post? You can go on and on about remembering things, but you know as well I as do that you get your information from sources other than being there. I do a lot of research through my school political science database. Each one is 600 a year, and I?m reading way too much information from former Newt colleagues that say he was not the person you think you remember. Unless you were privy to the inside the beltway information in the 90?s by being there, in meetings, and stuff like that, spare me the age thing ok. I am over it, it means nothing. It reality it only leaves one of us looking like fools.

            Once again, I?m with Beck on this, Newt is a progressive. I?m a Rick Perry supporter, I hate big government. I will not deny logic in order to like someone; Newt and Santorum are both frauds.

          • lineholder

            All I was saying is that for some of us who are older, we’ve seen both the good and the bad where Newt is concerned. We may despise various elements of the bad, but we also respect those elements of the good.

            It wasn’t an attack on your personally.

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

            they should have something to remember. When what I’m talking about is reported behind the scenes activity, how can a person pull the age card. Newt has a rep of being interested in himself, nothing new. Just because I like his debate skill by no means that he can ignore what the real record is. The entire reason I like Perry is based of his true conservative record.

            Why should I admitt what I know to not be true for the sake of friendly debate.

            Never have I called somebody stupid, or told them they are just not old enough to know. I respectfully disagree, and move on. But if they come back with attempted insults, then its mandatory I come back with something.

            I agree with Beck on this one, Newt has some progressive big government things in his record, and other than being speaker he cannot take full credit for the things he does. If indeed he was the most conservative speaker, then Clinton is the most conservative president, both are untrue.

            just debating is not disrespectful, but bringing outside influences up is.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          You have no clue about “bottom line” do you kid.

          I’d prefer to not vote for Newt, for a whole variety of reasons, but after Perry he’s the only one who’s even taken a conservative breath. Like it or not, the balanced budgets of the ’90s were his doing. So was welfare reform.

          Santorum sat on his ass in the Senate, took home a billion or so in earmarks, campaigned against Pat Toomey, and fought against right to work laws. He’s never accomplished ANYTHING.

          Go get a job. Learn something valuable.

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

            It?s a false dichotomy, and it is not even close to a valid argument. Use your deductive process, find as much information as you can, take the stories of Newts former caucus, and see what they almost universally say. I?m all done with the kid thing; it only leaves you looking like an elitist. I?m very capable, and I do my own research using pear reviews journals.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            One day you’ll be embarrassed from all this.

          • acat

            What’s a pear review? Bosc Quarterly? Anjou Fancy?

            Seriously, Santorum has no real accomplishments to stand on, which is why he ran for Senate (in 2000) as a hardcore social conservative, and part of why he got blown out in 2006 when the Dems ran a social-conservative against him.

            Whether you remember the ’90s or not isn’t the point – that you’re drawing very wrong conclusions is.

            Santorum’s indefensible. Newt has issues, but has generally been on the conservative side.

            As for the Pelosi-couch thing, at the time Gingrich participated in the video, there was a consensus that the climate was changing – the East Anglia document dump was still in the future – and Gingrich was trying to get conservatives a seat at the table. Look at all the governors who signed off on emission-reduction during the same time frame.

            It’s one thing to bash Gingrich on moral failings, it’s a completely other thing to bash him on an issue where – given the consensus at the time – his move was shrewd.

            Mew

          • red_oakster

            I’d be OK with either Gingrich or Santorum, but I fear we’ll get Romney unless the conservative side of the race gets sorted out pronto.

            Btw, if there is consolidation and Mitt gets stopped, I fully expect the establishment empire to strike back. Neither Newt nor Santorum are popular among the GOP elites.

          • acat

            I think the long break between Florida and Super Tuesday is going to see one more change in the leader. Right now, it’s either Romney or Santorum, but .. neither is a good candidate. I’m not sure which would be worse in the general… and that’s the real goal.

            Gingrich is the best positioned to go after Romney, although so far Perry’s the one who’s been showing off Willard’s glass jaw.

            I could support Gingrich in the general. I’d be struggling to vote for Romney or Santorum. Might need one of these:

            Mew

          • red_oakster

            especially if Romney does poorly in South Carolina and Florida. Then the establishment has a choice of trying to revive the Mittster or throw someone new into the ring. I don’t think they will make their peace with either Gingrich or Santorum unless compelled, and early February is way too early for compelling.

          • acat

            This one has potential – if Romney gets an “Asian F” in New Hampshire and flames out in Florida – to go all the way to the convention.

            Mew

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

            He either knows he wrong and does not care or is ignorant of what’s out the. And acat. I suspect it does not matter what data bases or journals I use. My goal is not to teach people that have their own bias against me. He came at me with the age card. Facts are facts and nothing anyone can do will change it. I’m hear debating him with out using anything from peer reviewed stuff. Point NY point of what I gave him is well known from the link I’ve given him twice on two different threads. There no use trying to defuse something that means little.

            The reason liberals hate Perry so much is his conservative cred. When Newt pulled his stunts his conservative caucus abandoned him. When he disputes anything I’ve said instead of giving me Newts talking points and telling me I’m to young to have accurate information ill finish

          • JSobieski

            Given your logic, the House should have become MORE conservative after Newt left instead of LESS conservative.

            Do you agree that Hastert’s tenure was marked by spending far worse than spending under Newt?

            If yes, how do you reconcile that fact with the scenario that you have described? I.e. that Newt was shown the door by conservatives because Newt was not advancing conservatism.

            Or if you think that Hastert’s tenure was better than Newt’s, what evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

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

            But to answer you, Gingrich created a heap of animus against him by the other Republicans in part because he was abrasive, but in large part because he forced them into actually being conservative for a while.

            We have to face facts, the Republican party has never been, and is not now, a conservative party. It only uses conservatives in the same way a good looking teenage boy uses a stupid naive girl.

        • JSobieski

          If Newt was the sole or even primary reason for a Republican caucus going soft on spending specifically and conservatism generally (a proposition for which you cite the book excertp above) . . .

          Then why did Newt’s departure result in the Republican caucus going soft on spending specifically and conservatism generally?

          The 1998 – 2000 term was nothing to write home about. The people who kicked Newt out of the Speaker chair were the people who governed in 1998-2000, not Newt.

          The facts suggest that the book you cite is not particuarly accurate. If the book was accurate, one would have expected another conservative resurgence with Newt’s departure.

          Spending was better under Newt than it was under Hastert.

          That is an undeniable FACT. Hastert was a spending usher for W.

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

            and soon came Bush, two wars, Medicare proscription drug part D, and a slew of other big government Republican stuff. I just happen to agree with Beck and Perry, the problem is with the power players getting rich off of our vote. I put Romney third because i believe those who got wealth off the system owe too much to that system to destroy it, Romney probably won’t either, but out of the three big government Republican in this race, he would be the most likely to kill it.

          • JSobieski

            You have repeatedly explained how Newt was making the caucus less conservative.

            Now you are saying that Newt wasn’t the cause of the House becoming less conservative?

            Now you are saying that cause is something that happened while Newt was Speaker—something that had already happened by the time of the excerpt that you keep repeating.

            Sounds to me like you are saying the SHUTDOWN and not Newt’s presence is why the House became less conservative.

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

            please do not put words in my mouth.

          • JSobieski

            You are the person arguing that conservatives kicked Newt out for not being conservative only for that same group to govern less conservatively than they did when Newt was still there.

            The Newt was booted for not being conservative enough makes no sense given the facts that you have set forth (your quotation from the book)

          • JSobieski

            Both propositions suggest that the book excerpt you cite is at best irrelevant or at worst misleading.

            Perry has no friends who made money via being close to business in Austin? Really? Perry’s wealth didn’t increase substantially by a life of government service?

            Don’t get me wrong, I support Perry over Newt and I like Beck—-I just think your process of integrating and evaluating facts is skewed.

            Romney has never attacked government. Newt has, even by your own admission–Newt has attacked big government.

            Your reasoning combines these facts and concludes that Romney is more likely to kill big government? Based on the fact that Romney never really took on a government bureaucracy? Romney, the proposer of the most tepid economic plan in the race?

            Really?

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

            that no one wanted. You making stuff up now. Perry had to have his wife work to pay for their kids college. You seem to be giving me Ron Paul facts.

          • JSobieski

            So I am not making up anything.

            My point is that there is a lot of innuendo out there.

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

            And went after a scorched earth policy against all the other candidates. It bit her in the butt and she lost votes with every negative ad.

          • JSobieski

            Just asking. She is conservative, although we both disagree with her on tactical grounds.

            If someone say…. on Redstate quoted her talking about Perry, you would pretty much disregard the quote?

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

            nt

          • jimmyg

            http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/28/3319362/perry-became-a-millionaire-while.html#ixzz1WN72aU8G

            He became a millionaire while in office from stock deals and RE deals. His wife did not have to go back to work to send the kids to college.

            He is not in Romney territory but he is not of modest means either. He became a millionaire while in the employ of govt. most of his adult life.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            nt…..

          • JSobieski

            Jimmy wasn’t attacking Perry so much as bringing Perry down to the best option of many rather than an angel above men.

          • jimmyg

            Center said the following, as though Perry was of modest means and a dirt poor farmer:

            “Perrys not anywhere near corrupt, he had a favorable house deal
            center77 (Diary) Monday, January 9th at 7:24PM EST (link)

            that no one wanted. You making stuff up now. Perry had to have his wife work to pay for their kids college. You seem to be giving me Ron Paul facts.”

            Each one of these guys has money, some of whom have more money that others, none of whom are poor.

            I certainly do not hold it against Gov. Perry for investing well, but he is acting as some peoples money is better than others, and some people have too much money.

            Sorry for the delay but I am watching the LSU-ALA game.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            [nt]

          • JSobieski

            I don’t think Perry is in any way corrupt—I SUPPORT PERRY.

            I just wanted to illustrate how flimsy some of these types of attacks are.

            Your attack on Palin was the absolute flimsiest raw example of just saying something out of emotion rather than fact or reason.

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

            only that he is a big government Republican, that he believes the government is still the answer. The federal government is the one who can fox things. Newt once said in the debates that Rick Perry taught him all about the tenth amendment. I have nothing against Newt in the sense that he is way more small government than the Democrats and Obama. Having said this, Newt has a past of doing some very big government things. The only way one gets caught in an ad with Pelosi and doing tours with Al Sharpton is big government. I watched Newt call Sharpton New show on MSNBC, and wish him a happy birthday. I cannot stand Sharpton in any form, and I have read enough from Newts former caucus, the freshmen that came into the house in the 90′s wave to understand what Newts goals were.

            Newt used to call conservatives “those conservatives” and a person who thinks themselves as one of them does not call them that. When Newt called himself a Rockefeller Republican, and a Wilson Republican, what exactly did he mean by that. I can see no way to mean it that it being the words of a big government Republican. I cannot deduct anything else from it.

            I respect everyone, and mean no disrespect to know one. But just because I am young does not make me incapable of doing the necessary research to come up with these things. When Beck called Newt a progressive, I was shocked. No way, not Newt, he could not be a progressive. But the more I learned about how Newt has acted, the more it comes down to that. This is all I?m trying to say. We are conservatives, and we will have to decide who we trust to carry our agenda, in the end that is all we can do. I just believe out of Newt, Santorum, and Romney, it is Romney who is likely to advance that more than those other two. It may be that Newt would do it more so now, but I see no way he becomes president. Santorum, he is something else in my eyes, I listen to him now and hear big government all over his words.

          • JSobieski

            Most of the rap against Newt is a lot of symbolic stuff:

            The Pelosi video was a publicity stunt. The equivalent of Reagan having a beer with O’Neil at a bar.

            The Sharpton thing was about Charter schools—a conservative innocation in public education.

            Conservatism is best measured by deeds, not words. The vast majority of politicians talk far more conservatively then they govern. Newt is a prominent example of the reverse.

            Newt is not my first choice, but I don’t get your assessment that Romney is more likely than Newt to attack Big Government in DC.

            Newt is the one person who has actually done it. Romney is a guy who won’t even talk about. Yet you prefer Romney over Newt.

            Anyway . . .

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

            …regarding JSob’s [failed] effort to claim The Newt didn’t support the Individual Mandate.

            {It may be recalled that, a few months ago, his predecessor in making this argument [Wonkish1] hasn’t been blogging ever since he was deluged with information [written/video] contrary to his assertions, even as JSob simply pivoted to other topics; when a gentle reminder of these exchanges was provided to JSob a few weeks ago, he “changed the topic.”}

            I’ve been monitoring his assertions ever-since, poised to pounce whenever he might again attempt to mislead the RS-readership…and that moment has again arisen.

            Whatever motivates him to defend The Newt, I cannot discern; whatever means he employs to achieve this end, however, must be exposed for the frail use of argumentative skills that he obviously harbors. He may enjoy trying to gum-up-the-works when wadding into a pond of pro-Perry thinkers/feelers, but his technique is annoying [at best] and dangerous [if permitted to emerge unscathed].

            BTW, the grammar of one of his kickers requires correction ["Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!"] because the antecedent of the plural pronoun “their” is the singular “someone.” Either the word “someone” should be replaced by “people” or the word “their” should be replaced by “his/her.”

            *

            Comments are contained in INTERLINEATIONS:

            Most of the rap against Newt is a lot of symbolic stuff:

            THEY ARE REPLETE WITH FACTS.

            The Pelosi video was a publicity stunt. The equivalent of Reagan having a beer with O?Neil at a bar.

            IT ILLUSTRATED SUPPORT BY THE NEWT OF THE “SCIENCE” OF GLOBAL-WARMING [INEXPLICABLY EXPUNGED FROM HIS UPCOMING BOOK].

            The Sharpton thing was about Charter schools?a conservative innocation in public education.

            THE TOUR WAS ABOUT SUPPORTING BHO, WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS ONLY A COMPONENT THEREOF.

            http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/08/08142009.html

            Conservatism is best measured by deeds, not words. The vast majority of politicians talk far more conservatively then they govern. Newt is a prominent example of the reverse.

            WORDS EMANATING FROM THE NEWT HAVE BEEN ALL-OVER-THE-PLACE, AND HIS ACTIONS HAVE BEEN EQUALLY SCATTER-SHOT.

            Newt is not my first choice, but I don?t get your assessment that Romney is more likely than Newt to attack Big Government in DC.

            PERRY IS MOST LIKELY TO DISMANTLE D.C.

            Newt is the one person who has actually done it. Romney is a guy who won?t even talk about. Yet you prefer Romney over Newt.

            PERRY HAS DONE IT AND, NOTING ABOVE-QUOTE, IT SEEMS THAT THE ABHORRENT TECHNIQUE PROMULGATED BY THE NEWT TO ARREST JUDGES TO FORCE THEM TO TESTIFY WAS, ITSELF, BATTLE-TESTED WHEN HE FORCED COLLEAGUES TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTES TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GOP-CAUCUS.

            Anyway . . .

            HE HAS BAGGAGE THAT HAS BEGAT BAGGAGE!

            *

          • JSobieski

            (1) You quoted language from a Beck interview that was clearly contrary to your point. Only after calling you on it more than 20 times over a 2 day period did you then accuse me of “wordsmithing”. Very persuasive. Now you repeat that old canard as if the past had never happened.
            (2) Using all caps (the internet version of screaming) is neither polite, persuasive, or impressive

            I have little doubt at this point that Dr. Bob will be a big Romney booster in a matter of weeks.

            All of the anti-Romney candidates have just engaged in very anti-capitalistic rhetoric. Given your past lack of objectivity, I suspect that you condemn such language coming out of Newt,but praise Perry for being a man of the people?

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

            …rather than being dismissive.

            The Preliminaries:

            First, I don’t know where you sensed any incipient pro-Mitt leanings, but your geiger-counter needs to be reset. Second, I wrote nothing about the allegedly anti-Capitalist rhetoric, so the “negative prediction” is unjustified. Third, all-CAPS were used to facilitate differentiation of the comments from the quotes that had provoked them; RS doesn’t afford much flexibility with fonts/etc.

            *

            The Substance:

            You totally mischaracterized the prior interaction ["You quoted language from a Beck interview that was clearly contrary to your point. Only after calling you on it more than 20 times over a 2 day period did you then accuse me of ?wordsmithing?. Very persuasive. Now you repeat that old canard as if the past had never happened."].

            This was not surprising, because you were decimated by factual citations from RECENT books composed by The Newt [as well as by hyperlinks to contemporaneous videos]. Whatever you fantasize may have been included in a Beck interview, I do not recall; please either provide the citation upon which you allege I depended, or withdraw the assertion.

            “You” called “me” on “wordsmithing”? Gimme a break! I documented that you had “adopted by reference” the assertions by Wonkish1 [who has since dematerialized, a status for which I accept credit...until proven otherwise]. He had averred that forcing people to pay a bond in lieu of purchasing health insurance did not constitute a government-imposed “Individual Mandate.” After he passed his baton to you, it was indeed necessary to engage in an intense back-and-forth prior to establishing the point that you were attempting to create “a distinction without a difference.” Updated quotes from The Newt had seemingly ended the discussion, corroborating my conclusions.

            Overt Historical Revisionism really does not befit a diarist on RS!

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Please note that Santorum does NOT. Please note that Mitt Romney does NOT. Arguably, John Huntsman does when he was governor of Utah. Certainly Rick Perry does.

            Now then, IF Perry is unable to make a comeback, you are left with only the following choices:

            1. Huntsman – mixed conservative record, currently running to the left of everybody. Has executive experience from his terms as governor of Utah. Won reelection as governor.

            2. Romney – solid record as a liberal and has held every position on every issue. Executive experience as governor of MA, declined to run for reelection because he would have gotten squashed.

            3. Santorum – solid record as a big spender, earmarker second to none, never found a problem government couldn’t solve and zero executive experience and zero leadership while in Congress for about a dozen years. No experience in policy development. Refused to support right-to-work legislation, fought for passage of NCLB and MedD.

            4. Gingrich – significant conservative accomplishments in the House both as a Member and as Speaker. Leadership experience in the House. Has strayed from the reservation on occasion since he left the House but is generally looked at as the best thinker and policy guy on the right.

            Pick one.

            And, you’ve obviously not been around enough to understand that frequently Beck has a spell of lunacy. If you really want to understand what’s at stake this year read Thomas Sowell. In the world of punditry, Beck is to Sowell as a Pop Warner football team is to last weekend’s Denver Broncos.

          • bzip

            I will gladly dispute Newt’s conservative credentials.

            Sure Newt as one of the members and house speaker help along with the senate and President to pass balanced budgets, reform welfare – I accept that if you accept the fact that Newt did NOT do it all by himself, it took a President and senate to help him out.

            Now some 30 years later we have Newt supporting:
            GSE’s (he proudly touted supporting GSE’s in one of the more recent debates).
            Newt in his own words and as recent as 2007 support and defended Carbon Cap Mandates. So if you want to down play Pelosi you sure can’t down play his support of carbon Cap mandates
            Newt supports what amounts to Death Panels.
            Newt was/is a stealth lobbyist
            Newt supported Medicare Part D
            Newt cheated on 2 wives, brings honesty, trust front and center.
            Newt’s ethic violation.
            Newt lied to the American people in the debate when he denied he supports cap and trade.

            Newt is a big gov’t progressive who wants these “big bold break out plans” to solve all the problems, No thank you, and don’t give me your hogwash about Newt being so conservative because that is bull crapola.

            Newt’s Health Problems
            http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newts-health-problems
            Across The Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right (by Newt)
            http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

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

            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

            Newt Gingrich played key role in Medicare drug benefit
            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70332.html

            Gingrich made big bucks pushing corporate welfare
            http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gingrich-made-big-bucks-pushing-corporate-welfare
            Report: Gingrich took money from drug lobby while pushing Bush?s prescription drug bill
            Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties
            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-hit-on-health-care-flip-flops-think-tank/

            Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple
            http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple
            Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html
            Gingrich Says He Doesn’t Regret Supporting Medicare Drug Plan Which Is Now a $7.2 Trillion Unfunded Liability
            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-says-he-doesnt-regret-supporting-medicare-drug-plan-which-now-72-trillion

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

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            nt…

          • jakeofalltrades

            I discovered accidentally since Romney is my #2 on electability grounds.

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

        but out of the three, only Romney is an outsider who did not move on after he got power to use that power to make millions of of. Romney had already made millions, and his time at Bain is fair game, and to tell you the truth, I am no fan of Romney at all, but he is better than Newt or Santorum. Romney does have some conservative actions in his life; in fact he was the conservative choice in 2008. He did also make himself out to be more conservative than he is, but that is what Newt and Santorum are both doing now.

        The one thing about Romney is he did his big government in one state, while Newt and Santorum not only went to Washington and functioned as Big government Republicans, they forced it on everyone else, while leaving the country with the appearance that Republican are not really small government conservatives. It was the damage they did in the 1990′s and the 2000′s that led to the Tea Party and that brought us this current president.
        No matter how well I think Newt will debate Obama, I am with Glenn Beck on this, he is a progressive, and he always has been one. I cannot honestly bring myself to say anything different. Believe you me, I want to like Newt more than Romney, I do not think Newt can beat Obama because of his baggage, which is another reason that Romney is a better pick than Newt. I hate the idea of a Romney nomination and a Romney presidency, but I hate the idea of another 4 more years of Obama and big government republicans just as more.

        • acat

          Romney was the better choice (vs. McCain) in 2008.

          That doesn’t make Romney a conservative, it just makes him better than McCain.

          It’s the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” fallacy, eh?

          Mew

          • acat

            Just point out that Gingrich and Santorum have no executive experience.

            Mew

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

            of the three big government Republicans. I hate the idea of a Romney administration, I see no way we wins, but if indeed I’m forced with a B.G., the at least give me someone outside the corrupt Washington system.

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

            in his life. That can’t be the case if he is more conservative than McCain. It was not to say Romney is conservative, he isn’t, both him and Newt supported the mandate. It was pointing out that Romney must have done something to attract Rush & Red State. Let’s remember, Romney is a far distant third on my list, Newt is just much farther.

          • acat

            and while Romney’s skill set was what was needed in 2008 – I don’t see Willard abusing TARP or demanding porkulus – it’s not what’s needed today….

            The questions may not change, but sometimes the answers do.

            Mew

  • bzip

    Taken from HotGas. I find this amusing, hypocritical to a degree and laughable in another degree:

    Gingrich?s Own Close Tie to Buyout Industry
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/gingrichs-own-close-tie-to-buyout-industry/?partner=rss&emc=rss

    ?But Mr. Gingrich was himself on an advisory board for a major investment firm that had a similar business model, Forstmann Little, a pioneering private equity firm co-founded in 1978 by Theodore J. Forstmann that was, along with Mr. Romney?s Bain Capital and Henry R. Kravis?s Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts, among the leading private equity firms during the 1980s and 1990s.

    Forstmann Little earned billions of dollars in profits from its investments in companies including General Instrument and Gulfstream Aerospace. But the firm shut down most of its operations a decade ago after suffering losses from ill-timed bets on highflying telecommunications companies at the height of that industry?s bubble.

    Mr .Gingrich?s involvement with the firm could complicate his attacks on Mr. Romney.?