« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Latest Gingrich Oppo Dump

By: streiff (Diary)  |  November 30th, 2011 at 04:07 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Naturally it appears at National Review Online in Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot titled “Newt Gingrich Said What?”

A sample

In June 2005, the New York Times raved about a “balanced and thoughtful” report from a bipartisan task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, declaring, “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.”

In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing.

In April 2006, Gingrich appeared to suggest that too many U.S. troops were in Iraq.

I’m sure there is an army of gnomes out there, this very instant, researching every exotic statement Gingrich has uttered in his career. This will be a full employment plan not only for those gnomes but their children because every time Gingrich has had a thought he has told a newspaper somewhere about it.

In the long run, I think this exercise is a wash because anyone who supports Gingrich has already factored in his stream of consciousness style.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • andystone

    that Newt Gingrich has ever said on record. We might have to settle for what he’s done and what he’s planning to do instead.

  • TSquared

    I said earlier “In general ? I think that most folks are willing to go with a candidate ? even if they don?t agree totally on every issue ? as long as the get a good feel about the guy/gal. That ?feel? can be the product of some of the most nebulous and superficial things.”

    I suspect that for an attack on Newt to resonate it’s going to have to be something new, scandalous, sensational, or salacious. All this stuff about old baggage is just that, old (and factored in as streiff suggested).

    Is it possible, that folks place more importance on Newt’s conservative accomplishments while in office, then his musings out loud while out of office?

    I also said earlier: “If many feel that the candidate has a wealth of experience, has ideas (even if they are not in total agreement with some), is articulate, can be an effective champion of their cause in general, and appears competent and capable of getting things done, then those things will weigh heavily on their decision. If you ask people why they support a given candidate ? often they will not be able to formulate a coherent response. But they just know instinctively ? they have a feel about a candidate.” Is it possible that Newt is hitting the right notes here?

    • 2think55

      Well, said, TSquared. Anyone who has followed Newt for the last 20 years as I have, know that so much of what he says is taken out of context. He is brilliant and a straight talker. We need someone like him now, more than ever.

      I think that people who are put off by Newt are basically intimidated by his intelligence. They remind me of the looters and moochers in Atlas Shrugged.

      • texabama

        but I am appalled by the lack of so many of his supporters. Most of the people supporting Newt right now are doing so because they were told he did the best in the debates. Note I wrote “told” because I seriously doubt most of them actually heard him in a debate. If they heard Newt at all it was through some pundit and his/her recap.

        Those same people probably have never heard any of the points that are being brought out on the political sites. The same way they never heard that Obama was for wealth redistribution, had ties to Bill Ayers and ACORN and a dozen other salient facts.

        • tea4me

          I’ve watched every debate. I’ve been a fan since his 94 contract with America. He had never fallen to #2 for me in this process in any poll I participated in. And I was the first to call for his support on this site about 5 debates back.

          I know everything I need to know about Gingich. And enought to know the writing on the wall says Republican primary voters have finally come back home….to Newt!

          • http://www.oasg.org darkmit

            I was asked by a Liberal friend (Bush hater) during the Mid-Terms who I would choose for president to replace his pal Obama. Without much choice in announced candidates (to early at the time to announce) and a thin selection of possibles (Palin and Romney) I threw out the name Gingrich. Suffice it to say my friend was aghast, probably a good sign.

            I think one of Gingrich’s most positive traight is all that he has said and done. It’s all out there for everyone to see, good or bad. If this is not the most vetted candidate ever then I don’t know who is. And it is truly childish in the political world to find anyone who is consistent in over 30 years of political life. As a matter of fact I would run from such a person. I mean if your views and outlook on life haven’t changed in over 30 years then obviously you do not get out much and talk with other people.

      • Tbone

        I can see why you think Newt is brilliant.

        • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

          Obamacare. It makes a great election fight that conservatives can win. But Romney cannot make that fight because of Romneycare. And Newt is on record supporting the individual mandate (the most freedom-sucking portion of Obamacare) as recently as 2008. All the press has to do is replay statements that both of these candidates made in the past and Obamacare is here to stay.

          • heraklios

            Romney is a pure scumbag without scrupples or principles. He will do anything and say anything (and screw anyone) to get elected. You may disagree with Newt on the issues (and certainly may want to support a more conservative candidate), but I don’t think you can doubt Newt’s sincerity. If Newt has changed his position on an issue over the years, it is because he has thought it through and really believes what he is saying. That is totally opposite from Romney.

          • pj2012

            While I think neither are scumbags, just bad for the country. They are however, twin twigs of the same branch with enormous egos to match.

          • tomatin

            Otherwise you will be squashed by the system not to mention our enemies abroad.

          • concrusade

            “He will do anything and say anything (and screw anyone) to get elected.”

            I think you are referring to the serial adulterer who HAS screwed anyone. The man is a sociopath. You can see his face light up as he feeds his own ego.

            The hypocrisy of the “flip-flops only apply to Mitt” rule here is awful. The man pushed and lobbied Republicans to go for a NATIONAL mandate. At least Romney’s was only for a state.

          • donald_24

            Romney said that RomneyCare and its mandate should be a “model” for the rest of the country. He also said that allowing people the option of not buying health insurance is “Not American.” In 2005, Romney said:

            “Let me just note, there are a lot of people who say, ‘you know Governor, I don’t like this idea that people are going to be required to buy insurance. This is America. They should be free.’ Well, they are going to get free health care if they don’t buy insurance. I don’t think it is appropriate to say individuals have a choice of saying I don?t want to buy insurance even though I can afford it and I want to make somebody else pay for it. That’s not American. And that is not the right way, in my view, for us to go.”

          • concrusade

            There is a big difference between “allowing people the option of not buying health insurance” as being un-American vs. “taxpayers having to foot the bill for someone that can afford it” being un-American. And he’s right on that point. That’s exactly the problem with many of our entitlement programs. If you can afford it, my taxes shouldn’t have to pay for it.

            Romney has never advocated for the mandate to serve the United States as a whole, but a model for other states who wish to pursue it. Obviously it’s the wrong answer for other states, but that’s very very different from instituting a NATIONAL mandate a la Obamacare.

          • JSobieski

            Just because bad policy is constitutional at the state level is no reason to support that bad policy.

            The only difference between individual mandate at the state level and individual mandate at the federal level is legality, not prudence.

            Romney’s promise to repeal Obamacare makes little sense if Romneycare is such a good thing.

            The policy is either a good idea or it isn’t.

          • JSobieski

            Did Romneycare move the state in a direction of free markets or in the direction of heightened bureaucratic regulatory strangulation?

            If Romneycare degregulated health insurance to some degree, Romneycare would be defensible.

          • tomatin

            While Romney acted like a Dumbocrat as gov of MA.

            No comparison.

    • geoph

      I have to agree with your assessment of a Newt voter.

      With Mitt and Newt as the horses, upon reflection I find I CAN hold my nose and vote Gingrich; I CAN NOT do so for Romney.

      What do we think will happen if Mitt is our candidate? The MSM will join in and support him? That they won’t empty their arsenal trying to destroy him?
      They’ve already done that to Newt – I don’t see how they can drive up his negatives. (what a ringing endorsement for a Presidential contender)

  • supergirl2911

    for giving me the best laugh of the day so far!

    I?m sure there is an army of gnomes out there, this very instant, researching every exotic statement Gingrich has uttered in his career. This will be a full employment plan not only for those gnomes but their children because every time Gingrich has had a thought he has told a newspaper somewhere about it.

    • nathanalbright

      ….and that is pretty funny, and true.

  • msbs05

    Perry to Gingrich, and have factored in some less than perfect statements by Newt. He has been speaking a very long time. In different times, only the libertarians were so purely conservative as we are now. Newt has moved in his thinking, just like I have. Newt has worked with Heritage for years, and even they have moved from similar ideas with Newt, to more conservative thought, like on Health Care.I like Newts ideas on immigration, the only one being honest about what he will do, its not amnesty. I like his tax ideas, his ideas on revving up the economy, that he will be blunt with press, that he will be blunt in fighting Democrats on policy, that he can intellectually defeat Obama on campaign trail, and that he would put real conservative on the court when opening appear (See his speech at FRC conference in Oct on the courts, excellent). All the rest about his past is noise by the left and those supporting other candidates. I am no longer listening.
    It is odd that in my family we have all come from Newt from different angles. I am Tea Party & went from Perry to Newt. Hubby went from Cain to Newt, father very moderate, but dislikes Romney & chose Newt early, mother picks for crazy reasons, but went from Bachmann to Newt, father-in-law is a Democrat that now hates Obama and he chose Newt, all but one of our kids are also voting for Newt (one going Ron Paul). I think it speaks to Newt’s broad appeal. We have never agreed before. I think Newt is here to stay at the top with his past doing no new damage.

    • texabama

      You’ve pretty much summed up my problem with Newt. At some point he has said or done something that will please just about anyone. And if you don’t like something, well he has had that “spiritual reawakening” and asked for forgiveness. He is not unlike Obama except for the youth and socialism thingy.

    • medicineman

      Went from Perry to Newt also. I’ve realized (and maybe Christie did also), that one can’t wake up one day and decide to run for president even with a good record as governor of a large state.

      Newt played a major role in moving Clinton to the center and getting welfare reform and a balance budget in the mid-90′s…these were NOT perfect, but he definitely moved the bar regarding the conservative agenda in the 90′s (on many levels).

      With this accomplishment and (I believe) a spiritual re-direct, he is the best candidate at the stage of the game….

      • tomatin

        We are gonna take back the Senate in 2012 but probably not have 60 votes. I think Newt can outmaneuver the Dumbocrats more than any candidate left.

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

    I think anyone who’s closely tuned in has. But not everyone’s closely tuned into politics.

  • hls87

    Newt’s support will collapse before the voing starts. The overwhelming majority of his supporters haven’t factored in any of his many eccentricities.

    Most of the people responding to any poll have given no serious consideration to the primary and remember very little about Newt Gingrich. They wander around from one candidate to another reflecting the fashions of the moment.. When they finally give the presidential contest serious thought, they’ll notice that Gingrich isn’t a plausible presidential candidate and very few will actually cast a vote for him.

    Newt Gingrich is a silly, shallow man with verbal diarrhea who never tried to run anything except his mouth. He gushes half-baked (and unbaked) ideas. A team of crack political scientists could labor for a decade to design the worst possible presidential candidate without coming up with anyone less plausible than Newt. Even the stupid party isn’t nearly stupid enough to line up behind Gingrich, and so it won’t.

    • tomatin

      Obviously you have something personal against the man because you can’t attack his actual record in office.

      Face it all the candidate have flaws but you are just being petty.

      • wonkish1

        That you are one of the people that get the difference between assessing someone as a candidate(a high standard) vs. and assessing his contributions to the conservative movement(a standard set by whether or not they’ve done more good than harm).

        People can dislike Newt as a candidate, but far to many people are willing to say anything(regardless of how pathetic or untruthful it is) about a person because they deem it politically expedient so they can take down a candidate they don’t want.

        Keep up the good posts. Its good to see people that have the decency to understand that key difference.

        And that goes in regard to all of the candidates.

        • tomatin

          Unfortunately RS has become “destroy every GOP candidate but Perry”.

          We have to face the fact that we have no perfect candidates including Perry.

          How Gingrich who when in office was a great leader of the conservative movement became left of every candidate running is a fairytale made up at RS.

          • snowshooze

            I have eyes, they are doing themselves in.
            Perry is the only one who hasn’t really pulled the world class stupid stuff at this point.. I am not talking about being tongue tied, or mis-stating the 21 years old.. I am talking WORLD CLASS stupid stuff.
            Now I am not including Huntsman or Santorum..because nobody will give them the time of day as yet.
            Newt and Meltdown Mitt.. they are both disasters for us.
            The rest are just kinda embarrasing.

          • streiff

            have you read the comments on Rick Perry?

      • hls87

        Listen to you. Newt is the modern Edmund Burke, is he? Nonsense. Anyone who could write such a thing knows nothing about thought, conservative or otherwise.

        As a thinker, Gingrich isn’t even on a par with Yogi Berra. He was the architect of a partisan victory in 1994 that yielded almost no philosophical or practical benefits. Newt never tried to change the shape of our unsustainable governement and he never will. He doesn’t even understand what’s wrong with the utopian mess he and many others like him created in Washington. He’s never met a scheme for enhancing the government’s power he doesn’t like, at least for a while (cap and trade, individual mandates as a path to “universal health care.”)

        Gingrich is a vain gasbag and his presidential candidacy is a farce.

        • reggie182

          The first Republican House in 40 years, a balanced budget four years in a row dealing with a Democratic President, and welfare reform.

          Yeah, all insignificant.

          In all seriousness, he actually is quite brilliant and innovative. He’s also a solid conservative. He has a 94% rating from the ACU.

  • concrusade

    Which is why I vote for Mitt over Newt every time.

    Newt and Mitt are even on political flip flops.
    But Newt has demonstrated a sociopathic personal character.

    Just read how he reconciles his adulterous affairs: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

    Man up and admit your carnal weakness, not this “I was working so hard for our country that things happened.” Things happened? That’s the most passive admission of fault I’ve ever heard.

    Social conservatives need to WAKE UP in Iowa and stick with Michelle. Newt is not only to the left of Romney, but he also lacks personal character.

    • easyb

      wake up and get with Perry. I think that’s what you meant to say…

      • pj2012

        I couldn’t have said it better… ; )

    • tomatin

      Left of Romney. Prove that Gingrich was left of Romney when it mattered as speaker.

  • reggie182

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/30/florida-gingrich-47-romney-17-cain-15-paul-5/

    Two polls confirm a gargantuan lead Gingrich has in Florida over Romney & the rest of the field.

    Criticism of certain aspects of his record is legitimate, but I’m starting to see attacks online against Newt that are personal and nasty. I don’t see how that benefits us in the long run.

    Gingrich could very well likely be our nominee. He sure looks to be the odds on favorite to me.

    • pj2012

      You’re letting the polls decide for you now? That’s not how I choose to choose my candidate. Sorry…

      Brilliant is, as brilliant does? sorry? to be hokey. But it?s true? Newt may be/sounds brilliant at times (who knows for sure), and then again he?s NOT so brilliant many, many, times. No Newt for me thanks? I don?t care what the POLLS are saying? this too shall pass.

      • reggie182

        I said nothing about polls being a means by which we should select candidates.

        I was saying that personal and nasty attacks against Newt by fellow Republicans are a bad idea, especially considering that he appears quite likely to win the nomination.

        • pj2012

          It seemed implied… However, I disagree, I fee Newt will not be the nominee… this too shall pass. I don’t like nasty attacks, personal or otherwise on anyone… however, truth is truth on ones record… that is fair game.

          • pj2012

            fee=feel

          • reggie182

            Except I do think that Newt’s record is fair game for discussion, as well as the records of the other candidates. I just think some of the online nastiness from some Republicans doesn’t do us any good.

        • concrusade

          See: Obligatory anti-Romney daily post.

  • Common_Cents

    Romney will now be on the defensive to retain his block of support. That is new to him. The next debate on Dec 10 will be interesting to see if Romney will try to go at Gingrich. Then the sparks will fly.

    • pj2012

      This should be good… however, they may just destroy each other in the process… and give Perry a second chance. ; )

      I see Newt and Romney as two twigs of the SAME branch and that branch will break from the weight of their enormous egos!

      • oldlady

        with their huge egos and capabilities of nastiness may very well polish each other off. And it would be very nice if Perry, the steady guy, benefits from their demise. Hope he just stands aside and campaigns on the issues while he lets the two of them go at it.

        • pj2012

          Perry is going for the conservative populist vote as I have said in other comments. This is the way to go… he will have his second chance. While Newt and Mitt’s enormous egos are busy destroying each other and fumble the ball, Perry recaptures the ball and does an end run.

          Concord, N.H. ? In a speech to New Hampshire legislators Wednesday morning, GOP presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry took a hard line on Wall Street, reaping thunderous applause from Republican representatives, near silence from the Democratic minority and a clamorous mixture of boos and cheers from an activist-filled gallery.

          ?We must no more tolerate an America in which Main Street is allowed to crumble while Wall Street financiers and beltway profiteers bill the taxpayers,? Perry declared.

          ?What is wrong in this country can be diagramed on a map,? Perry continued, ?with one straight line connecting two dots: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

          ?Wall Street high rollers hatched get-rich schemes while they profited from betting against America,? he fumed. ?And when the market crashed, those on Wall Street, they saw it coming and they made millions. Those that didn?t see it coming, they got the bailouts.?

          ?We shouldn?t be rewarding taxpayer funded bonuses to Wall Street executives who defrauded those very same taxpayers. We ought to be locking them up!? Perry insisted.

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/30/in-speech-to-nh-lawmakers-perry-ramps-up-anti-wall-street-rhetoric/#ixzz1fEjQLo00

          • wbf

            It was good to get some encouraging news about the Perry campaign!!

          • pj2012

            All the papers and online outlets are saying the same on his speech at the NH State today.

            Perry was repeatedly interrupted by applause as he delivered a booming speech to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

            “He looked and sounded presidential,” said Josh Davenport, a Republican state representative from Newmarket. “It left me more confident in his abilities.”

            and…

            “Perry’s performance at the New Hampshire State House may have helped. He left the House chamber to a standing ovation from the Republican majority.”

            Read full article here… http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/11/30/perrys_struggles_overshadow_a_good_day_in_nh/

            Someone just gave me this info…

            Here?s some articles about the upcoming Perry comeback:

            ?New Hampshire voters think Perry can rise above mistakes?
            http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x1331361440/NH-voters-think-Perry-can-rise-above-mistakes

            ?Perry posse of hundreds of Texans heading north for push to win Iowa?
            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111130-exclusive-perry-posse-of-hundreds-of-texans-heading-north-for-push-to-win-iowa.ece

            ?Get Ready For a Perry Comeback?
            http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147514172

          • 1bunny

            is a good sign (600 so far). Hopefully even more people will volunteer for the Perry Posse and he can make that end run you mentioned today. He is also planning a bus tour through Iowa along with the posse. He is great at retail politicing so I have great hopes for him. Thanks for posting the great news out of NH today.

            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111130-exclusive-perry-posse-of-hundreds-of-texans-heading-north-for-push-to-win-iowa.ece

  • Whacker77

    So it’s fine to chastise and berate Romney for what he’s said and done in the past, but it’s hands off poor Newt? Gotcha.

    I’m sorry, but the whole 2012 experience makes me sick to my stomach. Look at what’s happened in the last day or so.

    Romney fell apart in an interview on Fox.
    Cain said Democrats are taking him out because they want to run against Newt.
    Newt said he helped defeat communism.
    Bachmann said if she were president we wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran.

    Someone, anyone, please tell me this is just a bad dream.

  • heraklios

    It doesn’t matter what Newt said: we’re still no voting for Romney

    • sunshinek67

      and have no plans to start in 2012.

      • heraklios

        24/7 against all of the other candidates and I think most of us are fed up with it. It goes way beyond what is normal in a primary. No wonder so many politicos from 2008 as well as 2012 despise Romney; it’s because of his tactics

        • tomatin

          Romney is planting bloggers in RS.

          They know they can’t tout his record so they only attack his biggest opposition. I mean some of these distortions about Newts actual record are amazing.

          Reminder,

          Newt passed the virtual end of the worst part of the welfare state, ended onerous banking regulations and helped get the budget in line. He did this with a Dem in office no less and if the GOP cannot get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate he’s probably the only candidate with enough political savvy to pass a conservative agenda.

          Look I like Perry too. In fact he would be my first choice. But I’m not delusional and I haven’t seen Perry relavant in the polls for weeks. I hope conservatives give Perry a second look but so far they have not.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        There are no policy differences, nowhere he can distinguish himself, from Obama.
        Health Care – Same as Obama and included funding for abortion.
        Abortion – Again the same as Obama.
        Jobs – There is a reason Romney does not mention his jobs record in Massachusetts, it’s terrible.

        The only thing that makes Romney a republican is that R after his name.

        • heraklios

          which is why it’s so important we do whatever it takes to deny Romney the nomination

        • tomatin

          One of the worse conservative records by any GOP nominee ever.

    • Menlo

      Once again, we are not amused.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hodge.benjamin Benjamin Hodge

    What a stretch.

    When Newt gets paid to lobby for bad positions it’s “stream of consciousness,”but when Romney does it to get elected in Massachusetts (which I’m not condoning) it’s permanent condemnation? When Newt — from a deeply conservative state — isn’t even fully pro-life (on human cloning), and is deeply distrusted by colleagues like Tom Coburn, this is “stream of consciousness,”

    It’s been stated at this site as fact that Romney is far more vulnerable in the general than Newt, against Obama. Why? Because they’ve BOTH flip flopped a hundred times… but one does it for lobbying, when he’s not involved in “streams of consciousness”?

    It’s been stated as fact that Romney is less trustworthy than Newt. But why — because Romney was a highly political Republican in a Democratic state, and Newt was an insincere movement conservative to guys like Tom Coburn who actually WANTED him to be conservative?

    • streiff

      bujt just flat out disingenuous.

      If you can’t distinguish between changing positions while in office and trying to get feckless voters to put you in office and changing positions while a pundit and author I really can’t help you with that deficiency.

      You’ll notice that no one really believes that but you. Another clue about how convincing it is.

  • Rhampton

    …at least no one to date. From what I have seen, not one of the candidates that strongly appeals to Conservatives can win the general election, while those that may can’t win the nomination. The good news is that there is ample time for events, foreign and domestic, to shape the probabilities in favor of your GOP candidate of choice. The bad news is that the candidates are not doing much to help themselves and are going to need some outside help to win in 2012.

  • tomatin

    First I look at the record to see if they have the ability to pass a conservative agenda. There Gingrich is good.

    Second I look at their current positions and debating skills.

    Third and last I look at what they say and do as citizens out of office.

    Yes I look at character but mostly with my first premise in mind.

    That’s why I think Newt is so much better than Romney.

    BTB I take left wing PPP polls with a grain of salt but the latest FL poll is devastating for my first choice Perry. I just don’t get whey conservatives don’t give him another look.

    “The numbers from Public Policy Polling (D): Gingrich 47%, Romney 17%, Herman Cain 15%, Ron Paul 5%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Jon Huntsman 3%, Rick Perry 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, and Gary Johnson 0%.”

    I mean polling lower than Cain, Bachmann or Huntsman there is crazy.

  • tea4me

    by the non Gingrich supporters in here as the realization sets in that Newt will be the nominee…and I realize the end of this race is so close now.

    Can’t wait to place my vote for him. Let’s get it on. He’s gonna crush Obama.

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

    …are provided as y’all awaken.

    ***

    “Old Business”

    First, on a prior web-page, I had an exchange with Wonkish1 which culminated in a summary that remains operational. I invited him to respond to this new thread?recognizing the Guiness-length of its predecessor on that site.

    We were getting a bit squished physically [with half of the margin having been obliterated], and [to me] Wonkish1 was becoming a bit squished emotionally [manifest by inter-alia tangential commentary]. Meanwhile, he was being aided/abetted by JSobieski [whose support was steady, albeit more supplementary than definitive], but I have no problem handling 2:1 odds. Others were perhaps bemused by the byplay [sometimes akin to simultaneous-chess, inasmuch as multiple friction-points ensued]?.

    Thus, clarity is in-order.

    I was busy attacking The Newt for having endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

    The discussion had digressed into SS, try as I might to remain on-topic ["on-thread"..."on-subthread"?] In any case, Wonk disavowed personal endorsement of the Individual Mandate, and we were JUST AT THE POINT when he was going to be invited to rectify formally his stance with the above-quotes.

    Wonkish1, and others who discussed this focused-concern, are invited to chime-in. In my view, this isn’t a product of stream-of-consciousness, etc. In fact, yesterday, he was still hearkening-back to the 1990′s rationale ["Heritage did it to combat HillaryCare, I supported to fight-off single-payer, Heritage rescinded, so did I"]. HE HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT HE REINFORCED THIS ATTITUDE IN RECENT BOOKS/TAPES.

    I feel this is reflective of statism/elitism, for he consistently views Big Government as having a “tinkering”-role [at LEAST] when problems loom.

    ***

    “New Business”

    The discussion both on Special Report and on O’Reilly was how Romney became testy–overtly–during the interview with Bret Baer AND how he verbalized this emotional-reaction [after having taken a "break" in his quarters] directly to the questioner. Now, I thought the queries were not zingers [for he allowed him off-of-the-hook on multiple occasions], but O’Reilly advised him–next time–to query @ the end whether the interviewee felt the queries had been “fair” [as he had done with BHO on Super Bowl Sunday].

    THIS IS HUGE, because it suggests Mitt has recognized that he may have peaked, in this case because of the Newt-Rush [although an inevitable phenomenon to some pundits]. He can no longer participate in the “Mittness Protection Plan” and must subject himself to interviews. That he didn’t want the “Center Seat” format suggests that he fears hostility from FNC, despite the particularly benign [but occasionally focused/bemused, noting Krauthammer's perception of Paul] atmosphere that is created.

    What’s going on, here, and did anyone on this site prognosticate effectively?

    ***

    “Analysis”

    Mitt is in trouble. Even if the Florida polling is askew from the Leftie-Perspective, he has not gained strength when opponents [non-Mitts] have faltered. He is “Wall St.” and “Establishment” and even putative supporters [such as Ann Coulter] are [let us say] “thin” when they invoke the “electability” card. The GOP-Electorate hasn’t “bought” it, isn’t “buying” it, and is unlikely to “purchase” this item [certainly not overwhelmingly, perhaps not even back to the 25%-ceiling] during the primaries [except NH, because Huntsman is so much worse].

    Despite “puff” pieces, Santorum/Bachmann haven’t become advantaged from this phenomenon. Indeed, if Michele [to whom I gave $180, ten days ago] claimed America had an embassy in Tehran…without postulating that this was “hypothetical”…then she again loses an opportunity to seize-the-moment. And Santorum is portrayed as earnest and improving, but ultimately bogged-down by his BIG loss in PA; I saw him @ a book-signing ["It Takes a Family"] in Bryn Mawr and suggested he had POTUS-aspirations, if for no other reason than his book-title ["It Takes a Family"[ was perhaps chosen to juxtapose his thinking with that of Hillary ["It Takes a Village"].

    [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69492.html]
    [http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/gop-hopeful-rick-santorum-campaigns-with-a-seriously-ill-daughter-at-home/2011/11/28/gIQAMWdHAO_story.html?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop]

    BTW, I asked Michele about Santorum’s confession of hypocrisy with regard to abortion during the Thanksgiving-Family-Event, for I viewed it as the most moving segment thereat; she said he had discussed this vignette previously.

    So, if it can be concluded [1]–the field is set, [2]–Cain is failing, [3]–The Newt is rising, [4]–Paul is stable [and, per Krauthammer and EE and others, "won't be the nominee, period"], and [5]–Bachmann/Santorum remain without adherence…what is next?

    ***

    “Synthesis”

    Anyone who would claim [including myself, when Perry announced] that this race is anything but gaseous [beyond "fluid"], is trying to create a freeze-moment to validate a personal perspective.

    Here, the rush to Newt is predicated – at least in-part – upon a desire to alight SOMEWHERE and then to self-assess how it “feels.” I predict [tenuously] that the onslaught of reality-testing will “test” Newt’s tolerance, whether it be on NewtCare, NewtLobbying, NewtFlips, etc. And anything missing will be raised by Mitt in 10 [short] days. For example, can his elitism/statism NOT be on-view when he claims not to have been a lobbyist because he was earning $60K per [client] speech?

    So, where do the TEA {Taxed Enough Already} Party Activists, the Evangelicals, the increasingly-intrigued electorate [which excludes educated-bloggers on RS and elsewhere] choose to align themselves?

    {Yeah, here comes the punch-line, perhaps predictable, perhaps not, you be the judge.}

    Perry flubs again on the voting-date/age, but he remains the most likely recipient of the anyone-but-Mitt/Newt electorate [which remains huge]. An indicator of whether I’m correct will be whether the $-bundlers who have STILL been non-committal [en-masse] will resign themselves to an obvious DC-insider such as The Newt.

    ***

    “Homework”

    Perry has to rise to the occasion before the fortnight of end-of-December vacation places the campaign in a behind-the-moon-blackout mode [perhaps "brown-out" would be more apt, because the MSM/LSM/ELM still wants to attract all available eyeballs] for the fortnight immediately prior to Iowa.

    It’s no secret that the expectations-game will be afoot [Newt high, Perry low...thankfully, in both instances] during the [relatively few] December debates, but the task-order is that Perry Must WIN All Encounters with The Newt. He cannot depend upon a “miffed” Mitt to perform this task.

    The viewers will be attuned to this, and may be apt [finally] to “reward” the slayer-of-the-dragon. The openings are myriad [for The Newt, as well, as chronicled on this page and elsewhere], so he will need [1]–to pick his shot, and [2] to be poised to strike if opportunity arises.

    I felt he unnerved Mitt [although others thought the Illegals-Hiring point was overbearing] as detailed previously [vide infra, for documentation], and this was the first/only time ANYONE had punctured/dented him during ANY of the debates. No one wants to give him credit, because everyone fears what he would do to the status-quo in D.C. if provided the chance to clean-house [without lingering alliances, as Mitt has created and Newt has expanded].

    He can do it again. He can cite the most recent quotes from BOTH of these guys and then zinger-a-rejoinder if he just picks-up the delivery-speed from 33 1/3 to 45 rpm. He can invoke quotes with abandon from “Fed Up!” [because, if nothing else, this book proves he has already thought-through the "big questions"] to buttress his prior white-papers [focusing relentlessly on how he would apply the 10th Amendment from D.C. as he has from Austin].

    The recipients of this attack-mode will be wont to treat him as a pinata, again, for we’ve “been there, done that.” He must be polite, but he must not fall into the unctuousness that The Newt has effectively/predictably exuded [when attacking questioners, a pattern that nauseated this viewer because it represented such a transparent unifying effort that contrasted with the purpose of debates....to com;pare/contrast so as to choose the optimal anti-BHO].

    Only Perry has this opportunity, he has become seasoned, he’s up-to-speed, the voting starts in less than a month, and his moment is NOW!

    {I might add that these arguments haven’t been decimated by my son, so they COULD be correct.}

    The rest of us will do the rest….

    ***

    “Documentation”

    On another website initiated by Guzzardi…
    http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy?page=3
    …I compiled the database regarding Romney’s double-hiring of Illegals, thusly:

    This is how Rick has summarized these concerns:

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

    *

    The Boston Globe has published an update of its two contemporaneous/relevant pieces [which appeared one year apart and cite his ?you?re fired!? letter]:

    http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/fact-check-the-story-behind-the-accusation-that-mitt-romney-knew-had-hired-illegal-immigrants/P8deMLtSoAMK7kZ7FnAj2I/index.html?camp=obnetwork

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/01/illegal_immigrants_toiled_for_governor/

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2007/12/romneys_stateme.html

    *

    The overview-piece was based on the debate-quotes, but perhaps-purposefully drew no conclusions.

    The first piece quoted the owner of the landscaping company thusly: ?Saenz said Romney never asked him if his workers are legal immigrants?.Saenz said he had never requested any proof from his employees to show they are here legally. ?I don?t need to tell them to show me documents?.I know who they are, and they are legal.? ? And, in contrast with the claim that Rick is flawed for not supporting a 2000-mile fence, Romney also was quoted as having adopted a comparable stance: ?Romney supports construction of a new 700-mile fence along the country?s border with Mexico and stationing National Guard troops at the border until it is finished.?

    The second piece quoted Mitt thusly: ?Romney said then that he had met with the company owner in 2006, after the first incident, and instructed the company to make sure the people working for them were of legal status. Romney said the owner guaranteed that the company would comply with the law going forward. ?After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.? ?

    The third piece provides a starting-point of any cogent analysis; review the text of the letter Mitt wrote when he finally ?fired? the company that had hired the Illegals. The key question that follows, therefore, is whether comparable documentation exists?from a year prior?when he says he had warned the company against this practice [??the clear instructions provided on this issue last year??]; the follow-up question that follows is why he had initially ?given them another chance? rather than having invoked the Reaganesque ?trust but verify? approach, taking active steps to ensure it had complied with his demand.

    *

    Critique, particularly from Wonkish1, is cordially invited!

    • nathanalbright

      I look forward to seeing (and perhaps commenting) on the sequel to the Sklaroff-Wonkish debates.

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

        [note, also, that this was transplanted onto EE's more-recent site]

        • nathanalbright

          ….considering that it appeared as if your conversation with Wonkish appeared to be rather unfruitful.

          It is clear that Perry possess a very good opportunity as Cain fades into irrelevance to skewer both Newt and Mittens, without doing so in a personally hostile manner, for their statism and elitism and present a principled opposition to that by pointing out the preference for solutions to come from the private sector and within the 10th Amendment framework of beginning at the local level rather than seeking to use government to anoint winners and losers as Newt and Willard are prone to doing. Quotes of his “Fed Up” book may help (I have not honestly read the book myself, seeing as there are no copies that I have seen here in Thailand and I did not read it in the US before coming).

          • wonkish1

            And that is with Dr. Bob. Hopefully he actually participates this time around.

          • nathanalbright

            …it takes two to tango and you didn’t appear to be helping the problem either. From what I saw Dr. Bob was doing his best to ask serious and genuine questions in a language you could understand, and you didn’t appear to be getting the point and replied in a rather insulting and hostile way. Man up and take some responsibility for yourself, and treat others with respect, and you may stick around on this site for a while.

          • wonkish1

            Dr. Bob kept asking the exact same question over and over and over again. I kept on answering it directly. I don’t support an individual mandate. That is direct as you can get.

            Yet he kept on asking it more afterward.

            And I’ve been around this site for a very long time and I get along quite well with a lot of the regulars.

            So spare the lecture.

          • nathanalbright

            …did you think at any point in the conversation that you might need to clarify or elaborate? No, you simply blamed him for unintelligence and insulted him, as you do here. When someone keeps asking a question it means that they aren’t hearing the answer.

          • wonkish1

            Because from what I saw he asked a specific yes or no question numerous times.

            ***He asked did I support the individual mandate. I said no and then(even though I didn’t have to) elaborated more as to why I didn’t support it. ***

            That isn’t answering the question?? I mean come on!! Do you want to be taken seriously or not?

          • nathanalbright

            …you seemed mostly to be denying that Newt ever supported the individual mandate. That is what I read of you saying over and over and over again. And in that you were simply mistaken, as was pointed out several times. Even in your comments here you seem to muddle the issue with your bringing in irrelevant points about the mandate of hospitals to treat anyone regardless of whether they are insured or not.

          • wonkish1

            I said that I, me, this guy didn’t support the individual mandate.

            I said numerous times over and over again that I didn’t agree with Newt’s decision to support the Heritage style(bond posting) individual mandate.

            Do you just lie for a living or what? I’m muddling anything. I make it very, very clear!!

            I mean what is wrong with you?

          • wonkish1

            I’m *not* muddling.

          • nathanalbright

            …again, you show minimal reading comprehension, extreme prickliness to being called out in error, a tendency to muddy up your own statements (partly due to your lack of skill in typing), and a complete lack of respect for people who disagree with you. This is not acceptable. I was simply telling you that you and Dr. Bob appear to have misunderstood each other in your conversation, and instead of admitting that you could have been more clear in your own defense of your position you accuse me of willfully lying. It is hard to respect someone who engages in public discourse in such a dishonorable manner.

          • wonkish1

            On the contrary you show minimal reading comprehension. I answered the questions posed to me. You make stuff up. And please show me where I made an error. Please or are you just going to claim I made errors and never actually produce one?

            I completely understood Bob’s question he asked it numerous times. It was a yes or no question. I responded no numerous times. What is there to miss here?

            Well if you can’t produce any of things you claim then yes you are a liar!!!

            Look in the mirror.

          • nathanalbright

            …you did not answer his questions, and have been shown to be personally insulting as well as a liar. I am not the one embarrassing myself here. I suggest you take a chill pill and cease to beclown yourself by commenting in such a hostile and dishonorable manner. Doing so will not only greatly prolong your ability to post in RedState, given your short leash, but will also make you a better person in the rest of your life in dealing with people who are potential allies who become actual enemies due to your aggressive and unmerited hostility.

          • wonkish1

            I have probably been posting on this site longer than you.

            I actually have a very good life if you must ask. But I’m not going to sit idly by as you claim that you lie by saying that I didn’t respond to his questions.

          • nathanalbright

            …as evidence that he did not recognize what you said as an answer. I saw you giving a muddied and incoherent answer, and all I have gotten for mildly pointing out that you were not as clear as you think you are in your mind is a blast of invective. I note that you have already been put on notice that any future content of yours that offends a moderator will lead to your removal. I would not wish for that to happen merely because you decided in the middle of a wonkish debate to attack someone for pointing out your occasional difficulties in making your points plain when you are not engaged in infantile insulting behavior.

          • wonkish1

            That would say more about him than me now wouldn’t it?

            Apparently you can’t read or aren’t very smart then.

            I’m not attacking you anymore than you are. Claiming that I said something I never said is in fact lying and pointing out that you must have reading comprehension issues is a pretty accurate portrayal of someone that isn’t understanding simple yes and no answers and simple explanations. And you have leveled the same thing back at me when its quite clear that isn’t true.

            I get along with most of the mods on here I’m not worried about anything. I said one thing to a mod that I shouldn’t have yesterday.

          • nathanalbright

            I read pretty well but tend to struggle with ambiguity in what you say sometimes. If you were a little more humble and a little less insulting of others, you might find yourself involved in fewer flame wars. As I am someone who will defend myself vigorously when attacked, but tends to prefer friendly exchanges, I will call you on false statements and mistaken assumptions.

            Again, I said you weren’t very clear in your original comments, which resulted in neither Dr. Bob nor I (nor probably others as well) not understanding what it is you truly thought about the subject of Newt and individual mandates. Now that you have made yourself more clear, that discussion is proceeding along. The problem was in your ambiguity, not in a lack of reading comprehension on the part of Dr. Bob or myself. Show humility, show respect, and you will have fewer arguments with others. It’s not that hard of a thing to do, right?

          • wonkish1

            And some job you are doing defending yourself. You make claims that you provide no evidence for and then claim I’m the problem.

            LOL. I’ll show you respect when you stop making up claims of things I haven’t said and then acting like they are true.

            I don’t respect those that falsely claim I said things I didn’t say or that I didn’t say things I clearly said.

            You agree to stop that crap and we’ll be peachy.

          • nathanalbright

            …and retract calling me a liar, then we’ll be peachy.

            How about that?

          • nathanalbright

            …”unclear and ambiguous in your statements…”

          • wonkish1

            Please point out the ambiguity in the following direct quotes. And if you can’t your a liar.

            Bob: “Do You Support The Individual Mandate?”

            Me: “How many times do I have to say NO for you to get it. I don?t support the individual mandate.”

            or

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

            Bob: “Do you deny the intimate relationship between BIG GOVERNMENT and imposition of The Individual Mandate?”

            Me: “I wouldn?t define a person as a conservative or not if they had 1 or even a few ?Big government? ideas like the individual mandate.”

            Bob: “Let?s be specific; assuming you do not believe in the Individual Mandate [INCLUDING the posting of a "bond"], do you concur that The Newt HAS endorsed an Individual Mandate?”

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

            I could keep on adding more, but I’m not wasting a lot of time. So point to me the ambiguity or your a liar!

          • nathanalbright

            …not in the thread in question (which I can’t find at this point in either your own comments or in the “recent posts.”

            So, if you want to stop beclowning yourself, retract your insults before I invoke the Hinz rule on you for trolling. Got that?

            That’s the way I roll.

          • wonkish1

            And I used them because Dr. Bob still said I hadn’t answered his question in my response on this one.

            But since your going to be like that. Lets pull back more of those from yesterday shall we.

            “In regard to Newt?s support of the Heritage individual mandate back in the 90s I just simply disagree with his statement of support back then.”

            “But to answer your question I didn?t and don?t agree with the Heritage?s proposal in the 90s. I don?t think Newt should have agreed with it.”

            “But I also don?t think that *THE* litmus test for what is and isn?t a conservative should be the support of the Heritage individual mandate in the 90s.”

            “I have said over and over and over again I don?t agree with the Individual Mandate. I support the end of uninsured treatment to handle charity care. They are completely different positions.”

            All of those were from yesterday in addition to the ones I posted above.

            Please point to me the ambiguity or your a liar!!!!

    • wonkish1

      First, I’m going to point out that you have a tendency to say a lot about not very much similar to an ivy league professor or career bureaucrat, no offense. You might want to work on being more concise.

      Second, you better actually participate this time because last time you didn’t answer any questions and you kept on repeating the exact same questions to me where I answered them very directly numerous times(about a half dozen times) and yet you kept on asking so.

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

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

      3) Just because I am one that will defend Newt as someone that has done a lot for the conservative movement doesn’t mean that I support his past decisions to support a certain type of mandate(bond posting for the uninsured).

      4) Just because I’ll defend Newt as a conservative and a lifetime of quality work on behalf of the conservative movement doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with someone who believes you can strip all that away because of one or even a few issues.

      **5) Just because I defend Newt’s past work doesn’t mean that I’m going to support him through the primaries. I draw a distinct line between defending someone’s work and picking them as the best person to lead the free world. Currently I’m still undecided between a few people.

      **Now Dr. Bob, tell me **Succinctly and Specifically** what it is you have a problem with what I just wrote and please for the love of God read it.**

      • wonkish1

        Or is all this talk about how the unfruitfulness of our last discussion just a stupid ploy?

        • nathanalbright

          …judging by the fact that he is currently replying to a series of other posts, I imagine you have a fairly long and pointed reply coming your way within a few minutes. Perhaps you should be thinking of your next reply rather than getting your panties in a wad over there.

          • wonkish1

            And trust me I’m not in any way worried about what Dr. Bob comes back with.

          • nathanalbright

            …and maybe you should be. If you underestimate your adversary, you allow him the opportunity to strike you at his leisure in the knowledge that you will dismiss his potential danger.

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

        …because YOU STILL DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION!

        You have provided five “not necessarily so” disclaimers instead.

        I might add that Hill-Burton [mandating ER-care] isn’t the major $-driver when analyzing healthcare costs, and it serves a humanitarian role in society [although I have submitted testimony to a Harrisburg House committee that would allow for deportation of illegals following the delivery of urgent care].

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

        • wonkish1

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

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

          In the past YES.

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

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

          But let me guess that still isn’t me answering your 2 yes or no questions is it?

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

            We now can drill-down into how you assess The Newt in light of this recognition [whether or not it's "new"].

            If you agree he endorsed the Individual Mandate, you must agree also that his CURRENT books/quotes are indicative that it is INCORRECT to ascribe this to a remote time-period [1993]…right?

            And how do you square this endorsement with the formulation of the SCOTUS-litigation, inasmuch as the gravamen of both is identical…right?

            So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume control over 1/6 of the economy?

            [other clarifications will presumably emerge after you have addressed these follow-through queries]

          • wonkish1

            Never did ascribe it to a remote period. I said that he has in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean he is for it today.

            Newt isn’t a judge on the Supreme Court. So what’s your point?

            It doesn’t allow the government to assume control over 1/6 of the economy. You may or may not be a doctor. But let me tell you what my career is. I work in finance so I actually know what ownership and control is. In fact its the more than 50% of every healthcare dollar today coming from the government that has majority control of 1/6th of the economy.

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

            …as the noose tightens.

            If you agree he endorsed the Individual Mandate, you must agree also that his CURRENT books/quotes are indicative that it is INCORRECT to ascribe this to the “past”?right?

            And how do you square The Newt’s endorsement with BHO’s invoking the Commerce Clause to justify application of the Individual Mandate as the core of ObamaCare [the basis of the SCOTUS-litigation] inasmuch as the gravamen of both is identical?right?

            So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume direct and indirect control over 1/6 of the economy [supplementing what is already government-financed]?

            {yes, i’m a Medical Oncologist – Hematologist}

          • wonkish1

            Please point to me a book that has come out this year that shows Newt is still in favor of the individual mandate! The past is anything up until the present.

            Please point to me where Newt is saying that the supreme court shouldn’t strike down the individual mandate! Just because in the past he thought of it from a solution oriented policy standpoint(to handle charity care) doesn’t mean he ever rendered opinion on its constitutionality.

            I answered this question the last time. Its not direct or indirect control over 1/6th of the economy. And now since you’ve taken that position now I’m stiffing you with the burden of proof to show that it is control over the healthcare industry. I hope you like getting stuck with that one, LOL.

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

            ..inasmuch as our dialogue is yielding more definitive statements than those that emerged yesterday. To recap/reformulate…

            If you agree he endorsed the Individual Mandate in these two books that were composed during this millennium [indeed, even during the past half-decade], you must agree also that his CURRENT books/quotes have NOT been rectified [nor do they contravene] with RELATIVELY RECENT explicit iterations of his healthcare financing policy?right?

            Inasmuch as The Newt would immediately rescind ObamaCare via executive-orders on “Day #1,” how do you square The Newt?s endorsement of the Individual Mandate [even if, regardless of its Constitutionality, in the past he thought of it from a solution-oriented policy standpoint to handle charity care] with BHO?s invoking the Commerce Clause to justify application of the Individual Mandate as the core of ObamaCare, inasmuch as the gravamen of both is identical?right?

            So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume direct and indirect control over as much as 1/6 of the economy [supplementing what is already government-financed]?

            And how can you rectify his “Big Government”-oriented “solution” in this instance without recognizing this model [statism] wouldn’t be extended into other realms [cap & trade, etc.]?

            Ref: “Health Care: 16% Of GDP” http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/31/health-care-gdp-reform-opinions-columnists-john-tamny.html

          • wonkish1

            Last half decade isn’t the present. And it doesn’t appear he is a supporter of the individual mandate today so quite clearly it isn’t the present.

            The core of ObamaCare is *not* the individual mandate. The core of ObamaCare is community rating, standardization of benefits, and dictating the way insurance companies do business. That is the core of it. And we are referring to past endorsement and there is nothing to square. Newt thinking ObamaCare is bad policy and Obama’s constitutional justification of the Individual mandate are two completely different things.

            And the answer to this: “So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume direct and indirect control over as much as 1/6 of the economy [supplementing what is already government-financed]?” Is I DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE! Now you have to prove to me that requiring people to buy insurance equals government control of healthcare. And you better answer that.

            And just because you have been in favor of what many consider is a liberal policy idea doesn’t mean you are going to act liberally to everything. I mean what kind of joke question is that?

            You do realize you are pretty weak arguer right?

          • wonkish1

            Prove to me how requiring people to buy insurance equals government takeover and control of healthcare!! Come on now. Don’t be shy!!

            Lol this is going to be funny!

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

            …so i’ll recreate it, supra

          • wonkish1

            I’ll the admit the server appears to be under some strain right now.

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

            …and then coupled with your reactions, prior to reformulation.

            1. If you agree he endorsed the Individual Mandate in these two books that were composed during this millennium [indeed, even during the past half-decade], you must agree also that his CURRENT books/quotes have NOT been rectified [nor do they contravene] with RELATIVELY RECENT explicit iterations of his healthcare financing policy?right?

            “Last half decade isn?t the present. And it doesn?t appear he is a supporter of the individual mandate today so quite clearly it isn?t the present.”

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

            2. Inasmuch as The Newt would immediately rescind ObamaCare via executive-orders on ?Day #1,? how do you square The Newt?s endorsement of the Individual Mandate [even if, regardless of its Constitutionality, in the past he thought of it from a solution-oriented policy standpoint to handle charity care] with BHO?s invoking the Commerce Clause to justify application of the Individual Mandate as the core of ObamaCare, inasmuch as the gravamen of both is identical?right?

            “The core of ObamaCare is *not* the individual mandate. The core of ObamaCare is community rating, standardization of benefits, and dictating the way insurance companies do business. …And we are referring to past endorsement and there is nothing to square. Newt thinking ObamaCare is bad policy and Obama?s constitutional justification of the Individual mandate are two completely different things. [Therefore],I DON?T AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE! Now you have to prove to me that requiring people to buy insurance equals government control of healthcare. ”

            If people are forced to purchase a service that must comply with state AND federal regs [regarding process/content/$-profit-limits], then the government controls what is being acquired via this $-transaction. This is a truism that was known during the age of ClintonCare ["past"] and is known currently ["present"]. Thus, regardless of constitutionality, why do you support The Newt’s imposition of a $-mandate upon all 300M Americans that would ensure HHS/DC control over what they acquire?

            3. So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume direct and indirect control over as much as 1/6 of the economy [supplementing what is already government-financed]?

            ” just because you have been in favor of what many consider is a liberal policy idea doesn?t mean you are going to act liberally to everything. I mean what kind of joke question is that?”

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

            4. And how can you rectify his ?Big Government?-oriented ?solution? in this instance without recognizing this model [statism] wouldn?t be extended into other realms [cap & trade, etc.]?

            ” just because you have been in favor of what many consider is a liberal policy idea doesn?t mean you are going to act liberally to everything. I mean what kind of joke question is that?”

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

          • wonkish1

            1. Last night on Hannity for one. And he handled practically all of those questions. His past support, why he did, and what caused him to change his mind. I can’t say for sure the exact date he did change his mind. And this wasn’t the first time he’s said this either.

            2. Well you added in the rest of ObamaCare in to your answer. We are talking about a stand alone individual mandate. We are not talking about state standardization of benefits. We aren’t talking about state socialization of health risk(community rating). We aren’t talking about state control of the expenditures of health insurers, etc. You can’t add that into a discussion about the individual mandate just because you feel like it. ****Since you can’t add those things into the discussion about a stand alone individual mandate than I’m to assume you have no argument as to why it by itself equals government control of healthcare?***

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

            4. It looks like your conceding that one.

            Sure I’ll point out every time I disagree with Newt on an issue. Since I’ve done that many times in the past this shouldn’t be a problem.

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

            …and all queries were soft-ball and unfocused.

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

            “Last night on Hannity…he handled practically all of those questions.”

            ANSWER the questions! [It's always dangerous to "adopt by reference" both in parliamentary procedure & legislative matters...and in discourse.]

            2. Why do you support The Newt?s imposition of a $-mandate upon all 300M Americans that would ensure HHS/DC control over what they acquire?

            “Well you added in the rest of ObamaCare in to your answer. We are talking about a stand-alone individual mandate. We are not talking about state standardization of benefits. We aren?t talking about state socialization of health risk(community rating). We aren?t talking about state control of the expenditures of health insurers, etc. You can?t add that into a discussion about the individual mandate just because you feel like it. ****Since you can?t add those things into the discussion about a stand alone individual mandate than I?m to assume you have no argument as to why it by itself equals government control of healthcare?***”

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

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

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

            You didn’t answer the question: Please provide a differentiation-concept that provides a red-line between his desire to intrude in healthcare vs. what he might contemplate doing elsewhere.

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

            “It looks like your conceding that one.”

            You didn’t answer the question: Please ensure that, throughout, you ID whenever you [perchance] might DISAGREE with The Newt.

          • wonkish1

            1. Okay so you would like me to paraphrase the responses instead of just giving the reference alright. Well answer one to when he said he’s favored it in the past well he said that last night among other times. Answer two paraphrasing from my memory he said that libertarians wouldn’t go for it and that it isn’t strictly legal. Answer three I don’t know when the exact date was that he decided against it. Can’t answer something I don’t know the answer too.

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

            3. Please define differentiation-concept then!

            4. That doesn’t appear to be a question, but instead a statement. Can you please rephrase what you are actually asking me into a question please.

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

            …to http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/01/is-mitt-romney-as-whiny-as-barack-obama-or-just-not-really-vetted/#comment-144866. [It should enliven the proceedings.]

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

            ?Last night on Hannity?he handled practically all of those questions.?

            ANSWER the questions! [It's always dangerous to "adopt by reference" both in parliamentary procedure & legislative matters...and in discourse.]

            “…to when he said he?s favored it in the past well he said that last night among other times. Answer two paraphrasing from my memory he said that libertarians wouldn?t go for it and that it isn?t strictly legal. Answer three I don?t know when the exact date was that he decided against it. Can?t answer something I don?t know the answer too.”

            2. Why do you support The Newt?s imposition of a $-mandate upon all 300M Americans that would ensure HHS/DC control over what they acquire?

            ?Well you added in the rest of ObamaCare in to your answer. We are talking about a stand-alone individual mandate. We are not talking about state standardization of benefits. We aren?t talking about state socialization of health risk(community rating). We aren?t talking about state control of the expenditures of health insurers, etc. You can?t add that into a discussion about the individual mandate just because you feel like it. ****Since you can?t add those things into the discussion about a stand alone individual mandate than I?m to assume you have no argument as to why it by itself equals government control of healthcare?***?

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

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

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

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

            You didn?t answer the question: Please provide a differentiation-concept that provides a red-line between his desire to intrude in healthcare vs. what he might contemplate doing elsewhere.

            “Please define differentiation-concept then!”

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

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

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

            …consider:

            This is based on the fact that The Newt endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

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

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

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

            I conclude he is obfuscating, because he wants the listener to believe that he’s currently rejecting a remote, tangential concept. That he hasn’t defined what/when/who/what/where/why/how he altered his stance is telling; recall, for example, how Mitt explains when he became Pro-Life [again] while dealing with cloning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • wonkish1

            I’ll do my best to be around in a couple hours, but this guy has work to get done as well. So please be patient after you re-post.

            1. Well you can think what you want, but your now imposing your own view on a persons intentions. And he has answered why he believed it in the past and why he changed or can’t you read?

            2. Now your going to start lying? I have repeatedly said that I don’t support the individual mandate because the government has no right to force a person to buy a product. Just because I easily demonstrated why the Individual Mandate isn’t a takeover and government control of healthcare(the rest of ObamaCare accomplishes that) doesn’t mean you have to start making crap up to cover up the fact that you can’t win an argument.

            3. You need to define terms in a question so someone can understand specifically what you are asking. Or should I just conclude that you don’t even understand what your asking and are trying to act elitist with something you don’t even get yourself?

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

            *****Folks need to take a good look right now because Dr. Bob in all of his elitist “knowledge” is getting crushed so now he has to lie about what my position is*****, Sucks when you can’t win an argument now does it?

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

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

            …as the noose tightens.

            If you agree he endorsed the Individual Mandate, you must agree also that his CURRENT books/quotes are indicative that it is INCORRECT to ascribe this to the “past”?right?

            And how do you square The Newt’s endorsement with BHO’s invoking the Commerce Clause to justify application of the Individual Mandate as the core of ObamaCare [the basis of the SCOTUS-litigation] inasmuch as the gravamen of both is identical?right?

            So how can you assert that this posture is sufficiently compartmentalized when it would empower Big Government to assume direct and indirect control over 1/6 of the economy [supplementing what is already government-financed]?

            {yes, i’m a Medical Oncologist – Hematologist}

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

            [the screen froze for minutes at a time]

        • wonkish1

          Or maybe you think cost shifting isn’t a problem in healthcare!

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

            …related to indigent care [partially offset by DISH-$].

          • wonkish1

            That charity care isn’t a problem today?

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

            …cost/access/quality entails addressing indigent care, but NOT becoming consumed by this one parameter; remember, as in many other instances, the issue can be characterized thusly: “limited supply, unlimited demand.”

          • wonkish1

            Is charity care a problem today? Yes or No!

            Since I can give you a yes or no you can give me one.

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

            …now return to my refocused queries, please

          • wonkish1

            So now please tell me how you would address that problem. Today hospitals are required to provide care to those without insurance.

            I want to here a specific solution to that problem.

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

            …and deportation of illegals after urgent-care.

          • wonkish1

            Currently today (even non illegal) people can show up to a hospital without insurance, receive treatment, and never pay. What is your solution to that?

          • wonkish1

            That is actually a solution to the problem that I asked.

  • clintonformccain

    Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain and now to Gingrich don’t appear to have factored much of anything into their thinking.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Let’s be honest, Newt is only in the lead because Cain is the next Bill Clinton. Newt will put up a good fight, but sooner or later his bagage will catch up to him.

  • supergirl2911

    Except I stopped at Perry.

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

    Trump was a media creation.

    Bachmann never got anywhere in the polls.

    Perry’s still in fourth place, his trough is about on par with Bachmann’s peak.

    Cain’s still in third, though we’re 10 days since the last poll came in from the field.

    It’s a flat-out media lie that there’s a large bloc of conservatives who keeps changing candidates. It pains me to see that lie repeated at RedState.

  • hls87

    Newt’s support will collapse before the voing starts. The overwhelming majority of his supporters haven’t factored in any of his many eccentricities.

    Most of the people responding to any poll have given no serious consideration to the primary and remember very little about Newt Gingrich. They wander around from one candidate to another reflecting the fashions of the moment.. When they finally give the presidential contest serious thought, they’ll notice that Gingrich isn’t a plausible presidential candidate and very few will actually cast a vote for him.

    Newt Gingrich is a silly, shallow man with verbal diarrhea who never tried to run anything except his mouth. He gushes half-baked (and unbaked) ideas. A team of crack political scientists could labor for a decade to design the worst possible presidential candidate without coming up with anyone less plausible than Newt. Even the stupid party isn’t nearly stupid enough to line up behind Gingrich, and so it won’t.

  • gator_hoo

    “Baked into the cake?”

    Heck, if all of a candidate’s flaws were baked into the cakeat this point, even Iowa would be an academic exercise because Perry would be +50%

  • http://www.facebook.com/hodge.benjamin Benjamin Hodge

    I don’t understand your point about “when” Newt changed positions — it was anytime, whether in office or out of office, whether 1994 or 1996 or 2006 or 2008 or today.

    Or when he was fully pro life when in office, or not so much when out of office (that’s Newt, remember — not Mitt — we’re talking about). Every single criticism you apply to Romney can be applied to Newt. Except the criticism of not being married more than once.

    Yes, right, I’m the only person who believes that Newt is just as political as Romney, or less believable than Romney.

    For the record, I don’t doubt that Gingrich is more conservative (internally) than Romney — I just don’t think the degree to which he is, is all that much. I also have seen no evidence, other than the statements made on RedState’s front page, that Gingrich will run a strong campaign against Obama. I have seen nothing to indicate that Gingrich will run more strongly against Obama than Romney.

    You mention “pundit” and “author” — you leave out “getting paid to have these positions in other roles.” Or “probably making sure he remains Speaker of the House, and when he CAN EASILY be conservative, in a conservative state like Georgia.” No, your implied logic doesn’t translate, as to why that’s less objectionable than a Republican running in a dark blue state of Massachusetts. Again, I’m not condoning either; to match and mold public opinion will strike many as less objectionable than to merely hold a title or make a few hundred thousand dollars.

  • easyb

    If Romney’s so inevitable, why has he not broken 25%, and has recently declined to approx. 20%?

    Nothing salacious about Romney’s background, but let’s not kid ourselves…Romney has baggage as well. I don’t trust him.

    I’ll take Newt’s baggage over Romney’s.

    I’ll still rather take Perry, but Newt’s next on my list.

  • gekster

    Unless you have a crystal ball, or have a hotline to miss Cleo, all you have is speculation.
    Why don’t we just wait untill voters actually vote.

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

    Why should we expect a sudden surge now?

  • tea4me

    Romney can’t evem get his water mark 20-25% anymore

  • Kyle-MI

    When Gingrich first announced, I noticed but didn’t take a close look at him. While I liked the Contract with America and some of the things that Congress did during the Gingrich speakership, I also remember how things went after the government shutdown battle. There were other things in the back of my mind about him that I didn’t bother researching because there were generally better candidates. This opposition research just reminds me of why Gingrich wasn’t on the top of my list and still isn’t.

    I suspect there are others with a similar experience who might even have them on top of their list. It is sort of like after breaking with a current girlfriend, some guy might go through his list of old girlfriends. He comes upon a name and can’t remember why he broke up with her although he has an uneasy feeling. Ignoring that feeling he calls her up and sets up a date. The date starts out well, but halfway or more into it, she demonstrates the annoying thing that caused him to dump her. GOP voters are not through quite at that halfway point.

    This is not to say Gingrich wouldn’t make a good Republican president. He is still on my list, just not on top. I could see myself voting for him, even advocating for him in the general.

    It is a weak field. Every candidate has their flaw or flaws. Different people are willing to “pick their poison”.

  • texas214

    In many instances he is to the left of Romney in regards to the size and scope of government and will allow him to assume the smaller government mantle. For all of Newt’s positives, he is exactly the person he criticized when he spoke of “Right Wing Social Engineering”.

  • anonymousbosch

    what happens that gives him momentum? people already know him, there’s no new information. He’s been running since 2006. It’s not like some light bulb is going to go off.

    some have said to look to McCain’s comeback in 2008, but McCain was different. He beneiftted from Rudy’s decline as the two fished in the same waters, so to speak. There’s no Rudy out there for Romney to gain from. All the others are competing against him. If any of them fade, their support goes to the rest of the non-Romneys. Mitt won’t benefit from a Newt collapse, Newt’s support would just flow to someone else who woul dthen be ahead of Romney.

    McCain also had the example of the Surge in Iraq which really drove his comeback. As it showed success late in 07, McCain started to move back up. If the Surge had failed McCain never would have been the nominee. Romney has no Surge to point to over the next month or two.

    Also, McCain had his POW history, which even if folks didn’t like his positions or maverickness, they still always respected and admired his service/patriotism/courage/sacrifice/etc… he had that heroic quality about him. Romney has none of that. He comes off as a cold fish who no one really relates to on any personal level or feels any special admiration or respect for.

    And even with all that and more McCain was very, very lucky to have won in 2008. If Romney had won IA, he’d have gone on to win NH, and that’d be it for McCain. He was also lucky that Fred and a few others stayed in until SC and split the vote enough for him to beat Huck 33-31. Crist’s endorsement helped him big in FL. Lot of things had to go right for McCain, even with all those advantages he had.

    I just don’t see what Romney does to really move up. He just has to hope the vote is split enough for him to squeeze through.

  • anonymousbosch

    you can’t compare Newt to Huckabee.

    Huckabee had his niche in IA with evangelicals, but was never really a natl candidate. Newt has leads in IA, SC, FL, MT, nationwide. He’s showing much more broad support than Huckabee ever did.

    No one ever thought Huckabee would be the nominee.

    Also, Huckabee is nice guy who says good lines, but no one really knew much about him, he had no real history with the party or the movement.

    Newt, by contrast, does have a history with party and movement to put it mildly.

    The two are in no way alike.

  • texas214

    Newt is not that well liked within the GOP, so far he has recieved not a peep of endorsement or verbal support from any GOP Congressman, Senator or governor who were around when he held the Speakers gavel. You would think given he is a bit of a historical figure he would have strong support within the GOP who were around during that period.

    As brilliant a thinker as Newt may be, the silence is defeaning. Do you think Ryan, DeMint, Boehner, …..are going to support? My guess is they will do it holding their nose if he is the nominee

  • acat

    texas214, so guessing you’re in Dallas.

    Here’s the problem – if people were going to go for Romney, they’ve had six *years* to do so. They went for McLame instead of Romney last time. I don’t see Willard doing any better now.

    If Newt’s support collapses before Christmas Day, then the not-Romneys (using Erick’s terms) could be disorganized enough for Willard to win the early primaries. Pretty big if, though, and if I were Team Mittens, I’d be worrying until Groundhog Day.

    Mew

  • tomatin

    When in office Newt had a great conservative record. To say he’s to the left of Romney because he’s got good business instincts is wrong.

    Even under a Dumbocrat president Newt virtually eliminated the worse part of the Welfare State, ended onerous banking regulations, got biggest capital gainst tax cut in history and actually helped get the budget near balanced.

    While Romney passed a totally liberal agenda.

    No comparison.

  • renl57

    Gingrich was down in the cellar, and many in the GOP base didn’t even consider his candidacy to be serious.

    But back then, everyone was waiting for Perry to enter the race.

    As you can see from Gallup’s polling of GOP candidates’ Positive Intensity Scores, Gingrich didn’t start rising until Perry flamed out.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

    If Perry hadn’t flamed out and were now tied with Romney in the polls, nobody would be talking about Newt Gingrich.

    Gallup’s Positive Intensity polling shows how the GOP has been jumping from candidate to candidate over time, each one rising in popularity then falling then the next one rising then falling….

  • snowshooze

    And passed over last time with absolutely no accomplishments since then to brag about.
    I think Newt is a Big Government guy too, although I think he is far better than Romney, I do not think he holds a candle to Perry..
    So if the Democrats pick off Newt and Romney, I ain’t gonna complain because it just gets better after that.

  • texas214

    Romney was the conservative candidate (even endorsed by DeMint) and McCain was the establishment candidate.

    This is not a recommendation for Romney, just pointing out the facts.

  • pj2012

    Brilliant is, as brilliant does… sorry… to be hokey. But it’s true… Newt may be/sounds brilliant at times (who knows for sure), and then again he’s NOT so brilliant many, many, times. No Newt for me thanks… I don’t care what the POLLS are saying… this too shall pass.

  • msbs05

    From Politico

    Newt Gingrich, he won an endorsement from a Georgia congressman who has known him since Gingrich?s first House campaign in 1978.

    ?Newt, I think, knows policy better than any of the other candidates,? Rep. Jack Kingston told POLITICO in an interview Tuesday afternoon. ?At a time we need entitlement reform more than anything, he?s a guy who?s already done it.?

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories
    /0511/55165.html#ixzz1fELhQKoo

    From GA
    Atlanta, GA – With hours to go before the Georgia GOP straw poll in Perry this weekend, the Newt 2012 campaign announced a list of Republican lawmakers and elected officials who have endorsed Newt Gingrich for President.

    Georgia Legislators:

    State Sen. Judson Hill (R-Marietta). Hill is chairman of the Senate Government Oversight Committee and has turned to Gingrich for ideas on health reform.

    State Rep. Sharon Cooper (R-Marietta), chairman of the House Health and Human Services Committee. Cooper has been a longtime ally of Gingrich.

    State Rep. Joe Wilkinson (R-Sandy Springs). Wilkinson is chairman of the House Ethics Committee and served in the Reagan Administration.

    State Rep. Harry Geisinger (R-Roswell). Geisinger first served in the House from 1969-1974 and was re-elected when Republicans took the Majority in 2004. He used to be a guest speaker in Professor Gingrich?s history classes at West Georgia College in Carrollton.

    State Rep. Sean Jerguson (R-Canton). Jerguson is chairman of the Cherokee County legislative delegation.

    State Rep. Paulette Braddock (R-Hiram). Braddock is a freshman from Paulding County who is assisting on the Newt 2012 leadership team in Georgia.

    State Rep. Matt Hatchett (R-Dublin). Hatchett is one of the Governor’s floor leader and a small business owner from middle Georgia. He now holds the seat currently held by former longtime minority leader Rep. Dubose Porter.

    Georgia officials

    Governor Nathan Deal.

    Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens

    Public Service Commissioners Stan Wise and Lauren ?Bubba? McDonald.

    Members of Congress

    U.S. Rep. Tom Price of the 6th District; U.S. Rep. Austin Scott of the 8th District; U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of the 11th District and U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of the 1st District.

    Former Georgia Governor and United States Senator Zell Miller, is national co-chairman of the Newt 2012 campaign. Georgia?s current Governor, Nathan Deal, is the other co-chairman of the Newt 2012 campaign.

    ?The Georgia Republican Party has come a long way,? Gingrich said. ?I am proud to have the support of my fellow Republicans.?

    Gingrich went on to say that his relationships with some elected officials go back forty years or more when Republicans were hard to find in Georgia.

    ?I have known some of these folks since my first days in Republican politics,? said the former House Speaker. ?Together we have worked to make America stronger, freer and more prosperous. With a new President we can go even further, and I am grateful to have them on my team.?

    State Rep. Joe Wilkinson, who worked in the Reagan White House press office, called Gingrich ?America?s Winston Churchill.?

    ?They too had to turn to the brightest candidate and the one with the most vision to save their nation,? Wilkinson said. ?Newt is the candidate who can save and restore America.?

  • tyman

    nt

  • Scope

    from Bill Clinton. That should say it all.

  • oldlady

    I don’t think the big name Republicans are going to endorse Gingrich for a while. They can remember all the chaos he has caused through the years. I think they will all wait to see if he’s going to flame out before they are going to jump on board and, even then, it will be reluctantly.

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

    Absolute support levels matter.

    Ron Paul’s support tends to be very intense, but the absolute level is very low.

  • texas214

    nt

  • donald_24

    I should hope that a candidate is strong in theri HOME state. Thank goodness Romney is polling way ahead of Obama in Massachusetts because I don’t know of anyone who ever became president despite losing their home state. Oh wait…

  • acat

    while Romney is more conservative than McCain, he’s less conservative than several other candidates this time around.

    Mew

  • tomatin

    Everyone realized he was not conservative at all going back to 2008.

    That’s why McCain won the nomination. Newt or hopefully Perry will win for the same reason.

    The only reason Romney was the presumptive front runner was he was the only serious candidate from 2008 left and he’s been running for six years.

  • msbs05

    I put in the home state part to show people that have worked with him for 40 years support him. Newt has received plenty of support from other states, like Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, several Texans like Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) and Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas). He has even gotten Tea Party endorsements. I was just trying to disprove the above comments. Bachman is only candidate that has received no support in the house or senate. As to Ryan, DeMint, and Boehner, they have not endorsed anyone.

  • gekster

    The same way NickDarenger says Romney will be the nominee is the same way they were saying the same thing about Huck.
    Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
    Let’s wait until actual voting begins, and not tie ourselves to polls.
    Polls don’t elect people, voters do.

  • texabama

    except Obama proves that people can and will do stupid things in their quest for change. Right now we want change again and some want to change things back to the 90′s.

  • omegamale

    Powerful stuff

    Newt Ad

    That’s going to leave a mark!

  • Tbone

    You want voter endorsements or political hack endorsements?

  • sunshinek67

    but the content seems spot on~

  • heraklios

    .

  • medicineman

    The general voter really doesn’t care about this stuff…(see Obama, or what can be ran on his flip-flops etc.), all they will care about is a vision (unemployment, economy) that they can understand. Like it or not, Newt haters, he is VERY good at ideas and doing that. Implementation, ego, character flaws….when one is looking personal situations…sadly, these mean less..

  • bzip

    Thanks much omegamale for the information.

    I am not much of a Ron Paul person (that is for sure) but the ad is correct and is only a tiny view of what can be and will be used on Newt. Wait for the ethic violation, the death panels and all the other goodies to hit the air waves against Newt.

    Death Panels Via Newt:
    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

    I’ll embed the ad so others can easily view it:
    Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
    http://youtu.be/CWKTOCP45zY

  • lastgopinillinois

    And I will begin by adding the disclaimer that I am not particularly a supporter of Newt. I would rather have Perry for president.

    But come on, a series of 2-second soundbites doesn’t tell the whole story.

    The more you realize that he has taken a lot of these positions (couch ad with pelosi, Comment about Ryans Medicare fix as right-wing social engineering, etc) as a STRATEGY to gain support from moderates. And again, I will repeat I don’t agree with this strategy. The conservative message should speak for itself.
    If he wanted to, he could deliver a brilliant speach about how limited govt and pro-growth policies would give all Americans opportunity. But he doesn’t believe that moderates will go for it without a little pandering.

    But in the end, if he’s elected President, I dont see him vetoing any bill that promotes the conservative agenda.

  • kowalski

    If anything, Gingrich is very much a politician in the postmodern sense, which from his perspective means:

    “I’ll run this idea of mine up the flag pole and see if anyone I can poll salutes. Then I’ll know whether it’s worthwhile pursuing.”

    That’s why he’s got so much baggage. He disburses the ideas, tests how well they poll, and then he makes note of that and goes on to the next idea. He’s a politician like Bill Clinton, just one who starts from a Conservative direction and tries to move that way.

    Anyone looking for “purity of concept” among our two top candidates for the nomination are going to be sorely disappointed. It doesn’t exist at this level. They’re all poll-driven opinion shapers one extent or the other.

    By the way, Romney doesn’t have anything psychologically wrong with him. His mother was an actress. He’s got the gift too. Newt does as well. All politicians at this level are either failed actors and actresses or pretenders. People who are hoping for something more “authentic” are going to be disappointed – America is much too big and fickle a place for “authentic” leaders.

    Including Ronald Reagan.

  • pj2012

    Saw that ad earlier today… it’s hard hitting. But let’s face it … it’s true.

    I could never vote for Newt, Romney or anyone else but Perry. Sorry… I’m firm on that. Perry is going for the conservative populist vote as I have said in earlier comments. This is the way to go… he will have his second chance. While Newt and Mitt’s enormous egos are busy destroying each other and fumble the ball, Perry recaptures the ball and does an end run.

  • romansdaughter

    Hitting both Mittens and Newt calling them flip floppers….kind of cute with their faces on a pair of flip flops. I think I saw it on American Parchment.

  • streiff

    because anyone Ron Paul attacks has to be on the side of America.

  • Common_Cents

    when we are promoting Ron Paul ads on RS.

    The Dec 10 debate in IA is going to be awesome!

  • sunshinek67

    lesser of 2 evils~

  • streiff

    The best thing about 2012 is Ron Paul’s departure from Congress. That’s a major win for democracy no matter who wins the presidency.

  • Common_Cents

    I didnt mean RS promoting RP ads but the fact that commenters use them and other left wing sources for the circular firing squad during the primary.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I’m firm on it as well, certainly as far as the primaries go. Here’s some articles about the upcoming Perry comeback:

    “New Hampshire voters think Perry can rise above mistakes”
    http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x1331361440/NH-voters-think-Perry-can-rise-above-mistakes

    “Perry posse of hundreds of Texans heading north for push to win Iowa”
    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111130-exclusive-perry-posse-of-hundreds-of-texans-heading-north-for-push-to-win-iowa.ece

    “Get Ready For a Perry Comeback”
    http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147514172

  • kowalski

    I hereby forgive Newt Gingrich for having the courage to sit next to Nancy Pelosi and her smile for those 30 seconds or however long it took to produce that advertisement.

    In the context of 2008 it was a very smart ad. to make and if he had asked me himself whether he should do it I would have said: “Yes.”

    I’m a Republican and a Conservative in most ways but I’m also a business owner and frankly I don’t mind explorations and funding of clean energy projects as long as they’re not economically stupid. I have a long record here on Redstate saying that I support clean energy and I use green printing every single day in my business. I live next to a reservoir and I take my responsibility for the environment very seriously. I’ve invested in it, and if the economics are right (meaning I’d rather not have the subsidies) I’m all for it.

    Gingrich sat there in that 30-second ad. and what I read that as was this: “There are billions of dollars in boondoggles that are coming down the pike in 2009, 2010, and 2011 and so forth. I could let Nancy Pelosi be the only person in this ad, but I don’t think that’s really serving American interests.”

    And indeed, a quick look at the record shows that it hasn’t been.

    Ron Paul’s got some zingers in there in his newest ad. What he misses is that quite a lot of those things were good ideas when Newt was talking about them. He *is* an idea person. Madre de dios we might even have to forgive Romney for knowing that Romneycare was the right decision from the Governor’s perspective in Massachusetts! It does take some thought to realize that Romney’s right about that when he defends that decision.

    As far as clean energy being connected to climate change, I’ve never been opposed to clean energy in and of itself. By all means, build building with better cladding. Construct smart electronic appliances that don’t consume as much energy. Investigate new power sources and old ones. Just don’t sell me garbage and don’t raise my already high energy prices in some kind of “bargain” you think I’m going to swallow.

    If I remember correctly I said of Gingrich here on Redstate when he made the commerical: “Nobody Conservative who runs a business *wants* to waste things. It’s unprofitable.”

    Remember folks, he was sitting on the OTHER SIDE OF THE COUCH.

  • kowalski

    What was supposed to be the most damning thing anyone could dig up to juxtapose Newt Gingrich to me is basically something I would have supported him doing when he did it. What was supposed to be a nuclear explosion creating a jihugic rift is a little greasy fart. And I know where it comes from.

  • gekster

    At no time did he say we should pour money down ratholes like Solyndra.

  • kowalski

    Mitt Romney’s mother was offered $50,000 in the money of the time to sign with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. This is back when $50,000 was real money. She must have been very gifted, and so is her son, by all indications.

  • tea4me

    …but Gingrich won’t. He is the nominee. One of his most impressive performances yet on Hannity tonight (and I’m going back to the mid nineties).

    It’s over. Let’s vote!

  • nathanalbright

    …wasn’t George H.W. Bush’s home state Massachusetts, or was it Maine?

    James K. Polk lost Tennessee but still won in 1844. That was a long time ago, though.

  • nathanalbright

    ….not sure what you’re trying to get across unless it’s the fact that Mitt is probably not doing as good a job as his genes would indicate at feigning conservatism.

  • tomatin

    It’s about what Romney and Gingrich actually did in office that counts most.

    Face it Romney governed like a Dumbocrat in MA. That’s something that can never be fixed. So like you I don’t trust him.

    Gingrich passed a big part of the conservative agenda with a hostile president no less.

    I prefer Perry too and will probably vote for him in the primary but if Gingrich is the nominee I can support him 100% unlike Romney.

  • tomatin

    Newt actually cut government more than any candidate in this field when he was speaker.

  • tomatin

    Romney = the nominee the GOP base will never enthusiastically support him

    Gingrich = the nominee the GOP base will support him 100%.

    Now Perry fans I know the base would get behind him too, but he’s got a tougher path to the nomination.

    OK resume the Newt hate fest. Get it out of you collective systems.

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

    …when you conclude “hatred” is afoot.

    Unstated but [if nothing else] part of the “rules” is fealty for the GOP. But people are apt to engage in hyperbole [instead of SHOUTING in their blogs] when they fear a key-point may have been overlooked.

    Bear with us and, instead, consider responding to my formulation, infra….

  • wonkish1

    Some people cross the line from active non support of a particular candidate to open hatred of certain conservatives and their past promoting the conservative movement. This is for 1 of 2 reasons:

    1) They don’t want him to get the nomination for president and will cross the line out of political expediency
    or
    2) They are emotionally ignorant and will some up a persons entire career based on a couple of things they disagree with.

    I have made it as clear as I possibly can that looking at whether a candidate is fit for president is more than healthy and should be encouraged and that tearing into a conservative and propagating hatred towards them is beyond wrong and RS contributors shouldn’t tolerate it from their fellow posters.

  • circlegranch

    Romney supporters: he’ll either get vetted thoroughly now or in the general election. It’s part of the process; it’s not attacks, it’s essential.

  • supergirl2911

    Hahahahaha
    I thought he was pandering.

  • wonkish1

    That isn’t what I said.

    Feel free to point out all of the things you want. Just don’t go from absolutely not wanting him to be the candidate and pointing out the reasons why to openly hating the guy. There is a big difference.

    I’m pretty sure your a Perry fan. How would you feel if someone came up and said that Perry has never contributed a thing to the conservative movement, he is dumb, and nobody should like him? None of that is true, but there are people running around leveling things like that at different candidates including Perry.

    I’m sure you would want that fictional Perry basher to show some decency and we should expect that towards all of the candidates.

    Do you understand the point I’m making?

  • snowshooze

    Newt has plenty of money. Doesn’t need the work either.

  • snowshooze

    But when I listen to Newt Talk.. I keep hearing Government solutions.. not Government reduction. Government seems to be the answer with Newt. I’ll watch harder..

  • pj2012

    pandering is Newts middle name.