« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Newt Gingrich, Establishment Sellout

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 1st, 2012 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

One of the most bizarre narratives I have ever seen take hold during a Presidential campaign is the narrative that Newt Gingrich, who spent three decades in Washington, ultimately rising to the top of the House leadership, is the “outsider” and “TEA Party” candidate whereas Mitt Romney, who has never had a job in Washington in his life (although admittedly that is not for lack of trying), is the “establishment” or “insider” candidate. Newt is not without his redeeming qualities but I have to confess that whenever he rants in his inimitable style about the “Establishment” I am struck with a powerful sense of vertigo.

It isn’t just Newt’s ancient past that presents this problem. As recently as 2010, when TEA Party fervor was sweeping the nation, Newt Gingrich was completely absent from its key battles or just as often was on the completely wrong side of the debate. In NY-23, Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafava right before she bolted the party and endorsed the Democrat (for the record, Romney donated $5,000 to and endorsed Hoffman). In Utah, Bob Bennett kicked off his campaign with an endorsement from Newt Gingrich who aggressively campaigned on his behalf (Romney also supported Bennett and then donated $5,000 through his PAC to Mike Lee). In Delaware, Newt confidently predicted Mike Castle would win and then was completely absent from the discussion over the race until O’Donnell won the primary (Romney donated $5,000 to O’Donnell, but I’m not clear whether that was before or after the primary was over).

In virtually every major TEA Party fight in 2010 – Toomey vs. Specter, Paul v. Grayson, Crist v. Rubio, Gingrich was either AWOL until the matter was completely decided or on the wrong side. The only Senate candidate that Newt’s PAC donated to whatsoever was Scott Brown.

For all of his many faults (and watching his speech last night I have very grave concerns about his ability to ever learn to sound like a real human being), Romney apparently learned the right lesson from his thumping in 2008, as he busted his hump in 2010 raising money for and campaigning for Republicans, including TEA Party Republicans (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Jim Demint, Ron Johnson, Ovide Lamontagne, Marco Rubio, John Raese and Pat Toomey, among many others, got $5,000 or more from Romney in 2010).

I again emphasize that there are a lot of candidates out there that I would prefer to see as our nominee than Mitt Romney but if this really is a contest between “Establishment Republicans” and “TEA Party Republicans,” I am at a loss to know how Gingrich has any claim to TEA Party support at all, or how he somehow escaped the label of “Establishment” when he is one of the most “Establishment” candidates who has run for President in my lifetime.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • spainishirish

    I have made a point to avoid this site during the primary, but this was so dead on it required a tout. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the candidates who remain, even Gingrich supporters have to acknowledge he is the ultimate “insider” and it is intellectually dishonest.

    Back to the sidelines for a few months unless something else merits applause.

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

      agreed

    • andystone

      The insider culture that everyone deplores was established by Armey, Hastert, DeLay etc. after they booted Newt in ’99. Hastert, DeLay and all their ilk are endorsing Romney now.

      The guy who was in Washington, fought against the establishment and was ultimately kicked out is NOT part of the establishment.He knows them and he’s eager to bring them down.

      The guy who never managed to get elected but is cozy with all the insiders – how is the the one who will reform Washington?

    • mikelindell2

      Newt fought for conservatism his whole life in DC. He took on his own party when they wanted to raise taxes in ’90. As speaker, he did exactly what he promised & enacted a true conservative agenda. He wasn’t there to get along with everyone and attend cocktail parties. He wanted real change, and he made it happen. Last time conservatism thrived was when he was speaker. Just Being in Washington doesn’t make you an insider.

  • spainishirish

    Back to the timeout box.

  • spainishirish

    I shouldn’t have come out of storage.

  • chadosborne

    The republican establishment wants to nail Newt to a wall because he betrayed them too many times.

    He undercut them on “cut, cap and balance” and is out there everyday hailing the great achievements of the Clinton administration. Newt even repeats the lie that the budget was balanced under Clinton even tough the size of the debt increased.

    Reagan wrote in his diary that Newt was a man of ideas, a man of very bad ideas that would have endangered this nation if ever implemented.

    In view of all this, we must conclude that Newt is a fraud and if it wasn’t for Sheldon Adelson he would never have made it this far. But now it’s time for him to go away. His 15 minutes are up.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      You’ve just discerned the exact opposite of what this post says.

      • jakeofalltrades
        • fightnright

          when the editors wrote a cheery personalized note in their introduction to a feature to one Wanda Potrzebie of Fort Wayne Indiana (or thereabouts), noting that they had evidence that Wanda was, in fact, the only person to ever read any of the lead-ins to Mad’s articles.

      • chadosborne

        I agree with the article but you are missing the point. Tea party people, like Sarah Palin think Newt is one of them simply because the establishment wants to destroy him.

        That’s their litmus test. They see the establishment going after him so they assume Newt must want to “shake things up”, when in fact the only problem the establishment has with him is that he is a backstabber (or a one man band as Dole phrased it).

        Gingrich is not part of the establishment. And he is not part of the tea party. He is just an opportunist who is very good at positioning himself in front of other people to tell the world that he’s their leader. And to take credit for their achievements.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    I can see people disliking Mitt Romney the Man of Plastic. What is “bizarre” is how people can come out and support an escaped Thanksgiving Day Parade Balloon like Newt Gingrich.

    Leon, you are spot on in uncovering the jumbled logic in the mind of the Tea Party. Glenn Beck played audio the other day of Gingrich calling for a DOUBLING of the size of the State Department. DOUBLING the size of it!!!

    If Big Government is the disease, Net Gingrich is NOT the medicine.

    • califgal

      Thanks for the laugh…that’s one of the most humorous, spot-on descriptions I’ve heard in a long while. It made my afternoon.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        It fits Newt perfectly: thin skinned and full of hot air.

    • BillC

      So what.

      I notice you have a list of Tea Party candidates which Romney’s PAC supported. Do you know when Romney supported them? Did the donations come before or after they were the Republican nominees? Because if they came after, and I am pretty sure that Romney did not support Rubio before Crist left the Republican Party, then Romney also missed the Tea Party.

      If the contest between Mitt and Newt comes down to which one is the biggest RINO then Mitt wins hands down. That is why the contest became anybody but Romney. We are voting against Romney, not voting for Newt. Just like we will be voting against Obama in November.

  • tpnoga1

    Finally, some sense on this site. I agree completely!

  • jakeofalltrades

    Between Romney and Gingrich, Romney is the conservative activist, and Newt is the establishment. Donating to conservative candidates is a huge part of conservative activism.

    Where has Newt been? Oh yeah… working for Fannie. Romney has been working for conservatives.

    • federalfarmer1

      Not calculated to buy himself favor.

      Also, Newt needs to do a better job explaining that until fannie and feeding were bailed out, they were private corporations, and that he strongly opposed bailing them out. He favored letting romney and the other fannie and Freddie shareholders take the losses rather than stick them on taxpayers.

      • jakeofalltrades

        I’ll take that brand of sycophant in a hearbeat!

        • jakeofalltrades

          You were the first person on my Hinz list.

          [ignore]

        • JSobieski

          Imagine all of the junk in all of the line items that crossed his desk.

          Romney did not vetoe 800 bills in a 4 year term. The legislature doesn’t pass than many bills.

          If you want a guy who vetoed spending, Gov. Johnson was DA MAN.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I don’t want yet another president who runs screaming and hides in the corner whenever he sees a veto pen.

          • JSobieski

            800 line items from a blue state no-Republicans allowed legislature is chump change.

        • clowngirl

          that’s the number of Romney vetoes that were overturned.

          Doesn’t take much courage to veto if the other side knows they can just reverse and ignore it.

    • Finrod

      Having his vetoes overridden by the Massachusetts legislature does NOT count.

      What conservative ideas has Romney advanced? Which conservatives has Romney endorsed?

      If conservatism was a crime, would there be even enough evidence to indict Romney, much less convict him?

      • jakeofalltrades

        You candibots crack me up.

        • federalfarmer1

          Romney passed more liberal legislation than any republican governor in the nation. Newt forced a democratic president to pass more conservative legislation than any congressional leader in history. There’s no comparison to be had between them.

          The problems Newt has are only problems when stacked against a nonexistent ideal candidate. Newt is very far from perfect, no doubt. But Compared to romney, Newt is Reagan.

        • JSobieski

          How many line items weren’t vetoed?

          I agree that Romney’s vetoes were his best contribution, but Romney wasn’t as big of veto man as people portray.

          200 line items a year from a pork-filled blue state legislature is chump change. I wonder how many of the line items were even in excess of $1M dollars.

          Remember that Obama instructed his cabinet to identify all sorts of meaningless cuts—cuts that were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the spending increases.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I’m insufficiently enthused about him to chase goal posts on his behalf.

          • JSobieski

            Obama can probably point to 800 examples of spending that has been cut since he took office.

            All the while, aggregate spending has exploded.

            800 line item vetoes is a bad metric.

            $X billion dollars in vetoes would be far more impressive, but the fact that Romney doesn’t tout that approach suggests the aggregate value of the vetoes is . . chump change.

          • JSobieski

            http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/so-many-vetoes-so-little-time/

            So Romney’s 800 vetoes is not really an accomplishment.

          • jakeofalltrades

            In fact, it’s 800 more than zero.

          • JSobieski

            So on the spectrum of conservative achievement, Patterson is to the right of Romney unless more details are provided.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • jakeofalltrades

            You’re beclowning yourself.

          • JSobieski

            If every President had enacted significant welfare reform, it wouldn’t have been such a striking achievement.

            Vetoing 800 line items in 4 years is something that a lot of governors have done—including liberal Ds.

            Romney’s 800 vetoes is like Obama’s killing of OBL—-would anyone reasonable have done anything different?

            Bottom Line: The 800 number is not at all impressive without more information, and the absence of that information suggests that the underlying merits are NOT impresssive

          • jakeofalltrades

            We’ve gone from asking for conservative achievements to asking for “striking” achievements.

            Doubtless, if I provided a “striking” achievement, you would then demand a miracle – which in this case would be defined as achieving anything even remotely conservative against a 90% leftist legislature.

          • JSobieski

            Someone else may have said name on conservative achievement of Romney.

            My goal posts have always been —name one SIGNIFICANT achievement of Romney.

            Using sarcasm and clown calling in this context is disappointing.

            I mistook you for someone who engaged in substantive discussions over policy and politics.

            If you want to frame our exchanged based on what someone else said, and to insinuate that I am somehow raising irrelevant points due to someone elses “goal posts” as if this is only some type of stupid contest. then I vastly overestimated you and will act accordingly in the future.

          • JSobieski

            So if you can’t be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that 800 line item vetoes is essentially a meaningless metric, there isn’t much else to say.

          • jakeofalltrades

            If agreement with you is a requirement for conversation:

            Hinz.

          • JSobieski

            and then insinuate that I am being procedurally unreasonable?

            Got it.

            You aren’t disagreeing with me—you are just using process based language (“moving goal posts” or “agreement with me being required”) instead of actually acknowledging the following reality:

            Romney’s record in Mass is that of a non-nutty Democrat, i.e. a moderate democrat who takes fiscal issues somewhat seriously.

            If his record is so indistinguishable from that of Democrats in blue states, on the conserative continuum his “accomplishments” are de minimis.

            Please feel free to add some additional snarkiness while ignoring the substance of what I said above.

          • aesthete

            as either a 100% conservative or a 100% liberal, regardless of party — Mario Cuomo in NY, for example, is curbing public employee benefits packages, and Jerry Brown is pretending to get something done with pensions in CA. No liberal governor, to my knowledge, has issued a wholesale ban on private enterprise in any major sector of the economy. All of this falls under the “any reasonable person” standard.

            If you removed party affiliation, names, and any apologetics for-against, and just stated the events that transpired in Romney Candidate X’s term without malice or bias, would you be able to call it a conservative term? What about if you did the same in the case of Rick Perry, Gary Johnson, or Mitch Daniels? I’d say that any of the latter would stack up better than Romney — by far.

          • jakeofalltrades

            At the same time, cutting spending is conservative, no matter what letters or other decorators are affixed to the person involved.

            If Patterson vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research, I would still consider that conservative if Mitt did it – which it seems he did.

          • jakeofalltrades

            The Demonrats have cut taxes also. Does that mean a tax cut is no longer a conservative achievement?

          • aesthete

            but if one cannot look at an overall record in context without coming away with a consensus on whether that record is conservative or not, then the Governor was a failure from a conservative perspective.

            In Romney’s case, it’s hard to say much except, “a Democrat would have been worse, or about the same, on most issues”. IMO, in the case of Rick Perry, Mitch Daniels, and Gary Johnson, there’s a definite pattern that conservatives can appreciate on its own merits without having labels (“moderate”, “conservative”, “Republican”) or names (Reagan, Obama, etc) affixed to them.

            Taken in isolation, there are all sorts of minutia that could make a candidate look terrible in a way that does not reflect his overall record (Perry’s in-state tuition for illegals), or that embellish a terrible record (“800 vetoes”). The savvy voter, and the wise activist, needs to learn to analyze candidates in a more rigorous way, using more data points and being aware of the factors at play. In this way, he can use his time more efficiently, support a candidate who matches up to his preferences, and be aware of problems in the future. People like Coulter are entertaining, and have their uses in firing up the base, but their use does not extend to portraying the records of politicians with fidelity or rigor.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Not to compare right wing * sizes. Romney loses there, but he’s not as bad as everyone thinks. And comparing him to Governor Paterson on ficon issues is stupid: Governor Paterson was often quite conservative there.

          • aesthete

            If your point is that Finrod was being hyperbolic, you’re right: all politicians have accomplished things that both conservatives and liberals like — even Obama. Yeah, I went there.

            Finrod’s broader point is correct: it’s very difficult to differentiate Romney’s record from that of the better Democrat governors, even if you’re limiting your scope to the Northeastern US (where there’s nothin’ but a bunch of stinkin’ libruls).

          • JSobieski

            I don’t understand why good faith and reasonably substantiated arguments should be treated with ridicule, but placing a candidate’s overall record on a contextual continuum among other politicians in hardly unreasonable.

          • The_Rebel

            without more information”.

            Here are a few items of information to chew on:

            In 2004, Romney proposed cutting the state?s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%?a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success.

            After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002.

            Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash nearly every part of state government to close a $3 billion deficit.

            He used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state?s $1.2 billion rainy day fund.

            Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments
            for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%.

            On the campaign trail, he has supported drilling in ANWR and opposed the burdensome regulations imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley.

            He vetoed a ?card check? bill that would allow unions to organize without a secret ballot election. Of course, this was one of the 800 vetoes overturned.

            Sure, you could post as many items where Romney did not act in a conservative manner. But you asked for some examples, and here they are.

          • jakeofalltrades

            To quote the Hated One:

            Romney changed his mind on abortion — not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and “worked closely” with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, “since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life.”

          • texastaxpayer

            Looks like your locked in a good one here ;)
            Give you a free one Jake… You know I don’t support Mittens but he did donate to and campaign for Rick Perry in our last election. Now that is something he did for conservatives ;)
            Try that if the math thing doesn’t work….

        • clowngirl

          vetoing when it’s the conservatively correct thing — knowing that the veto is meaningless and comes at no cost – doesn’t do anything for conservatism.

          What has he actually accomplished by way of conservative acheivements?

          Anything?

          Anyone?

          Bueller?

  • federalfarmer1

    Newt was rejected by the establishment in favor of romney, ran anyway, and was shocked that the establishment he tried to work within assaulted him with a dishonest smear campaign. Makes sense for him to run against the establishment. And there is little reason to think Newt has any sympathy left for those individuals. Also, despite working with the establishment, Newt never really was accepted by it. He fought establishment types repeatedly to accomplish what he did in 94. His biggest mistakes were in giving in too much to the senate and dole.

    Romney opposed Reagan bush and the contract with America, changed positions when convenient. There is every reason to think he’s lying about his views and will simply adopt whatever he thinks is expedient at the time.

    It’s one thing to reject Newt as too.much of an insider, but it is absurd to use this as an argument for romney.

    • brand

      “It?s one thing to reject Newt as too.much of an insider, but it is absurd to use this as an argument for romney.”

      Dead on.

      Two things –

      1. I don’t get how people can toss out one item, like “800 vetoes makes the guy conservative” and figure that trumps the Abortion stuff, the anti-Reagan quotes, and all the rest.

      2. Why the heck do negative ads work? Yeah, great, so the other guy sucks, but why is that a plus for Romney?

      The “800 vetoes” line is loosely equivalent to a negative ad, since it really says nothing at all about conservative principles.

      Oh, and yeah, donating money to political campaigns isn’t conservative activism. As someone mentioned, it’s called “pandering”.

  • General_Confusion

    Romney?s record is that of a full time liberal.

    Neither were my first choice but I?ll prefer to take my chance on a guy that might swerve into conservatism and opposed to a guy who will (at best) avoid conservatism at all cost.

    • Ender

      of a sensible guy dropped in a sea of hard leftists able to overrule him on pretty much everything. Stop repeating the lie of him governing like a liberal.

      • scottishjew

        He ran for Governor. If he had ANY conservative principles, he’d fight for them. But the video of him THANKING TED KENNEDY looks like he was all gung ho for government healthcare. I dont see why you are apologizing for him. Mitt runs around telling everyone his healtchare program was great.

        What do YOU think about Romneycare Ender? Was that something you support?

        • Ender

          I don’t mind Romneycare. It’s not the worst solution on a state level, and back in the day was embraced by many conservatives. It’s only now that everyone is pretending that they’ve never been for it, simply because Obama installed it on a national level.

          If he ran as a conservative for MA Governor, he would’ve lost. If you run as something that simply won’t win, you will never have a chance to make a difference. But at least you will be a true conservative loser right? People adjust to their environment. Romney did what almost any other politician would do. It just doesn’t play well with those who have a very simplistic view of our political system.

        • scottishjew

          It was his environment. His policies are closer to democrats than republicans.

          Well, what difference did Mitt make in MA? If he is there just to rubber stamp all the democratic legislation into law, why bother voting for him.

          Oh, you dont mind Romneycare? So you’re for Government Run Healthcare. Now, I know why you like Mitt.

          No one buys that federalist argument, mind you.

      • General_Confusion

        We are headed for disaster if we put Romney at the head of team go along, get along with Boehner and McConnell.

        Our current congressional leadership already sides with the Democrats when it comes to huge deficits and open ended debt.

        Who exactly is going to pull him to the right and be his safe conservative harbor in DC?

        P.S. Are you seriously telling me that he governed like conservative in Massachusetts? (Hint: Romney Care, appointed Liberal Judges, raised taxes, etc.)

        • Ender

          that DC (with our GOP House) is similar to MA Legislature which is over 85% Dem. You are plinking on the strings of absurdity when suggesting it.

          Romney + Boehner would be infinitely better than Obama + Boehner. Romney would not start off with leftist proposals, and would not force Boehner to go Left to compromise. It just doesn’t make sense. He says he will cut government spending and I believe as a sensible businessman he will do it.

          It will be up to us to pull him further right, but I’d rather pull on him, than on Obama.

          I addressed Romneycare above. Other things were just what was possible in MA. You gotta consider the environment.

          • JSobieski

            if he said that Romneycare was the “least bad outcome” I would give him a pass.

            To the contrary, he is “proud” of it—and the similarities with Obamacare are legion.

            Romney either doesn’t understand why Obamacare is flawed, or he doesn’t really believe that Romneycare was something to be proud of. Either option is depressing.

          • Ender

            to Obamacare that is not just a repeal of it, I will let Romney be proud of his Romneycare. And I mean viable. Something that would help insure most of the uninsured people and reduce costs. We have to be a party of solutions and ideas, not simply rejection of ideas.

          • General_Confusion

            Absurdity, let me tell you absurdity..

            With a GOP house there was no decrease in overall spending and the only significant budget cut was the to the military (which ironically IS in the constitution, all other non-constitutional garbage is getting MORE deficit money). Funny how all Democrat priorities are still fully funded and increasing.

            The other awesome GOP House accomplishment was Barracks Trillion plus blank check which was ?thoughtfully? protected by a ridiculous 2/3 vote requirement needed to stop the auto-increase.

            So tell me where the GOP House has accomplished something that advanced the GOP agenda and not the Democrats agenda? It sure wasn?t controlling the nations purse strings.

            Democrats advancing their agenda at 85% control or 50+1% control (with GOP help makes little difference), it all ends with the Democrats getting everything they want.

            Romney + Boehner (and McConnell) will simply continue the existing trend because they will most defiantly will hit a leftist head wind and Romney will just turn about and go with the prevailing leftist wind.

            We agree that was his tact in MA, I have no reason to believe that it will not be his tact in DC.

            Romney + Boehner may be better than Obama + Boehner but I believe Newt + Boehner would be better still.

            P.S. If you are Ok with Romneycare, you will just love Obamacare seeing as Romney?s own people have already said repeal will NOT happen under his administration.

          • General_Confusion

            Absurdity, let me tell you absurdity..

            With a GOP house there was no decrease in overall spending and the only significant budget cut was the to the military (which ironically IS in the constitution, all other non-constitutional garbage is getting MORE deficit money). Funny how all Democrat priorities are still fully funded and increasing.

            The other awesome GOP House accomplishment was Barracks Trillion plus blank check which was ?thoughtfully? protected by a ridiculous 2/3 vote requirement needed to stop the auto-increase.

            So tell me where the GOP House has accomplished something that advanced the GOP agenda and not the Democrats agenda? It sure wasn?t controlling the nations purse strings.

            Democrats advancing their agenda at 85% control or 50+1% control (with GOP help makes little difference), it all ends with the Democrats getting everything they want.

            Romney + Boehner (and McConnell) will simply continue the existing trend because they will most defiantly will hit a leftist head wind and Romney will just turn about and go with the prevailing leftist wind.

            We agree that was his tact in MA, I have no reason to believe that it will not be his tact in DC.

            Romney + Boehner may be better than Obama + Boehner but I believe Newt + Boehner would be better still.

            P.S. If you are Ok with Romneycare, you will just love Obamacare seeing as Romney?s own people have already said repeal will NOT happen under his administration.

      • texastaxpayer

        No lies needed, its documented its fact…..
        Donated to planned parenthood
        Funded planned parenthood in his healthcare bill
        Passed the predecessor to obamacare
        Passed gun control laws
        Supported assault weapons bans
        Raised “fees” 400% on gun owners
        Passed “caps” on “greenhouse” gases
        Raised taxes and fees nearly a billion annually
        Advocated cap and trade
        Advocated subsidies for “green energy”
        Advocated the homosexual agenda
        I mean what in this man’s record says anything but liberal?
        Quit with the “LIE” that Romney was in a sea of leftists. The last three governors before Romney were republicans also. In fact of the last 26 governors in Massachusetts only 12 have been democrats. Romney is a big boy and its time he take some of that personal responsibity he his always rambling on about.

        • Ender

          accomplish before Romney? Did they manage to push through their conservative agenda?

          • texastaxpayer

            Or would you like me to say that they didn’t advocate and pass:Romneycare
            Carbon caps
            Tax and fee increases of nearly a billion annually
            Additional funding for planned parenthood
            Assault rifle and hand gun restrictions
            A 400% increase in fees for gun owners
            Ect..Ect..Ect…
            Oh and they aren’t running to be president either…..

          • Ender

            they were forced into a whole lot of liberal crap by the veto overriding legislature. Being a governor of MA is not possible to be conservative.

          • texastaxpayer

            Simple enough question right?

      • brand

        (I’m pretty sure it was he…) but anyway, Mitt CHOSE to run in Massachusetts. He was from Michigan and had ties there, but instead chose to live and work and run in Massachusetts. When someone as famous as Hillary can move to NY and get elected, Mitt could have easily chosen another path to elected office.

        Imagine, had he true conservative instincts, and could have run, oh, heck, one state away, in NH, that has been a relatively reliable conservative state for pretty much, ever? The positives would have been that he wouldn’t have had to run from Reagan, or take pro-abortion stances or set up Romneycare.

        Again, assuming that he actually HAS conservative instincts.

        Manchester to Boston is like an hour commute… he could have even kept his Bain Capital job.

  • Ender

    of Romney sounding like a Robot. I think he sounds like a regular human being, it’s just that he is not a smooth public speaker. Not everyone is. I thought he sounded fine yesterday. For that matter Gingrich sounded fine too, except for his narrative.

    Prior to this primary season I liked both Mitt and Newt and it’s such a pity that I had to choose between them, in the process being po’d by Newt. He was one of my favorite “establishment” candidates until now.

  • mikeinweho

    A large segment of the Tea Party base finds Gingrinch appealing because his anger resonates with them.. People are angry and want a leader who connects with that, apparently to the point that they’re willing to overlook his entire record in DC. Super-cool Mitt looks like he never got angry about anything in his life.

    • federalfarmer1

      And fighting Clinton tooth and nail for balanced budgets, despite opposition from the gop establishment.

  • scottishjew

    If Mitt Romney IS the outsider, then why are all the insiders and Washington Establishment Types endorsing him.

    I know the Romney campaign is trying to flood talk radio and conservative sites claiming they are conservatives voting for Romney. That doesnt really fool anyone. The biggest motivating factor in the 2010 for Tea Partiers, like me, was Obamacare. So, what do you think someone who passed Romneycare is to us. Yeah, Newt was for a mandate as was the Heritage Foundation. They both acknowledged it was wrong. While that is not entirely comforting it is far better than watching Mitt Platitudes get on stage and tell us what a wonderful thing Government Run Healthcare is for Massachusetts.

    Telling us Romney is a conservative doesnt cut it either. He was asked what he did for conservatism, he said he raised a family. Oh boy. Newt Gingrich, warts and all, nationalized the 1994 campaign and ended 40 years of democratic control. He helped end “welfare as we know it”. We had (more or less) balanced budgets.

    What I fail to see from you Romneyites is any substantive reasons to vote FOR Mitt Platitudes. His bland tax plan. His plan to cut government….oh wait…he doesnt have any. Mitt Romney isnt even a Republican. I will NEVER vote for Romney. I vote for candidates not parties. If the race is between a Socialist and a Democrat, I will write in. When the RP puts a candidate who shares my worldview, then he gets my vote.

  • JSobieski

    people use it to characterize what they dislike.

    Never found the word particularly helpful or meaningful.

    • jakeofalltrades

      The only purpose that word can ultimately serve is as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

  • goodgovernance

    Newt is by no means perfect as a conservative candidate. If he were he wouldn’t have had several campaign collapses in the course of one election season.

    But for a lot of us, Romney isn’t just unappealing, he verges on unacceptable. There’s a gut sense this man isn’t on the level with us and really doesn’t get our concerns, our causes. Yes, he donated money to TEA party candidates. Do you really think he did that out of shared principles, or because he knew it was the best way to set himself up for 2012?

    Newt, on the other hand, is a flawed man who tries to push the country toward conservatism and has pushed the country toward conservatism, but at times has stumbled along the way. Why did he sit with Pelosi? Because he’s a politician. Because he has a reputation of being the worst of the partisans, and so was trying to blunt that negative impression in order to remain relevant.

    He’s flawed, but I can understand flawed. A bloodless cypher (that’s how I view Romney) on the other hand, I can’t get any read on that guy, and I have no idea what political principles are really important to him. Anyone who claims to know what agenda Romney will work toward in office is fooling themselves, because Romney will let the prevailing weather conditions make his choices for him.

    • azaeroprof

      Most accurate and thorough comment I’ve seen re:Newt/Mitt.

      • azaeroprof

        unlike the current White House occupant, I wholeheartedly believe that Mitt Romney is a patriot and loves his God.

        • scottishjew

          let him go back to running the Olympics.

        • federalfarmer1

          Part of me would rather burn down the gop and consign it to the dustbin with the whigs and federalists than waste my time voting a guy who donated personal and taxpayer money to pp, passed the most socialist healthcare bill in the nation, and believes big banks and financiers manipulating firms to take advantage of the tax codes is what capitalism is about. Romney is a liberal elitist who has no problem lying to conservatives to advance himself.

          If Gary Johnson as a libertarian can convince that he’s more likely to appoint Scalia Thomas type judges and cut the budget than romney, then there’s no reason for the gop to exist.

    • irishgirl

      one of the best comments I have read in quite a while. The “bloodless cypher” really nails it.

      • goodgovernance

        Glad to see I’m not alone in how I feel about the remaining field. :)

    • Darin_H

      I’m having trouble following this logic:

      Endorsing Scuzzyfuzzy = conservative

      Endorsing a slew of TEA Party candidates = a liberal only trying to get everyone in his pocket.

      Maybe it’s just me, but as I view most politicians as panderbears, I’ll take the guy who panders to me. No matter the motives, I’ll take the guy who put his cash on the line for a lot of conservatives running for office. Mind reading at its best!

  • Common_Cents

    Sure Gingrich was establishment (of sorts) in past, however, argue he was not your run of the mill establishment.

    As in stocks, not where they’ve been, but where they are going. Gingrich serves as the best representation of many tea party supporters.

    Look at the endorsements, most of the active DC establishment is backing Romney. Newt’s supporters tend to be populist and ex-DC participants.

    It boggles my mind that there was so much effort on tea party (getting Haley’s & Rubio’s elected) sending a message to GOP establishment RINOs, but then criticizing Gingrich for NOT having that same old boy DC support?

    Gingrich is defacto, an outsider and will have to tap populism (“people’s campaign”) and energize the tea party movement as he knows Romney is the darling picked by the GOP.

    I believe among the GOP elite there is a pecking order and Romney galvanized his GOP insider support when he got out of the race last time and let McCain have his “rightful” turn.

    Things change, as do market conditions. What evidence do you have that Gingrich is a big insider today? I just don’t see it.

    Romney has been the GOP establishment pick since day one this time around. I think Romney would have had a much better chance had he been nominated last time, in light of financial troubles, and McCain admitting he knew nothing about it. Obama knew less than McCain but he didn’t admit it, brilliant! FAIL.

  • trelane

    That’s the way the Tea Party sees it. Mitt has the backing of the establishment, therefore the Anti-Mitt is the de facto anti-establishmentarian even when they’re not.

    As Kowalski suggested, Newt has become the symbol of the TPM. Whether he is a real conservative or not, we should support him because a Newt loss is a Tea Party loss.

    • Common_Cents

      for extinction.

      I’m believing the major motivational factor might be more so GOP retaining party power as much as beating DEMS and advancing America. It’s probably even easier being in minority in DC, having a grand ol time, just having to push out a few opposition press conferences and releases rather than set the agenda.

      • jaykali

        People are starting to sound like Ron Paul supporters. So now this is a conspiracy against the Tea Party? I am tired of all of these ‘establishment’ conspiracy theories. Are we crediting the establishment attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan now? Hmm they were around then…

    • jaykali

      I cant tell if you are using satire, if not you are kind of proving Leon’s point.

  • jaykali

    The Scozzafava deal was particularly telling, in that instance he absolutely was lining up with the establishment. Later on he figured out to be a populist he needed to go along with the masses.

    • federalfarmer1

      What’s worse, endorsing a liberal republican, or being a liberal republican. You people are ridiculous. Use your brain.

      • jaykali

        i mean you can throw out 6 years of him moving to the right and say no hes the same politician as he was in 2002 when he was gov of a top 5 most liberal state but its not like scozzafava spent a lot of time renouncing moderate positions. She was basically a democrat at the time of the election.

        • federalfarmer1

          We are all stupid rubes who can’t think past the latest attack ad we heard after all.

  • quill67

    When Reagan wanted to cut taxes and he needed someone to get Congress to go along. Who was there? Gingrich

    When conservatives wanted welfare reform and Clinton blocked it, who was there? Gingrich

    When Reagan started going soft on communism in our hemisphere. Who was there? Gingrich

    When member of Congress and President Clinton said we couldn’t balance the budget so quickly. Who was there? Gingrich

    Yes Gingrich does believe in party building and that means supporting people that are RINOs.

    Yes Gingrich was willing to consider global warming to be true. But what was his solution? Nuclear power not more government regulation or cap and trade.

    So tell me why you support RomneyCare? And do not give me the BS that it will only be at the state level because Romney says on his own website that he wants to provide funding to states to create their own RomneyCares.

    Will state run RomneyCare directed by Washington be any better than ObamaCare?

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Mitt Romney, when Newt Gingrich was helping create the only modern conservative takeover in Congress in 1994, was in Massachusetts running against Ted Kennedy for the senate as a “Progressive Independent”, railing against the years of Ronald Reagan and conservatism– at a time when the evidence was clear about the magnificent record of Reagan, and Mitt was an full-grown adult.

    A mere thin six years ago, Mitt was hugging Ted Kennedy as the governor of Massachusetts, and praising him as his “collaborator” in creating a government-controlled health-care system.

    Mitt has made no references whatsoever (as Art Laffer has pointed out) to reducing taxes in a meaningful way. Further, Romney has played the role of Capitalist Extraordinaire, but he isn’t in any sense a free-market entrepreneur, and does not champion the small business. He pays it lip service, but Newt Gingrich has a more thoroughgoing understanding of this end of “capitalism” that the board-school-groomed Romney does.

    The Tea Party is about giving a sense of liberty-based empowerment to those that aren’t necessarily well-connected, that aren’t extravagantly monied, and feel alienated from a cultural and governmental elite that doesn’t embrace their values.

    Mitt Romney is a wooden, computer-generated candidate with no core. Newt has passion, which Mitt clearly does not– and this, too, aligns with the Tea Party.

    I hope this helps your confusion a bit.

    • quill67

      Nice to see a sane conservative.

  • Finrod

    I remember him waxing eloquently more than once about issues like abortion. Well, since abortion was just about the only SoCon issue polled about in CNN’s exit polling of Florida, where did the candidates come in?

    Voter’s position on abortion, it should be:
    Always Illegal (22%): Gingrich 44, Romney 33, Santorum 16
    Mostly Illegal (37%): Romney 44, Gingrich 34, Santorum 14
    Mostly Legal (23%): Romney 52, Gingrich 28, Santorum 8
    Always Legal (13%): Romney 57, Gingrich 25, Santorum 3

    Congratulations, Leon, you’re behind the candidate that gets a majority of the pro-choice vote, and you’re slagging the candidate that gets the pro-life vote. How does that make you feel? If it doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable, then I will pray for your soul.

  • OCBill

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/02/mr-electable-hones-his-message-im-not.html

    Romney states, “I don’t care about the very poor, they have a safety net.”

    Stunning enough. But the problems with this interview go beyond a tone-deaf 1%-er delivering another juicy ad into the Democrats’ hands. If you keep listening, you’ll hear Romney reveal a vision of a permanent welfare state that is as bleak as any liberal’s:

    Quoting Romney: We will hear from the Democrat party, “the plight of the poor,” and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor. . . . We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.

    Back to Pundette:
    But my real point is that a conservative candidate would talk about increasing opportunity for the very poor, about lessening the need for food stamps and housing vouchers by reducing government and invigorating the economy, rather than touting the awesomeness of our massive, dependency-inducing welfare state and suggesting it might need some beefing up.

  • OCBill

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/02/mr-electable-hones-his-message-im-not.html

    Romney states, “I don’t care about the very poor, they have a safety net.”

    Stunning enough. But the problems with this interview go beyond a tone-deaf 1%-er delivering another juicy ad into the Democrats’ hands. If you keep listening, you’ll hear Romney reveal a vision of a permanent welfare state that is as bleak as any liberal’s:

    Quoting Romney: We will hear from the Democrat party, “the plight of the poor,” and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor. . . . We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.

    Back to Pundette:
    But my real point is that a conservative candidate would talk about increasing opportunity for the very poor, about lessening the need for food stamps and housing vouchers by reducing government and invigorating the economy, rather than touting the awesomeness of our massive, dependency-inducing welfare state and suggesting it might need some beefing up.

  • jaykali

    Newt’s work in the 90′s was absolutely great but I haven’t seen any sort of evidence that could prove he could do it again today. He doesn’t seem like a unifying type of force, quite the opposite. To me he has a very divisive personality and so getting through a legislative agenda like welfare reform, balanced budget, etc I dont think could ever happen again. He wore out his welcome just a couple years after they passed those type of reforms. I just feel like his moment passed 15 years ago.

  • submariner45

    Look, I don’t think Romney is Ronald Reagan, but to rally around Newt Gingrich because of Romney’s ideological imperfection is both stupid and dishonest.

    A K-Street lobbyist who has spent his entire life in Washington DC is the very definition of Establishment. And the institutions he worked for (like Freddie Mac or various drug companies to push expansion of MediCare) shows that he has dedicated his career not to conservative activism, but simply ingratiating himself with taxpayer spoils. And if RomneyCare means Mitt is disqualified, why then does Newt get a pass for his steadfast support of federal mandates?

    Some want this charade to continue, even though there really isn’t any policy differences between what Mitt and Newt are espousing. If you think a long, dragged out primary with a kamikaze candidate like Newt making robocalls about how Mitt Romney is taking away Kosher meals from Holocaust survivors is a healthy thing for both the conservative movement and our chances in November, I think you need to reevaluate. I almost never get my “way” in primaries, but I’m enough of a grown up to understand the stakes involved with being a good soldier.

    The grassroots is going to have to figure out who they hate more, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    You know, for thinking and intellectually writing about these types of situations.

  • rickperryreport

    Romney raised $24 mil last quarter, and cash flowed > $5 million running four campaigns in IA, NH, SC, and Fl.

    The nomination process is over. It’s time to accept defeat. We conservatives did not field a candidate that could gain momentum quick enough. And some of you wasted precious energy, time and money on Herman Cain.

    Nut to all you who did.

    Go Romney. (Snore…)

  • jaykali

    Gingrich has his own kind of comment regarding the very poor seems like a few weeks ago. This one isn’t good as you can slice it up a bunch of different ways to look bad from different angles. It certainly fits into Obama’s class warfare narrative. It looks bad on an attack ad tho in person in an interview or debate its not hard to respond to bc you basically just explain that your main focus is on the middle class. He’s got other stuff that isn’t as easy to explain. But its just 1 more quote to go in the Mitt ‘out of touch rich guy’ narrative the Obama folks will try to build. I think they will go so far off the deep end into class warfare that its going to backfire. I dont think the middle class in general see the rich getting in the way of their prosperity. We have a history of celebrating success in America so Obama trying to get neighbors to hate each other I don’t think will work. I think the OWS stuff is way overblown.

    I’d still love to see someone ask Obama, ‘ok for the sake of argument lets say we raise taxes on ppl over $200,000 and somehow that doesn’t hurt economic growth – how are you going to make up the other trillion+ gap in the budget?’ He is never challenged on this and so he goes on and on ab how the republicans wont raise taxes and never has to answer for the problems with spending and deficits and entitlements bc news media just hangs onto this red herring.