« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why I’m Looking At Newt

I’m beginning to like the idea of a Newt Gingrich candidacy.

There.

I said it.

Seven or eight months ago I would have called the nice guys in white coats if I’d even thought the thought but today it is not only thinkable it may be necessary.

I was just pondering Erick’s early morning post and it struck me that this is where I am:

I do know. And if I must choose between Mitt and Newt, I would choose Newt in a heart beat. It is hard to dislike a guy who can filet his opponent with a smile and a side of fava beans and a nice chianti.

But are we sure he’s the guy?


Battered old infantrymen don’t get invited to a lot of elite parties, especially ones that involve a lot of fun people and really good food, so when I accepted such an invitation last year to a small gathering featuring Newt Gingrich there was no way I was going to turn it down. I’ve never been a Gingrich fan, per se. I loved it when he was Minority Whip and hijacked the nascent power of C-SPAN to excoriate Tip O’Neill’s majority and when he drove Speaker Jim Wright from power. And then there was the metaphorical storming of the castle in 1994. Great theater, to be sure, but against that has to be balanced the failures of 1995 through 1998. Failures that can largely be laid at the feet of Mr. Gingrich.

On a personal level, I found his treatment of the Battle of Gettysburg (Gettysburg, co-authored by Gingrich and William Forstchen) to be much more insightful than 99% of the historical works and wanted to bend his ear about a pet theory of mine.

The party was everything it was billed to be and more.

My key takeaways were: 1) Newt is an extraordinarily smart guy, 2) he knows that, 3) he won’t rest easy until you know that, and 4) he’s not a guy with natural leadership talent. I’ve been in similar environments with (okay, I’ll name drop) Bobby Jindal and John Boehner and they both fill a room with their presence and have the rare ability to make you think they are really interested in the point you’re making, regardless of the merits of the point.

The other thing that was really obvious is that he is an idea generating machine. The man has the savant’s ability to tie together disparate threads and weave a convincing narrative and seemingly plausible ideas from those threads. Note I said “seemingly plausible.” This set my teeth on edge because I served under a couple of guys like that in the Army and they kill organizations. A constant stream of ideas from the boss will just flog an organization into numb indifference. You stop doing anything because before you can accomplish Idea A you’ve received directions for implementing Idea N. Or as General Sir Alan Brooke said of Churchill, “Winston had 10 ideas every day, only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was”.

When he intimated he was going to create an exploratory committee for a prospective presidential run early in 2011 I had two thoughts 1) he’s kidding, right? and 2) he has a new book coming out.

As the campaign season began, I was a resigned if unenthusiastic Romney supporter. But, as I feared, the people fluffing Romney were so odious that supporting Romney during the primaries became impossible.

My personal choice is Rick Perry for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately for the country, there are a lot of people out there who correlate glibness with intelligence. It’s a false correlation on a lot of levels. I’m afraid, however, Rick Perry blew a winning hand with his debate performances. Anyone who says he is dumb should evaluate where they are in their career versus where Perry is before slinking away in shame but one of the features of our age is that a meme can be created in seconds and no amount of effort will change that. As the poet said:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

So while I hope Governor Perry can pull this out, I’m not willing to bet $10,000 on it.

This leaves me between Romney and Gingrich.

The more I see of Romney the less there is to like. His much touted business experience amounts to serving a company which specialized in the financial equivalent of Arab slave raids rather than creating products and jobs. I don’t see his business experience as being superior to that of Gingrich who has developed several successful companies. Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor was not only not conservative but it was disastrous for the State GOP. When Romney took office in 2003 the Massachusetts House had a 136D/23R mix. By his last year in office that mix was 141/19. While one can argue that nominating liberal judges, supporting gay marriage, initiating carbon caps, and imposing a health insurance mandate were all mitigated by Romney — I think that is booshwah but I’ll stipulate it for this essay — one thing that was his responsibility as governor was electing Republicans. There is no way to blame the decimation of the Massachusetts GOP on anyone else.

What we’re left with in Romney is a clear picture of a man with no guiding principles beyond self interest. That is a recurring theme at Bain, as Massachusetts governor, and in now two runs for the presidency. He seems by all accounts to be a pleasant guy, unless you actually refuse to genuflect in his presence as Brett Baier discovered, and good family man. Of course, if you’re his dog, you better learn to like the view from the roof of his car.

I have a lot of doubts about Gingrich. He has a self destructive tendency. He has hubris by the truckload. He does not, in my estimation, build deep loyalty in his staff. Infidelity… While his changes in positions, to me, are mitigated by the fact that his bread and butter since 1998 has been in being quotable and provocative. This stands in contrast to Romney’s innumerable positions which were taken either while he was running for office or in the single instance in which he was actually elected to something. But still I do have concerns over what next great idea a President Gingrich may come up with. Different contexts and different causes for worry.

Beating an incumbent is always difficult and Obama looks to be the most beatable incumbent since Jimmy Carter. But we always have to keep in mind that we are defending a House majority and we are within striking distance of taking the Senate in 2012 as well as trying to take the presidency. Which, between Gingrich and Romney, will do the best job of winning seats down ballot. There is no question. Gingrich ended a half century Democrat monopoly in the House. Romney could not run for re-election in Massachusetts. Yes, Romney is not a professional politician but it is the voters not Romney that have seen to that.

In the final analysis, I think Gingrich will become a street brawler in order to win and I think Romney thinks the position is owed to him. Against Barack Obama I know who wins and in the final analysis we are in this to win.

COMMENTS

  • byebyebama

    In its obvious disdain for Mitt Romney, Redstate (Erick Erickson) is no longer objective in the primary process. We still need this website to formally vet Newt, but since it is supposedly between Newt and Mitt now (I don’t believe that), Redstate is going to give Newt a pass. Case in point…Why has there been no mention of Newts socialist comments directed to Romney? I am afraid now that Newt will get the nomination even though he is not the best candidate because “conservatives” will now settle for him and not fight for a true conservative.

    • acat

      If you have somehow confused Red State, whose masthead proclaims it a site for activism, for a pure objective news outlet … perhaps it is your eyes that need checking.

      Mew

      • thelastconservative

        His purpose for not shilling for any candidate is ostensibly the need for him, as moderator-in-chief, to remain objective on what has become the most contentious primary I’ve ever seen.

        But Erick has never been objective regarding one candidate: Mitt Romney.

        Erick has allowed moderators to go after Romney supporters the way Ron Paul supporters were targeted in 2008. This has created an uneven playing field here.

        Perry supporters and Gingrich supporters have been free to using name-calling, Democrat talking points, chickenhawking, trolling, and disrespect if it hurts Romney.

        However, Romney’s supporters can’t even raise the issue of religious bias or they will get banned.

        If you can’t talk about an issue, then it’s easy for many people to believe that there is no issue.

        Honest debate requires the freedom to express thoughts without fear of being judged or punished. This is why I believe that all respectful discourse should be allowed here, whether the poster is a Romney supporter or not.

        • streiff

          no one on the blog has ever claimed objectivity.

          We go after Romney supporter because they are indistinguishable from Paul supporters in their monomania and lack of social skills.

          You have a question down thread than needs your urgent attention.

          • thelastconservative

            I need facts, not opinions.

            You don’t seem to have many facts so I’m moving on.

          • streiff

            nt

          • gekster

            If that’s the case, then don’t try to cook nothing past a bowl of cereal.

          • byebyebama

            I am not a Romney supporter. I am simply shocked that “conservatives” will compromise their principles like they have done (or are going to do) in order to get Newt elected. Why have the posters on this site not gone completely nuts over Newt’s comments regarding Romney’s work at Bain capital? He sounded like a socialist and noone is going to make a big deal about it. I assume it is because “conservatives” believe people will flock to Romney if Newt falls. I don’t believe that will happen. It is pretty clear that conservative voters have not tolerance for Romney. There is no way they would flock to Romney, perhaps they would go to someone who actually is a conservative.

            As another point, I am shocked at how evangelical social conservatives are flocking to a man who has the most immoral, unprincipled private life of any other candidate all because they dislike Romney. If people would just dismiss Newt, voters would go to someone other than Romney. Instead, voters are going to rally around him? We haven’t even had the first primaries yet…

          • nhvoter

            What is capitalism? Why do we assume that we should defend a venture capitalists ability to buy companies with exorbitant amounts of money given to them to make a few people rich. Has anyone ever wondered how many small local office supply store capitalists were put out of business by Staples. Is this really what want to defend?

            It was ridiculous of Romney to suggest that a person should have to return money they earned just because, after the fact, people don’t like where they earned it or for what reason they earned it. He deserves all the populist rhetoric he will get about being a venture capitalist. As my kids say “he started it”.

          • byebyebama

            Are you suggesting by your comment that any companies that take out small businesses in a free market society should be demonized? Just what I thought would happen, “conservatives” resorting to liberal rhetoric to help their candidate. Has everyone lost their principles?

          • JimmyGee

            That is because you are talking out of both sides of it. At best Romney is Obama”lite.” And that is very offensive to any lite beer on the market today! You can You Tube Mitt and actually watch him say things that betray his current positions. You can watch the words come out of his mouth! How is that for cool? He is what we call a RINO – Republican in name only. Didn’t know if you knew that.
            Now as for Newt. Newt is Newt’s own worst enemy. And he will not disappoint. I figure by spring he will have shot himself in the foot once again. He has to! It is what he does. Right now we are seeing humble, contrite Newt (if you can ever call him humble and contrite). Point being, he will eventually get cocky and insert foot in mouth yet again. He is big government, big spender.
            What people are not talking about is Perry and Bachmann. One of the things that the GOP does better than the democrats is we are very good to eating our own. Little ketchup, BBQ sauce, and we are all eating good in the neighborhood. We have let the media toss two very capable candidates because one does not debate well, and the other made a stink about Perry mandating Gardasil. Here is the kicker, the mandate was never acted on!
            So we are left with two very flawed candidates because we let others in the media with the complicit help of both the GOP establishment and the DNC choose them for us!
            So Byebyeobama, take some aspirin, have a drink, get some sleep…this is not over by a long shot! Come out swinging tomorrow.

          • byebyebama

            As for Romney, I was not trying to defend him. I was simply using Newt’s comments as an example of how talk radio and other so called conservatives are giving Newt a dangerous pass because they think if he falls Romney will win. I say expose Newt for what he is before it is too late and then let voters flock to a real conservative while there is still time…I don’t think that they will go to Romney as so many have assumed.

          • conservativeparrothead

            Michelle Bachmann? Would get slaughtered in the general election.
            Ron Paul? ” ” ”

            What Ive found to be pretty much true is that most candidates are conveniently conservative, and sometimes the more the eletorate you represent is conservative, the more you go that route.

            Rick Perry – when he wanted to be Agriculture Commissioner, he was a southern democrat in the midst of the Reagan Revolution. Why? Because that is how you got to be Agriculture commissioner, look at the list before him, all Democrats. Now that he is Governor of Texas, he gets to be conservative, Im not totally sold. To me, he falls into the Category of Convenient Conservative.

            Mitt Romney – hasnt been talking Conservative until he tried to get Republican nomination for President.

            Newt Gingrich – had a rather long record as conservative, but I see him more as a problem solver, and sometimes those problems are conservative, sometimes they are not. But he has tackled big problems in Washington before and helped to balance our budget, with a Democratic President no less. One of the reasons for the Government shutdown, was he wanted an even smaller budget.

            John Huntsman – seems to be running a general election campaign in a Republican primary, has a very strong conservative record in Utah, again somewhat conveniently conservative, but maybe as a candidate for President, we are seeing his true instincts which is more moderate?

            Rick Santorum – Certainly not a conventient conservative, but a Blue State Conservative, who won statewide elections not conservative districts. Yes, he has some dings in his record, as most candidates will who serve over a long period of time. He got trounced in his last election in Pennsylvania, by one of the largest margins for a sitting US Senator.

    • jrussell

      You know you are reading a blog right, not the front page of your local newspaper.

    • streiff

      We’ve never claimed to be objective. Unfortunately we’re at the point where we have a choice between a guy who at least has shown conservative instincts in the past and utter poseur.

      • thelastconservative

        But you will never understand that.

    • streiff

      Erick didn’t write this because you seem to have that misapprehension.

    • bfelger

      But Newt gets a pass on nothing. When he deviates, he is criticized appropriately. RS has been consistently pro-Perry, and even Perry got reamed over his “heartless” comment.

      If you want us to stop calling out Romney, call him up and tell him to stop doing things that need to be called out.

      • streiff

        but thanks. Seriously.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      State your case for a Romney presidency then.

      Gingrich has his detractors for sure and several people have taken shots about his comments about Romney.

      I’m not one of then since I think jobs is one place that the GOP tends to be anti-American or at least anti-American-Exceptionalism.

      If that line of reasoning becomes a constant from Newt then I think he’ll get beat up for it pretty quickly, but in this case, it was a counter punch to the undocumented charge that Newt is a lobbyist.

      • thelastconservative

        There.

        I said it.

        Romney is a family values guy.

        Gingrich isn’t.

        Romney fought for conservative causes such as the marriage amendment while he was governor or Massachusetts.

        Gingrich, assuming that he ever became president, which is unlikely, would probably do the same thing as president that he did as Speaker: cave in to pressure from Democrats.

        Gingrich is a squish. When Al Gore asked him to be a part of the anti-global warming initiative, Gingrich simply agreed to it. Gingrich could have said no, but he didn’t.

        Given my choices, I’ll take Romney over Gingrich any day of the week.

        I’d take Huntsman over any of the candidates but the evangelical right won’t give Huntsman a chance for the same reason that it won’t give Romney a chance.

        • streiff

          I?d take Huntsman over any of the candidates but the evangelical right won?t give Huntsman a chance for the same reason that it won?t give Romney a chance.

          He’s too good looking? His kids are too cute? Tell me what you think that reason is.

          • thelastconservative

            Huntsman also seems to be more honest about his views on politics and religion than Romney.

            Huntsman didn’t have to make the compromises that Romney made to get elected.

            Huntsman is probably more conservative than Romney.

            I can’t be sure who the real conservatives are this year because every Republican candidate is saying that he’s the one and every Republican candidate has baggage. But Newt stands out as the candidate who has failed to set an example.

            You can’t yell “family values” if your own life has been spent in the pursuit of selfish objectives (money and poontang).

            Mitt has probably turned down a lot of the offers that Gingrich has accepted. Mitt has never been a lobbyist and he’s never cheated on his wife.

            Huntsman and Romney have both succeeded where Gingrich has failed.

          • streiff

            answer the question.

            You said evangelicals will not vote for Huntsman for the same reason they won’t vote for Romney. What is that reason?

          • pdawk

            If you don’t think that has a ton to do with evangelicals and especially pastors in Iowa and South Carolina (where I live) shying away from Romney and Huntsman you are living in delusion.

            I don’t think it is as big an issue as it was in 2008 but it definitely plays a part in some voters thought process. Mitt has bigger problems than being a Mormon but it is definitely something that shrinks his potential voting bloc.

          • streiff

            I think it is an excuse.

            If it is a problem it calls into question why Romney is running as a Republican given that his politics would be right at home in the Democrat party and the influence of evangelical voters in GOP primaries.

          • snowmonkey

            Both Newt and Mitt (can we not have a candidate with a real, normal name, like “Bob?”) have problems. I suggest Newt’s problems are the more egregious.

            Mitt has the problem of having run for president for eight years, so he has positions all over the map. “Flip flop” is an easy stab to take at Romney. I’m not so worried about that, though – have not all our positions changed a bit in the last eight years?

            Romney’s second problem is his Mormonism. Without getting into the theological nuances, I will say that the deeper a Christian (me, at least) probes the beliefs of Mormonism, the more bothered he/she becomes. But, we elected Kennedy at a time when Catholics were unelectable, didn’t we?

            Now to Newt. Newt is, objectively, a sleaze, at best. Newt has not just had three marriages, he has also treated his previous wives pretty miserably. Remember how heated up we got about Clinton? Are you going to tell me that you are not going to feel at least a little hypocritical when you support Newt for President?

            How can we take the moral high ground, with an immoral ego maniac at the helm?

            Second, I have problems with Newt’s new-found religion. I hasten to point out that sinners can be saved, and are every day, but they still have done the sin – right? “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner.” We’ve all heard that. If we forgave every sin when the sinner found religion, then we wouldn’t have people in prison or death row – right? Remember the woman in Texas who was executed, even after she found Jesus and pled for her life? God forgave her, but society did not.

            Same with Newt. If his conversion is valid, then God bless him. That does not absolve his previous sins to society, though. I do not want another serial adulterer as President. As another poster said, “Did not Newt swear absolute fidelity to at least two previous women?”

            I guess, in the old vein of “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” I am skeptical of the real basis for anything Newt does. He is driven for the good of Newt, and nothing else. Did he really find Jesus, or was conversion to Catholicism required so he could marry his wealthy mistress? How did a twice-divorced adulterer get both marriages annulled?

            Now all this is just my opinion. But do we really want a candidate that we have to support by justifying and rationalizing adultery, hypocrisy, and greed? Do we want to have to rationalize how being a lobbyist for Fanny Mae was not really bad? Newt was an unsuccessful college lecturer (he failed to get tenure, which is a huge indicator there was something going on) and now he has a half million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s? And he’s never worked a day at a real job in his life? How are you going to explain that, if Newt is the candidate?

            He dodged the draft. He said, in his own words, that he had other priorities. Go to Arlington Cemetery and explain that to the men and women interred there, who might also have had other priorities.

            No to Newt. If it comes to Romney or Newt, I’ll take Romney. He is a good, moral man. There has never been a hint of scandal around him. I’d rather have Perry, but there is no way I could ever support Newt.

            And there are a lot like me.

          • streiff

            but you really should limit your criticisms to areas where you have some knowledge.

            1. As to annulments, none was needed because Gingrich had never been baptized.

            2. The draft dodging charge is nothing short of calumny and if that is a factor you need to hold Romney to the same standard. He avoided the draft by being a missionary in France.

          • snowmonkey

            Never been baptized? First he was a Lutheran, then a Baptist, and he was never baptized? I find that extremely odd, but if you say it is so….

            On the draft dodging – you have a valid point. Romney thought he was too good to serve also, so he gets the same treatment. I’m back to Perry – he served, and proudly.

            Funny how the chickenhawks were always too important to serve in uniform, but they sure do love to deploy the troops now, don’t they?

            But we get back to the main point – Newt is immoral (probably really amoral) and has no business in the Oval Office. Two nasty divorces in which he dumped his wife for a younger, richer mistress? That sounds like a pattern to me.

            But it’s not about Newt, really. It’s about the Party. Does the GOP want to be represented by a man like Newt? I don’t think so, especially when there are good, moral men and women standing ready to run.

          • snowmonkey

            Do a Google search on:

            Marianne Gingrich
            Soghanalian
            Jack Abramoff

            Interesting. Now, do you really want the party of values to nominate a man like Newt Gingrich?

        • andystone

          thing I’ve read all day. I do doubt Jim Wright and Bill Clinton would agree with you though.

          About familiy values: yes, they are important as a test of character. But we’re not looking to hire someone to be our collective daddy. There is a certain distinction between public and private life you know, and on the public service record balancing the Federal budget beats Romneycare any day of the week.

          • streiff

            who are all hot and bothered over Newt’s personal life are the same ones who complain that “Bible thumpers” can’t win.

          • thelastconservative

            I do notice that there seems to be some correlation between Romney supporters and the more centrist wing of the GOP. Some correlation. Romney also has supporters on the right like Robert Bork.

            But Newt has left the door wide open for attacks on his personal life. The rule used to be that your personal life was not fair game until you went after someone else’s personal life. Even though I have always believed that the impeachment of Clinton was justified by Clinton’s lying under oath and deliberately obstructing justice (among other crimes), the average voter believes that Newt was a hypocrite for impeaching Clinton while maintaining a mistress for himself.

            That will never be fixed. The average voter won’t suddenly become more sophisticated between now and November. The media won’t pull its punches. We are f’d if we pick Newt and all of Newt’s supporters need to know that. A slim chance of victory is far from a likelihood.

          • theone3434

            the difference between Newt Gingrich and a “Bible Thumper” is vast. To suggest that a candidate can’t be a moral person without the huge extent of baggage that Newt Gingrich has and still be a moral/electable person is laughable.

            Is it too much to ask of a candidate to be a smart, conservative, problem solver without having three wives and a history of adultery.

          • thelastconservative

            It was essentially the tool that eliminated Gary Hart in 1984.

            Here it is: “Bill Clinton had a 14-year affair with Geniffer Flowers. Bill must have lied to his wife about where he was when he was with Geniffer. If Clinton will lie to his own wife about important stuff like why he didn’t come home from work until the following day, why should you, the voter, believe Clinton when he says things like ‘I’m going to create jobs, kill Saddam Hussein, end affirmative action via the mysterious third way, cut taxes on the middle class, etc.’?”

            The tool didn’t work against Clinton because it was a three-way election and the media helped Clinton sell the idea of “Clinton has some personal issues that he needs to talk with his wife about but he is RIGHT on the ISSUES.”

            All throughout 1992, the TV talking heads kept repeating the mantra “ISSUES, ISSUES, ISSUES”. The subtext to this mantra was “If you care about Clinton’s personal life, then you must be an idiot.”

            But Bush had a great point: If Clinton has bad character (which he did), then why should anyone trust him. Bush was right. Clinton broke his promise to cut taxes on the middle class, broke his implied promise to get rid of Saddam, broke his promise to end the racial discrimination of affirmative action, and broke his promise to change government as we know it.

            Clinton governed as a liberal and did the same thing to the American centrists that he did to Monica Lewinsky.

            Now, I see the media getting a fresh opportunity to boost their ratings by using their two favorite toys: sex and politicians. Only this time, their target will be Newt Gingrich. They won’t even talk about the issues in 2012 if Gingrich is the Republican nominee. They will do to Gingrich what they did to Sarah Palin: call him a slut, an idiot, etc.

            Once the damage has been done, there will be some brief discussion about whether or not they were fair to Gingrich, but by that time, the election will be over.

            Please don’t nominate Newt Gingrich. He really did cave in to Bill Clinton on so many issues. He gave Clinton everything he wanted and got a small pittance in return. Gingrich badly misread the results of the 1994 midterms. The Democrats learned from most of Gingrich’s 1995 mistakes.

            Hopefully, we can learn from these mistakes and nominate someone else.

          • concrusade

            And the fact that he caved to Gore/Pelosi on that ad says a lot about his convictions.

            In case you missed it, Gingrich said the following about Mr. SEIU, Andy Stern:

            “Conservatives cannot cheer unions overseas and then be blindly anti-union here at home. There are legitimate historic reasons for workers to organize together, and there is a strong need for a healthy, competitive, union, movement that helps improve the lives of its members and the competitiveness of our country.
            Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among union leaders.”

        • bfelger

          Newt used to be for cheating on his wives.

          Mitt used to be for murdering babies.

          The question is, which family values are more important?

          • bfelger

            Mitt says he’s against abortion now.

            Well, Newt says he’s “against” cheating on his wives now.

            So I guess we’re all even-steven on the “moral values” front?

          • thelastconservative

            Your logic is so bad. It is like through the looking-glass logic.

            Up is down. Down is up. Therefore vote for Newt. I’ve got to stop arguing with you.

            Hinz rule is hereby invoked. You are dead to me now.

          • thelastconservative

            Just stop right there.

            If you know anything about Mitt Romney it is that he has personally told pregnant women that they should not have an abortion.

            No other Republican candidate, besides Rick Santorum, can say that.

            Newt has supported taxpayer funding of abortion in the past.

            Romney has campaigned for senate on a platform that involved not changing the laws of Massachusetts regarding abortion.

            I don’t think that your argument that “Mitt used to be for murdering babies” is accurate at all.

            But if I spend any more time arguing with you, I will go against my policy of ignoring people that I deem to be unworthy of my time.

          • streiff

            “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”
            Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02

            Was this before of after he chained himself to the clinic door?

          • bfelger

            “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country…I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, it should be sustained and supported. And I sustain and support that law and support the right of a woman to make that choice.”

            That’s Mitt in 1994. Now you can say his position changed, but don’t say he’s been consistently pro-life.

            He has not.

            In 1993, when Clinton defined all abortions for rape and incest as “medically necessary” (and thus federally fundable), Newt supported the Istook amendment on federally funded abortion to give states the right to exempt themselves, a position that put him to the right of most moderates in the house. He did this despite stating verbally that he agreed with federally funded abortions in the case of rape or incest.

          • andystone

            in his private life, and abandoned them in public life. His missionary efforts may have prevented a few abortions, while his rhetoric and inaction as a governor allowed millions more to happen unhindered.

          • acat

            dog in the car carrier feels differently.

            Mew

      • byebyebama

        I never said that I was a Romney supporter. I am simply saying that conservatism is dying right in front of us and it is people like on sites like this that are doing it. When Newt says something like he did yesterday regarding Romney’s work at Bain capital and “conservatives” give him a pass, all I can do it say conservatism is dying.

    • sethellis

      I certainly have some grievances with what I’ve seen on this site lately, and that includes what I’ve heard from Streiff lately. His defense of Newt throwing capitalism under the bus yesterday is at the top of my list.

      However, this post is not among my complaints. I thought it was an honest and refreshing look at Streiff’s current thinking.

  • Spartan4Life

    I am starting to come around to this view, also, somewhat reluctantly. The main question I have about Newt is whether he can be humble enough to lead. There is a conservative army out here that is just waiting for some leadership. I am pretty sure that Newt’s view of the role of government and mine are not the same. But, without me Newt cannot get elected or govern effectively. So, the question is, will Newt use the troops or lead the troops?

    • streiff

      I wish I did.

      I think Newt can rally the troops and with a solid chief of staff he can govern. What will his relationship with a GOP Congress be like with so much obvious baggage? Who knows.

      • lineholder

        has been his ability to articulate. Not so much the debates or his expansive and rather impressive knowledge, but his ability to articulate.

        Particularly today, after reading Erick’s front-page post, it’s hit me hard just how important this ability to articulate could end up being in this particular election. And I see Newt as being the best of the bunch on that particular element. Being able to articulate will let us compete and possibly bring in a win (and I’m not about to take for granted that Obama will automatically lose because that’s about as foolish as it gets under the circumstances). The win does matter.

        OTOH, I don’t get the sense from a single solitary one of them that they are willing to fight tooth and nail for Conservative principles, particularly in regards to limiting government. They all have either some shade of grey lurking somewhere in their history where big-government intervention is concerned or some element of their personality that just causes them to hold back in how they approach things.

        So we might get the win, but without the fighting spirit, there’s no way of knowing how much or what will be accomplished after the win. Frustrating, because I’d like to have both the win AND the prospect of really getting some things accomplished.

        • andystone

          There is a reason why Reagan is remembered as “The Great Communicator”. Someone who is good at creating policies, but is not the most eloquent in promoting them does not belong at the top of the ticket (see Cheney).

          • acat

            I think it’s more a nice-to-have in a POTUS.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            If the situation wasn’t so dire all the way around, I’d probably agree with you. But it’s time that we start being realistic about the significant challenges we’re facing going into the election, and I’m getting hit with a hard dose of realism today.

            It’s going to come down to Socialism vs. something other than Socialism. If Conservatives have a lick of sense, we’ll be fighting tooth and nail in every way we can think of to channel the anti-Socialism sentiment that exists right now into a choice FOR Conservatism.

            And I’m not about to take it for granted that people will automatically choose something other Socialism, acat, because we have too much of our population that is hurting badly economically and the idea of having big-government “take care of them” could be awfully tempting and appealing to people right now.

            We have to be able to articulate to other people the what, why and how of that choice. There is no other way. And we do need a candidate in this race who can succeed in articulating that choice during the race, against Obama, standing face-to-face and toe-and-toe if need be, to plead for preservation of the American way.

          • acat

            Socialism or Socialism Lite will both be the end, the question is how long it’ll take.

            We need someone who can articulate conservatism, true, but .. as the regrettable saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin me.

            Do we want someone who can answer gotcha questions with sound bites, or do we want someone whose whole life reflects his conservatism?

            I’ll support Newt if he wins, paws down, but .. I’d prefer Perry. He’s not as great at debate, perhaps – although he’s scored on Romney repeatedly – but he’s better at working a room or one-on-one with a reporter than Newt ever will be.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            and for the most part, pertaining to “actions speak louder than words”, I agree.

            His supporters keep claiming that he is the “true conservative” in this race. Of all people, then, who should fully and completely understand the significance of what is at stake, it should be Perry. Of all people who should be championing Conservatism, night and day, fighting for it tooth and nail, it should be Perry. Of all people who should NOT be holding back, for any reason at all, it is Perry.

            But he has held back, acat. I understand the logic and rationale as to why. Unfortunately, holding back in this particular instance doesn’t promote the success of Conservatism over Socialism, and that’s where the greatest of challenges we’re facing right now genuinely exists.

            I’ve not ruled him out, but all things considered, acat, the way he’s dealt with the situation has left me with little confidence that he’s going to succeed in this.

          • acat

            I just .. don’t agree. Yet.

            Not when Perry’s putting out stuff like this

            Mew

          • lineholder

            I honestly am not. All this stuff that goes on behind the scenes during a primary…for all intents and purposes, I’m a newbie at it. Obama was my wake up call. Before that, I really wasn’t into politics much.

            When all those racially inflammatory comments were made by freentn right after Perry got into the race, and I finally got to a point of recognizing that freentn was an operative for the Perry campaign, then Justin explained it to me that this was just negative advertising that is considered “normal” during a primary…I got to tell you, I was SOOO disgusted by it, acat.

            I don’t care if some element of our society does consider it to be “normal” for this, that or the other reason. You aren’t going to convince that use of racially inflammatory rhetoric is RIGHT. I was embarrassed and ticked off to no end by it, because it could easily make us look like exactly what the left was trying to portray us as being…racial bigots! And how does it actually help Conservatism? Does it encourage voters to believe that those of us trying promote Conservative principles are capable of providing the kind of leadership this nation needs right now? Uhhh…NO, it doesn’t.

            But even at that, I thought that if Perry could bring it on, step up, and fight tooth and nail for Conservatism, then I’d be open-minded about considering him. Has it happened? NO. He held back.

            So now, I’m just to this point where he’d have to convince me, and I don’t mean that his supporters would have to convince me…I mean the man himself would have to convince me. And I’m not in the frame of mind to be an “easy sell”, either.

            Maybe I should move to the “show me” state rather than live in NC, huh?

            But I’m not trying to dissuade others who believe he’s got what it takes. I genuinely am not.

        • Right_Again

          I agree with your points lineholder. Newt has the ability to articulate why progressive ideas are just flat out wrong as well as why conservative ideas are superior. The only potential candidate I felt was better at that was Chris Christie.

          I just hope that Newt can articulate in such a way that the media won’t be successful in sabotaging him (see their coverage of his comments on poor black kids and the ‘invented’ Palestinians as examples). If a sufficient number of independents pays close attention to his full comments rather than the pablum they are fed by the media, he will be successful.

          Unfortunately, the media will be pulling out every trick they can find to undercut him or any other candidate we nominate. His attacks on the media have been as beneficial to him as his attacks on Obama for a good reason.

          • lineholder

            that has me leaning in Newt’s favor right now.

            I don’t have any illusions about the elements of Newt’s past character that play into the context of this situation. But being a reformed sinner myself, with plenty of things that went on during a period of time in my life where my own viewpoint and outlook was really messed up, I know that the hard cold reality is that even if mental, emotional and spiritual reformation takes place, what’s done can’t be undone. You just have to move forward. People either give you a chance to prove yourself or they don’t.

            Someone posted a video showing Newt admitting past ethics transgressions on this site within the past few days. And it was done more or less with the intent of showing how weak Newt’s character is and that sort of thing.

            But he owned up to the truth of it. More than anything else, that indicates to me that whatever reformation process he’s gone through is likely to be genuine and sincere. He could have taken the path of what’s politically expedient and tried to sugar-coat it or justify it away. He didn’t. So I’m willing to give him a chance.

            The rub in all this is that I don’t know how hard he would fight for Conservative principles once elected. He can articulate them, that’s for sure. That may be enough for a win in the election. But will he fight tooth and nail for them? I don’t know.

          • Right_Again

            It always cracks me up to hear the leftist media’s shock that we on the right don’t hold moral shortcomings against our candidates as they would like. They assumed that we would crucify Sarah Palin for having a daughter who had to get married and that we should be unforgiving of Newt for his indiscretions. What they do not understand is forgiveness and repentance. They also do not understand empathy.

            The fact that our candidates have owned up to their shortcomings is what allows forgiveness and empathy.

            I too wish we had a guarantee that if Newt is elected he would govern as a conservative. Unfortunately, I think he’ll disappoint us occasionally. I just hope it is rare. Even if it’s more frequent than we like, he will still be better than the sorry excuse for a leader currently occupying the White House.

          • lineholder

            As a matter of fact, I’m hoping that we’ll see a bit of the rebel Newt was back in the Reagan years comes to the surface again.

            Not arrogant or anything of that sort…just determined to succeed.

    • thelastconservative

      If you ask Chuck Grassley, Dick Armey, or Tom Delay, the answer is no.

      Newt’s style of leadership is to always be on the attack. Unfortunately, that leads Newt to situations in which he must attack someone for doing something that he himself has engaged in.

      His use of the House bank scandal in 1993 and 1994 is a perfect example of that. His efforts to impeach Clinton, while courageous from the point of view that a less courageous man would have backed away from something that exposed his own infidelity, was hypocritical. Although Newt never lied under oath as Clinton did, he was keeping a mistress at that time. The average voter has a clear perception that Newt is not above hypocrisy.

      • streiff

        there are people who think glibness = intelligence. There are also those who equate playing well with others with leadership. I think they are both wrong as there are a variety of leadership styles and a number of types of intelligence.

        A Speaker is essentially a first among equals. He doesn’t do that well. A President is different, By the same token, we see Romney’s total failure to build bridges with the Mass Dem party the way Reagan did with Tip O’Neill and there is no reason to hope that Romney’s style of leadership is workable as a elected executive.

        • thelastconservative

          This totally contradicts what you, Erick, Moe, Neil, and Common Cents have been saying all year: the old “Romney is a liberal” argument.

          If Romney were truly a liberal, he would have built bridges with Democrats, raised taxes, created a single-payer Canadian-style health care program, funded stem cell research, allowed gay marriage, granted pardons, etc.

          Romney was and is a conservative. As a conservative, he found that he could not give the Dems what they want based on his conservative principles.

          I’m running out of breath trying to scream sense into you people.

          Gingrich will be the worst GOP candidate in the general election that we have ever seen.

          Romney at least gives us a fighting chance. Paraphrasing Romney: Bet me.

          • streiff

            that isn’t the way it happened and I’m referring to the fact that Romney didn’t accomplish jack as governor while Reagan did accomplish a lot with a Dem Congress.

            Romney has never been a conservative and didn’t ever claim to be one until 2008,

            or, in the words of the man himself “I think people recognize that I am not a partisan Republican. That I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”

          • APA Guy

            “Romney has never been a conservative and didn?t ever claim to be one until 2008.”

            Newt, on the other hand, balanced the budget and reformed welfare – defeating what was a popular Dem president at the time. Romney only dabbles to the Right when it means getting through a primary. The moment he is the nominee, his conservative fako will disappear like a thief in the night.

            No thank you…I’ll take the guy who has actually taken on Democrats with conservative principles and ideals rather than the conservative fako Romney.

          • thelastconservative

            I think I’ve got some 2006 quotes from Gingrich that are every bit as appalling.

            I’ve figured you out. You use lots of opinions and very few facts.

            Example: “That is just dumb.” That’s an opinion, not a fact.

            Another example: “Romney didn’t accomplish jack as governor…”

            This is clearly hyperbole. And it’s your opinion.

            When Perry says that he signed the executive order requiring all girls in Texas schools to get gardasil injections because he’s pro-life, you take Perry at his word, right? You believe that Perry was just trying to protect the sacrosanct human life. Gardasil was never an issue for you.

            Romney could make the same argument for the health care deal that he hammered out with Dems. He did it to protect human life and to promote the health of the people of his commonwealth. And he did it without raising taxes. Dems wanted the taxes to go up. Romney’s leadership headed off their attempt and got things done without caving in.

            You said that he failed to build bridges with Mass Dems. If that were true, then there would have been no health care deal.

            You say that “Romney didn’t accomplish jack as governor…” if that were true, then there would have been no health care deal. Furthermore, if not raising taxes is the same as “not accomplishing jack”, then put me down as someone who hopes that whoever wins the 2012 election accomplishes jack. I’m actually ok with not raising taxes. And I hope that you are, too.

            I’m getting really tired of arguing with you because your arguments are so opinion-driven and so light on facts.

            You hate Romney. We get that. It is practically the only thing that you’ve communicated over the last several months.

            Let’s try to focus on issues that will get Obama out of the White House and cut off the ability of liberals like George Soros and Bill Ayres to influence policies that affect people all over the world.

          • streiff

            is that you claimed that Romney is conservative and I clearly said that wasn’t the case until he decided to run for the GOP nomination in 2008 and provided evidence. Below you say he is anti abortion, that also is a recently discovered belief and provided the quote.

            Romney didn’t accomplish anything as governor because as you rombots tell us, the Mass Dems controlled everything. I’d think you would be happier with that than the touting the expansion of abortion rights, carbon caps, Romneycare, etcl that took place.

            To be clear, I think you, like most Romney fluffers and incapable of honesty. There is nothing you or Romney have to contribute in removing Obama from the White House.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I wanted to make sure you knew this since you are such a stickler for facts.

          • JSobieski

            Has Romney ever identified speciifc aspects of Romneycare that are in the law because of his insistence?

            Put another way, if a democrat had been governor at the time, how would Romneycare be different now than it is?

            Have any changes been made to Romneycare since he left?

            I am sympathetic to the idea that Romney had liittle choice but to settle for a bad deal.

            I am NOT sympathetic to his continued asserton that Romneycare is good for Mass.

            People generally want good things to spread.

          • lineholder

            that the health care plan he was instrumental in enacting WOULD out of necessity end up raising people’s taxes, because there was evidence in abundance to substantiate that the same series of events had occurred many time over in other nations where the same type of health care system had been implemented.

            He also had it within his means to know that even though the type of health care system he was putting into place might be somewhat effective in expanding to access to health care insurance, it was a faulty plan through and through when it came to provision of health care services and maintaining the quality of health care, because there was ample evidence to substantiate this as well.

            So was he just neglectful of his responsibilities to the people of Massachusetts by pursuing implementation of this particular type of health care system? Did he just not care? Was it something that was politically expedient and would get him brownie points for doing it? Would it gain him notoriety? Was that this was the “plan of the year” amongst public policy pundits? What exactly was his reasoning for implementing this type of health care system?

            It can’t be because he genuinely and sincerely believed that it would ultimately succeed, because there nothing to substantiate that fact. Nothing at all. In fact, the exact opposite was true.

            So he put a big-government health care system into place…for what?

          • renl57

            Did you forget that? In 1980, the GOP won the Senate.

            Romney had a MA legislature in which both houses were controlled by Dems. Not only controlled, but Dems outnumbered the GOP by 4 to 1.

            Romney issued some 200 vetoes of MA legislation. IIRC, all were overridden.

      • Common_Cents

        Show me a person who garners respect, and I’ll show you a leader.

        Leaders don’t care if they are well liked(hey its a plus), they care about being respected.

        I hope the whiners like Coburn saying Gingrich is a meanie keep it up. DeLay?LOL

        How did the Republican “leaders” do after Gingrich? they lead us into caving into Dems, growing government by a huge margin, and unprecedented spending.

  • macbookben

    …Boortz this morning. She is of the opinion that Newt cannot win the general because he shares the same stigma that afflicted Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell. She cites the same list of his problems I believe most of us are familiar with, but focuses on lack of leadership. I’ve always appreciated Ms. Coulter’s vivisection of the body politic, but in Newt’s case she does not convince me that the alternate candidate(s) will defeat Obama. Even Michael Savage is piling on with some ridiculous stunt to influence the nomination. These two are completely convinced that Obama will win the general if Newt is the Republican opponent. I’m stunned by that.

    • streiff

      but handicapping elections isn’t one of them.. For instance, Angle won Republicans and Independents. If Newt does the same, he wins the election.

      This cycle Coulter has decided, against all evidence, that Romney is both conservative and electable.

      A sitting president with nearly a billion in cash is going to be hard to beat. Let’s face that reality. And having Michael Savage oppose Newt isn’t a bad thing.

      • thelastconservative

        Obama leads Newt 2 to 1 among independents in Colorado.

        Romney polls even with Obama among Colorado independents.

        I’ll get you the link so that you can check it out for yourself.

        The “Gingrich is loved by independents” meme is a joke that doesn’t pass the smell test even here on RS where Gingrich may be given sainthood by the mods before anyone looks at the facts.

        • APA Guy

          In the dozen swing states where voters will decide the 2012 presidential election, a new Gallup/USA Today poll shows President Obama trailing Newt Gingrich by 3 points, 45 percent to 48 percent, in the survey of these 12 battleground states

          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/13/swing-state-poll-shows-obamas-narrow-options/#ixzz1gRN1e7Yv

          • lineholder

            As a matter of fact, I live in the battleground state where there’s smoke beginning to rise in the horizon against the DNC and Obama for its shenanigans in bringing the DNC Convention to Charlotte and not allowing NC folks the opportunity to get the jobs involved in it either. That one hasn’t hit full flame just yet, but it will get there, believe me.

            We’ve already got people in this state wearing Obama 2012 buttons on their shirts. Ever seen someone get the cold shoulder? Lots of those going around right now.

        • Common_Cents

          When there is no consolidated support yet on our side, blasting obama daily?

          If we are even close to obama in matchups is a freakin miracle!

          Our candidates are blasting each other and not focusing on obama, the disaster.

          You should post proof that head to head matchup polls have any relevance this early in elections especially when nominee support is divided.

          I would love to see any historical proof. Please do post it.

        • streiff

          state by state match ups on hypotheticals. Neil doesn’t cover them and I don’t read them. Besides, we aren’t selecting a candidate for the “Independent” nominee, we’re selecting one for the GOP.

        • thelastconservative

          Here’s the money quote: “Obama does so much better against Gingrich because he takes a 24-point lead with
          independents (56-32).”

          Now, a USA Today poll that came out today says that both Romney and Gingrich are polling well against Obama in 12 key swing states. I hope that is true.

          I want Obama to go away. If I have to choose between Gingrich and Obama, I will choose Gingrich. However, in 2008, I voted against Obama but Obama’s support among idiots was so high that McCain’s support among intelligent people couldn’t save him.

          I don’t want to see that happen again in 2012. I want a candidate like Romney that can get good numbers among women, conservatives, independents, hispanics, etc.

          This primary battle between Romney’s supporters and the anti-Romneyites has become so toxic that I’m worried that we may have poisoned the well for the general election. I’ve never seen Republicans attack Republicans so frequently and viciously as I have this year. Hopefully, we can all learn from this in time to salvage 2012.

          • APA Guy

            Better bring more than a left-wing poll to bolster your case there, bub.

          • APA Guy

            Better bring more than a left-wing poll to bolster your case there, bub.

    • ericksontales

      Newt the serial adulterer cannot win. America has higher moral standards than that.

    • thelastconservative

      in many ways, got attacked with a last minute “sex scandal” type of attack on the day before the election.

      If the Dems have even one juicy nugget to use against Newt in the “sex scandal” variety, I can almost promise you, you won’t see this tidbit until 6 weeks before the November election.

      And you know that such information is out there. Mother Jones printed something recently about Newt being engaged in a lewd act in public which was witnessed by one of Newt’s former aides and was in the presence of two of Newt’s daughters. I’d print the link but I’d hate to see that liberal rag get any more web traffic than it already gets.

      • APA Guy

        That more than anything was responsible for her loss. Last I checked, Newt is running for president of ALL states.

  • Common_Cents

    We need a brawler who can execute on a national stage. You cannot shake enough local hands to overcome any national blunders. Obama needs to be taken down and dismantled in front of millions, as many times as possible.

    Obama and the media need to be Alinskyed.

    Our country has been sliding down that slippery slope for decades and we cannot swing for the fences in one fell swoop. We gotta win, stop the bleeding, and reverse direction.

    We can’t do that unless we win. All things considered, Gingrich gives us the best chance.

    • thelastconservative

      Newt can’t go after Obama on being tied to lobbyists because Newt has drank from the lobbyists’ trough himself.

      Newt can’t go after Obama for being a “warmer” because Newt himself is also a warmer.

      Newt can’t go after Obama for bringing down family values because Newt himself is not a paragon of virtue.

      Newt can’t go after Obama for being in the top 1% of income earners (which Obama is) because Newt (and every other presidential candidate) is in the top 1%.

      Now, I’m not saying that Newt can’t win. There is a slim, slim chance that Newt could beat Obama.

      But if you will just look at the abundance of polls which indicate that Romney has a better shot at beating Obama in every state where Romney and Gingrich have both been polled against Obama, you’d see what a huge mistake it would be to nominate Newt Gingrich.

      • Common_Cents

        Gingrich has already proven he can discuss any issue at any time and not get hurt by it.

        It will be no different against Obama. Obama is shaking in his $500 shoes.

      • APA Guy

        Of course, why let a little thing like our budget deficits and the weakness of the dollar get in the way of a national campaign?

        Oh..also passed and had welfare reform signed, but then again, what’s getting people off the dole and into the workplace compared to his “virtue”?

      • APA Guy

        Of course, why let a little thing like our budget deficits and the weakness of the dollar get in the way of a national campaign?

        Oh..also passed and had welfare reform signed, but then again, what’s getting people off the dole and into the workplace compared to his “virtue”?

      • APA Guy

        Romney does a whopping 2 points better in swing states against Obama than Gingrich does…and ask any actual election expert what a Gingrich 48-45 lead means when undecideds are factored in. He carries them 10-1 as the challenger historically, which translates to 54%-46% in electoral terms.

        You write as though Romney is some wham-bam Obama kryptonite ore or something. He is barely doing better in h2h match-ups…an that is when the party is fractured during the primary. Once Newt is the nominee and the voting public gets a whiff of the words “As Speaker, I balanced the budget”, wait and see what the polls will look like. That and the debate whippings Obama will receive will mean landslide election for Gingrich and control of the House and Senate.

  • robbyshankar

    I still think Newt will deflate in the next few weeks. There’s even a couple of polls in Iowa which are starting to show that. (They are trash polls, but I still think it will happen.)

    I understand why people don’t like Romney, but I see Newt as having every negative Mitt has but even worse. He can’t be trusted by any measurement. Flip flopping, look at Libya. It left me with the impression that Newt cared more about being opposed to the president than in an effort to appease his base than he cared about taking an actual stand. His willingness to throw Paul Ryan under the bus was what sealed the deal for me. And the crappy thing is that I’m still not quite sure where Newt stands on that issue. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

    The only positive I see for Newt is the ability to debate. That’s a good and important skill (If Perry had that skill he’d be the front-runner and Newt never would have surged.), but Newt is such a loose cannon that his debate performances probably won’t matter in the general as much. I don’t think any other candidate offers as many negative soundbites to the Chicago machine as Newt. I think of what he said on child labor laws where a lot of what he said is good, but the way he said it writes its own opposition ad.

    Finally, fair or not, a lot of Americans will want to vote for the guy that seems to have a healthy family life (Obama) over Newt. What Perry said is what a lot of people believe, a guy that cheats on his wife will cheat on his business partner.

    I’ll always be ABO, and I’ll enthusiastically support whoever our nominee is, but I think Newt is a much larger risk than people want to admit.

    • thelastconservative

      It will be loud, messy, and unattractive.

      Remember how Newt reacted in the middle of the government shutdown when Clinton baited him (it was not an accident) by making him sit on the back of the plane.

      Even Newt admitted that his behavior was petty then.

      How did President Clinton get Newt to suckle? By inviting Newt to the White House and making sure that the Time magazine that had Newt on the cover (man of the year) was on the coffee table.

      Newt is very vain. His enemies have been appealing to his vanity for years. Clinton, Gore, Pelosi. They all know that if they just stroke the man’s ego, they can get whatever they want out of him.

      • macbookben

        …a Tea Party majority in Congress. Since he has a propensity for ingratiating behaviors, we should “Capitolize” on this. He will sign those bills.

        • robbyshankar

          I don’t think there is a candidate on that stage (with the exception of Ron Paul when it comes to foreign matters) that won’t sign conservative legislation sent to them by Congress.

          • streiff

            Romney is obviously uncomfortable with conservatism. He sees himself as the big picture guy, the guy who builds coalitions. If he is elected he will ally himself with Harry Reid and the Snowe/Collins style GOP Senators and try to govern as “non partisan.”

            If Romney is elected, conservatives are going under the bus.

          • lineholder

            ,

      • hls87

        I can’t understand why so many people are wasting so much time agonizing over whether they can support the odious Mr. Gingrich. It doesn’t matter whether any of us support him; the voters won’t. In a month we’ll be doing the second and final post-mortem on Newt 2012. A thrice-married professional bloviator who hasn’t held office in 13 years may be able to inflate a polling bubble weeks before anyone votes. He can’t win (or even much affect) a primary contest.

        The Gingrich buzz (and the poll numbers that go with it) are an artifact of the conservative wing of the infotainment industry. Gingrich has been pumped up precisely because he’s not a serious candidate and we aren’t supposed to consider any serious alternative to Romney. We are supposed to choose between Mitt and a total nonstarter like Gingrich (or Bachmann or Cain). Mitt was supposed to be the only guy of presidential stature running, the sure thing.

        Then Rick Perry got into the race. He’s the thrice-elected Governor of Texas, the largest red state in the Union and therefore a plausible contender. Debates can’t make Gingrich into a real candidate. They can’t make Perry into anything else. When it’s voting time, reality will push to the head of the line.

        In reality, Gingrich is a non-factor. The nominee will be either Romney or Perry unless Jon Huntsman can pull off a political miracle. None of the serious candidates are perfect, but Perry is clearly, on balance, the best of the lot. At least he’s some breed of conservative. Besides he understands the one big thing that matters — The federal government has to get smaller. It has to do less and spend less.

        He’ll do. Nobody else will.

  • ericksontales

    When Newt loses the Iowa caucuses to Perry or Romney I wonder how many of you will change your mind about the formidable Newt?

    Newt will lose in Iowa. Iowa is infamous for voting in the social conservative and they will do it again this time. History will repeat itself.Newt is far ahead in the polls in Iowa but they will vote with their hearts and not their heads when they go into the polling booth.

    January 4th half of you Newt supporters will be saying, “gee Perry could actually win this thing”…. Romney supporters will be laughing all the way to the 1150 delegates needed to win.

    • thelastconservative

      Ron Paul has a better Iowa organization than Newt does.

      Even Newt’s supporters don’t like the guy. They just don’t want to see a person with Romney’s religious views and/or political views get the nomination. They are ok with Newt’s flip-flops on religion, family, and politics. But they can’t tolerate Romney.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      ericksontales — I hope you are right on Perry. Heck, I would gladly take a second place finish by Perry in the Iowa vote.

      I think that would set him up nicely for SC.

      • ericksontales

        While I’d like to see Romney win in Iowa… realistically he is going to have a tough time. I can’t imagine that Iowa voters all of the sudden changed their mind about what matters and voted in Newt. Iowa always votes for the social conservative. I do think Perry will do much much better than any of the current polling indicates. This of course will be at the expense of Newt.

        11% Of Iowans are undecided… I personally believe that these are primarily Perry supporters at heart but had hoped to find a viable alternative. Well, if you are a Perry supporter by heart there isn’t a viable alternative. that 11% is primarily going to go to Perry in addition to the 8% he has locked down. That puts perry around 19%. Some of Perry’s supporters went to Newt and some of those supporters are not going to be able to pull the trigger for the serial adulterer which means some of those votes will go to Perry.

        While I am an avid Romney supporter I would look for a strong Perry finish and possibly a Perry win in Iowa. I simply can’t see Newt getting the nod from Iowans.

    • unclefred

      I’m reserving judgement on candidate standings until after FL and SC. Until then state polls in the various states are our best indicator.

  • Common_Cents

    Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Piers Morgan that Gingrich “might actually be a stronger candidate” than Romney to face President Obama next November.

    “I think he can make a broader connection than Mitt Romney to those Reagan Democrats,” Giuliani said Monday night on CNN.

    If Gingrich is the GOP nominee, Giuliani said, “you won’t have this barrier of possible elitism that I think Obama could exploit pretty effectively.”

    ****************

    CHENEY: “And when Newt showed up, he said we can become the majority, we can take back the House of Representatives. We hadn’t had the House since the 1940s. And initially, none of us believed it. But he was persistent and he was tenacious. He kept it up, kept it up, kept it up. And finally by ’94 he’s the newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives with a Republican majority. So I wouldn’t underestimate him.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/erin-burnett-dick-cheney-newt-gingrich-2011-12#ixzz1gR4FLwL1

    • thelastconservative

      Giuliani and Newt are similar in so many ways that I would have been shocked if Rudy supported anyone BUT Gingrich.

      But Cheney? Clearly, Cheney is trying to get back into the good graces of the evangelical right. I’ve never been too keen on Cheney’s political sense. If Cheney were more savvy politically, he would have tried to persuade Bush in 2005 that the continuation of the occupation of Iraq was hurting Bush politically. While I supported and still support the mission in Iraq, it is clear that this issue hurt Bush and the Republican Party a lot in 2006 and 2008.

    • ericksontales

      What an endorsement for Newt. Cheney also tried to encourage Hillary to run…

      Romney has the entire Bush family in his back pocket… Karl Rove… Dick Morriss… Christie… Thune… Coulter… etc…

      Not that endorsement matter… Giuliani HATED Romney when he had to go head to head with him in the last election. Poor Giuliani still looking for any kind of win he can get against Romney.

      Gingrich’s best hope is to upset Romney in NH (which isn’t likely). After Newt finishes with an embarrassing loss in Iowa that was suppose to be a sure thing he will be bruised going into N.H. He will then lose N.H. and this will further embolden the Perry supporters and will make it difficult for Newt to win in S.C.

      Newt is toast! He hasn’t changed one bit from this summer/early fall when he was low single digits in the polls. The only thing that has changed was a few of the other candidates had some gaffes that hurt them.

  • colonelflagg

    I dunno …. maybe because you don’t like conservative candidates?

    We’ve still got at least two of them out there. Mr. Erickson’s recent thoughts about a brokered convention make more and more sense all the time.

    Noot=Myth=Zero. The difference is only a matter of degree.

    • thelastconservative

      Newt is not a conservative. Nor is he a good person. He should be featured in the movie “Horrible Bosses”.

      I can’t imagine a person more egotistical, selfish, and hypocritical than Newt. And I’ll add dishonest to that list. The House voted overwhelmingly to censure him for his ethics. It wasn’t a party-line vote by any means. And now he’s trying to tell us that Freddie Mac paid him $300k/year to be their “historian”? Whatever, Newt.

    • unclefred

      By someone not yet on the radar, there will be not be a brokered convention. The way the number of winner take all states after April 1st makes it possible, but extremely unlikely.

      However there will be no “early knockout” before April 1st either. Proportionate awarding of delegates has pretty much assured that as well.

  • bzip

    I can’t say it enough times and surely there are enough high profile people out there who echo the same things: Newt is a bigger risk then Romney in the general and is a bigger fraud in general.

    I am sorry streiff that you feel you have to choice between Romney and Newt and can NOT seem to get fully behind Perry when in fact we both know Perry is a better choice – simply because you are too afraid of Perry not pulling it off.

    That sounds to me like you are selling out on your principles and picking the lesser of the two evils. When in fact not even one vote has been cast and you are already giving in. Yet Perry is getting a second look and seems to be getting his ground game back again and you want to turn your back on him….You lost me with this.

    • streiff

      If Perry is still on the ballot when I get a chance to vote, he has my vote. I’d be ecstatic to have him in the general as our candidate. But I don’t see him pulling it off and based on poling this is where we are.

      • bzip

        “If Perry is still on the ballot when I get a chance to vote, he has my vote.”

        That is a relief and yes we all have to face reality at some point BUT don’t you think it is a little early to face the reality and that perhaps we can change the out come with some faith and “support”. Rather then drop the spirits of those who are trying to change the outcome?

        • JSobieski

          You ask streiff to behave a certain way as not not drop the spirits of others if contingency X happens

          But you behave in a certain way that will drop the spirits of others if contingency Y happens

          If you want a more measured approach to be taken by others, maybe you should use a more measured approach youself?

          I support Perry, but Newt is superior to Romney and Newt is useful to start bringing Romney down. Romney is a particularly weak candidate with respect to defending against being challenged.Newt is showing that now, and Newt should be kept around until Romney is gone.

          The race is going to be Newt vs. Perry by the time Florida comes around.

          • bzip

            Personally I don’t agree that Newt is a better candidate and stronger in the general compared to “any” of the candidates. He is the most flawed and can easily be knock out by the dem’s.

            So I don’t buy that. If it came down to a Romney Newt choice my choice would be Romney (god forbid it coming to that though).

            I just think this thread of streiff is way premature. Not one vote has been cast. If and when that time comes when it is clear Perry doesn’t have a path – I could see a thread like this from streiff but right now isn’t the time to be facing reality and turning your backs/support on the better conservative choice.

          • JSobieski

            So you want Streiff to cool it because your assessment of tactics and strategy is different than his . . . at the moment. A lot of Newt, Romney, and X supporters want others to cool it for similar reasons.

            Everyone reaches the is it premature is it not premature decision at different times.You say it is premature now, someone later will say that you are premature then.

            My point is simply this: the “don’t argue X because it is demoralizing” is a very opportunistic argument because it is based on your assessment and not the asessment of anyone else.

            The best way for people to avoid demoralizing each other is instead to modify EACH of us argues with each other.

            There is way to much histrionics and hypberbole in the discussions of our own candidates here at RS. It is selt defeating.

            I don’t think any winner of the nomination is going to have an easy time against Obama.

            I don’t think any winner of the nomination will be so hopeless as to have no chance against Obama.

            Callking people like Romney and Newt statists, progressives, socialists, “just like Obama”, etc. is just as dispiriting as a Newt supporter saying “its over”.

            Bottom Line: If the goal is to avoid dispiriting people and the solution begins not with yourself but someone else (who dof course just happens to disagrees with your assessment on things) you aren’t part of the solution.

        • Common_Cents

          Or how bout a pinned up mole? :)

          Rick Perry and his campaign has to change their own outcome. He’s got a solid product but they’ve been unable to sell it effectively. I wish things were different, but it is reality.

          Supporters cannot wish, hope Perry’s campaign to the Whitehouse. Perry has to give voters a reason by inspiring confidence that he can win. That is the bottom line.

          Process unfair? Well, tell that to all the candidates who have the same exact conditions.

          • bzip

            You are a pinned up mole that needs to get outside. Your only claim around here is to bash, bash and more bashing of Perry.

            At least steiff doesn’t go around trying to find every little thing to bash Perry with.

            Newt supporters can’t wish for his flaws, his progressive ways his infidelity issues – to just go away or pretend that that they don’t exists or won’t be a serious issue in the general.

            It works both ways. You may fool the primary voters into a candidate that can easily be knocked out in minutes in the general. Just keep pretending.

          • streiff

            I think you should concentrate on issues other than infidelity. I assume you know what I’m talking about.

          • lineholder

            This is the second time I’ve seen you post a comment of this context. If there are rumors floating around, I hope to goodness they come to light BEFORE the general.

            It would be tough to contend with, I know, but better in the primary than the general election, by far.

          • Common_Cents

            Keep it up, you are winning tons of support for your candidate telling others they are pinned up mole, delusional idiots. Bravo.

          • jdw4america

            I’d love to see Perry be the candidate, because I want to place a real choice – liberal vs conservative values – before the people and lay this stupid leftist meme that our side is out of touch with most of America to rest once and for all, but if his campaign can’t pull itself together enough in the next few weeks, we have to go with what’s left.

            Romney’s been running for the Oval Office since 2008, and he still hasn’t got the majority of Republicans backing him, how can we be so sure he’ll pull it off in November? And why should we believe that despite not being able to convince even the majority here at one blog that he’s the man for the job, that he is in fact that man?

            As for Newt, never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined seeing him actually leading polls! Newt? BUT- and this is an important but – he fights back. The MSM is used to using their until recent monopoly to distort and derail Republican efforts to preserve our liberties and our exceptionalism, and let’s face it, virtually every Republican politician out there just sucks it up, as if expecting to be admired for not stooping to dignify the lies. Newt at least gives as good as he gets, and he doesn’t back down.

            I find it distressing to be caught between these two, neither of whom I consider to be an honorable man, nor worthy of the office, but I think that at this moment in our nation’s history, we must go with the man who is willing to fight, and fight hard. Romney is more handicapped by association with the most hated piece of legislative filth ever passed by a Congressional session of the U.S. He can split hairs over the whole, “it was right for Massachusetts” he wants, but it emboldened the left to impose it’s breathtakingly tyrannical Obamacare. The American people are wild for its repeal and the MSM will bludgeon Romney with it.

            I think we have to go with Newt, regardless of how reluctantly we go. If all of you in the early primary/caucus states get together to thwart them both and give Rick Perry a big win, I won’t be crying about it, though.

      • macbookben

        n/t

    • JSobieski

      Nobody denies that Newt has the highest volatility factor than anyone the Republican’s have nominated for the Presidency in my lifetime.

      There are however reasons to risk a high Beta investment. The payoff with Romney seems very low, and his ability to win a campaign is rightly called into question. Romney has lot a lot of races.

      Newt is the X factor of all X factors. The country is desparate, or else there is no way he would be above 5%. One can however envision a high payoff with Newt.

      • Common_Cents

        Can anyone honestly say that gingrich will:

        Sit on the couch w/ Pelosi?
        Pursue draconian real federal imposed individual mandate?
        etc…..

        It is utterly ridiculous to think that, especially in this day and time.

        Time to put these scary straw men to bed.

        If you want to be scared, go rent “SAW III” or if you want to be terrified, imagine “Obama II”.

    • renl57

      The problem with Gingrich is that he’s a loose cannon, undisciplined, erratic, loves to hear himself talk–on any subject.

      Suppose Gingrich locked up the GOP nomination by the spring. How long would it be before Gingrich shoots his mouth off with more off-the-cuff remarks? Remarks that will make voters worry if he’s steady enough to be Chief Executive?

      As a candidate, Gingrich is a big risk.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        I put the over/under at about 30 minutes. YMMV.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

    • Common_Cents

      For that, I think people discount his past thinking outside the box more than other candidates.

      • marshmom

        There is also his admiration of Andy Stern of SEIU in his book and his claiming that he’s a “realpolitik Wilsonian”, which, in my opinion is deeply disturbing considering Woodrow Wilson was one of the most progressive presidents of the century.

        I’m sorry, this is the wrong person to run this country. He’s one of those “get along” Republicans and I’ve had it up to here with those jerks.

  • boonerdan

    Next thing you know, there will be video of Newt praising FDR (oops, too late)!

    • JSobieski

      nt

    • streiff

      If you want to make the case that FDR was not one of the most important presidents of the last century I’m open to it.

      • robbyshankar

        I’m not too worked up over Gingrich admiring FDR, there are arguments to support it. I’m am surprised however that he would say that after Reagan.

        I would point out that Gingrich seems to be admiring FDR not for his ideals and principles, but for the fact that he was such a transformational figure and that he had the ability to get things done on a large scale. That’s not the worst trait to admire.

        • keven

          Obama praised Reagan in an extremely similar way that Newt praised FDR. And Obama is not quite like Reagan as presidents.

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

            after they are dead.

  • jgge

    but Newt Gingrich has alwaus been my second choice, I have no third choice, and I will be very happy if he is the nominee. However I have this feeling that Perry is still going to be the nominee regardless of what the polls are saying at the moment. All what it takes is for Perry to win Iowa and he would be the likely nominee.

    • robbyshankar

      you are onto something. The only thing really standing in the way of Perry getting back into this is his verbal delivery.

      Have you seen his Political Correctness ad? If he were able to talk like that in a debate, he would be a serious contender.

      I don’t think we’ve seen the end of Perry in this campaign. I actually think he will get a second look and usurp Gingrich as the not Romney for a second time.

      I was a lot happier when this was a two man race between Romney and Perry.

  • thisisme7

    He’s not Rick Perry. I am not voting GOP (or for Obama, so don’t start) if Rick Perry is not the nominee. Nothing anyone could ever say will change it.

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

      Perry has a long long way to go, personally I hope he makes it, but I don’t expect him to be a factor by the time the Arizona primary rolls around.

      A vote for a third party, or a write in vote, is a vote to enshrine comrade Obama for another four years and absolutely insure that Obamacare is the law of the land, along with a radical NLRB and an EPA that will absolutely run amok hand in hand with a revitalized DoE, etc. Don’t kid yourself, your high and mighty principles will do nothing to stop the destruction of the nation and, in fact, your gross stupidity will help grease the path to that destruction.

      • thisisme7

        Not changing my mind. And just because YOU feel a certain way doesn’t make it a fact or that it will happen.

        Oh, and by the way, insulting a person’s intelligence is NO way to convince them to join your team. I will not just jump on your superficial bandwagon because you think I’m an idiot who needs your help, that’s what Democrats do!

  • lakeshore

    If he’s this divisive among us conservatives, imagine how he will fare in the general public’s eyes. Remember, if we want to win, we need to nominate someone that independents like, not a fraction of Republicans like. There will always be an immediate “UGH” factor when undecideds see Gingrich as who they are being asked to vote for. We need someone likeable, yes, that word some of you seem to not understand. Like doesn’t mean you are weak, it means you know how to sell. It’s how elections are won, by personality. Show me the loser in most elections and I’ll show you the less liked person of the two. Perry is infinitely more likeable than Newt–and more of a true conservative as well.

    • streiff

      Why is it that only Republicans think this way? We need to nominate the most conservative guy we can and go from there.

      • renl57

        I don’t think so, not in the things that the Tea Party used to *say* they care about.

        I can remember when the Tea Party was sick of Washington insiders, wheeler-dealers, professional politicians and lobbyists. It wasn’t that long ago.

        Gingrich is a classic of exactly what the Tea Party used to be against.

        • JSobieski

          but he has a history of thinking up more conservative solutions than Perry has.

          A great example is Perry’s ideas on SS reform. How precisely would moving SS to the states work. If someone moves states, and the account isn’t an individual account but is instead some kind of state block grant—how does SS reform work?

          Few are as good as Newt in taking market/conservative principles and applying them to reform Big Government. In that sense, Newt;s ideas are very much consistent with the tea party movement.

          No argument on the personal stuff, but the ideas/policies matter more to me than than the person.

          I support Perry over Newt, but since Newt is attracting all the the fire, I defend Newt on topics that I believe he merits a defense on.

          • thisisme7

            that Newt “has a history of thinking up more conservative solutions than Perry has.” Because Newt was a legislator (lawmaker) and Perry IS a governor (executive branch). They are two very different roles in government of which one can’t really be compared to the other in the same way. It’s not supposed to work like that.

        • streiff

          Perry trails the front runners by at least 10 point. It isn’t like he looks all that competitive at the moment.

          I’m not a Tea Party person so that criticism can be a feature not a bug depending on what we’re talking about. People who would never consider getting in an airplane piloted by the pizza delivery boy and who are perfectly willing to let the pizza deliver boy run the country are beyond my understanding.

    • Common_Cents

      Why isn’t Perry dominating the primary then?

      If he is most likeable and most conservative? He should be dominating the primary which should be in his wheel house.

    • azaeroprof

      just today, Perry ranks dead last among the GOP candidates in favorability. You may like him infinitely more than Newt, but the main body of voters haven’t caught on, at least at this point.

  • geoph

    Hi. My name’s Geoph and I’m a Newt supporter…..

    And I don’t want to start the GOP’s 12 step program.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    That’s all I can muster. I give up on trying to kill the “all financial guys are raiders” meme-tank. Besides, I don’t think an AT4 could kill it at close range. It’s like the damn EverReady Bunny- everyone keeps giving it energy.

    Other than that, I agree with just about everything else you said.

    • streiff

      it just is.

      People are moral or immoral.

      That is all I’m saying despite what a lot of Rombots read into the story.

      I don’t like what Romney did at Bain and I don’t think a conclusive case can be made that the actions of LBO partnerships helped the economy at all. I think it is morally corrupt to do what Bain did, not that they were unique in this, and holding Romney up as an example to aspire to simply makes me ill.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        There are many reasons I don’t care for Romney – among them is he appears to be a person of weak character.

        That said, I won’t indict an entire industry or segments because of Mitt or any other single person.

        One of the few solid industries which employs thousands of people and is a global innovative leader is our financial services sector. Yet it is under assault through regulation, mindless legislation and constant verbal whipping. Most of this is done to appease crowds who know little about the sector, its contribution or how it affects our daily lives. It’s a distraction from the real issues or culprits (that would mostly be government).

        As other sectors get chased out (or have been chased out) of our country it is one of the few that we still lead in. So why do man people, including our candidates, feel obliged to kill that sector as well? It’s because detractors promote a populist, yet fallacious rant that all “Wall Streeters” are crooks and steal candy from babies by there very existence. Horse-hockey. That’s ObamaTalk(tm) we are co-opting.

        One day, people are going to wake up and wonder what in Sam Hill happened to all the financial services jobs- just like manufacturing, energy and every other bogeyman people in government have made. What are we going to lead at then? Green energy? Please.

        Anyway, rant over, sir.

        As an aside, Bain was not only involved in LBO’s. They had a broader business. During Romney’s time they were involved with (if I recall correctly) over 400 companies, of which very few did not become profitable/turn out amicable. Giants like Staples and Domino’s Pizza and many marquis names come to mind. Hence why they were very well respected at the time. And importantly, it wasn’t just Romney doing the leg work.

  • azaeroprof

    While we sit here arguing about who is better, Gingrich, Romney (or Perry), we may find ourselves in 3 weeks rallying to stop the luaP noR Express! Polls today from PPP and Rasmussen show Paul right on Newt’s heels in Iowa and pushing Newt for 2nd in New Hampshire.

    Also, Rasmussen today released favorables showing Mitt on top and Perry on bottom. I know it hurts feelings here, but I just don’t see Perry turning that around in 3 weeks. If you don’t want to settle for Mitt and you don’t want to have to deal with a surging luaP, Newt may be the only option.

    (Great diary, Streiff!)

    • acat

      that a Ron Paul win in Iowa or a high-position in New Hampshire would do more to damage their reputations as reliable bellwethers deserving of first-in-the-nation status …

      Mew

      • azaeroprof

        No text.

      • Scope

        I couldn’t agree more, although I am already beginning to believe that Iowa especially is starting to lose relevance. Supposedly the most strong social conservative state currently has the 2 least socially conservative at the top, which proves to me that ethanol is their messiah. I’m convinced that Fla’s move this year was a warning shot to the RNC that if they don’t wake up and change the primary process to something more fair to all states, the states will start taking it upon themselves to do it. What would the RNC do, just keep cutting every states delegates in half that no Republican can ever win the nomination?

        What bothers me is that Paul can, and likely will gain some of the delegate count which will keep those delegates from adding to a viable candidates count. He can cause the process to get closer to a brokered convention, which will be a disaster in my opinion, and he still will never be the nominee.

        • acat

          that the product of a brokered convention would have a very hard time competing – first, what organization would they use, second the “selected, not elected” line would be true, and third, Ron Paul’s blessing is a kiss of death.

          I’m hoping Iowans are smarter than this… but if they choose to prove my hopes unfounded, then .. this cat would be fine with letting someone else (Virginia?) go first in 2014 and 2016.

          Mew

          * just please, not Illinois!

          • Scope

            of arranging the deck chairs in an order which puts the states that vote the most republican first and go on down the line. That would mean NY, CA and yup IL would be last to pick our GOP nominee. You might want to consider moving here to VA, or maybe to Texas, you won’t need as many long johns in those states, and your vote would actually count here in VA.

          • acat

            I’ve looked at moving to Virginia. I’m more likely to head west, though.

            Not Texas. Not knocking it, but .. you try black fur in the Texas summer sun!

            If we’re talking requirements, my first one – non-negotiable – is a closed primary. We’re talking about the *party* nominee, seems those who should be voting should at least get off the sofa and register…

            Mew

          • avagreen

            You have black fur??

          • izoneguy

            Can change in minutes -

            I remember one day last winter – I was mowing the yard in short sleeves under 75 degrees of sunny weather. That night a cold front blew in and the temp the next morning was 20 degrees.

          • avagreen

            But, there are places like in the metroplex where the weather is more constant and more moderate.

            However, the whole state for the past year has been in a horrible heatwave and drought, much like most the Plains’ states. This is not a good year to make judgement about “weather”.

            BTW, for all those “make-fun-of-Perry” and “he-was-just-grandstanding-”, since he has his prayer meeting this Spring……..we’ve been having rain all over the state in contrast to the past year. It’s just not enough. The cotton crop……….and the cattle……well, another story.

          • izoneguy

            That is unless the Federal Government gets involved – then it could take decades!

          • Scope

            right above your post. I would think that that is what Cat was referring to.

          • avagreen

            His cat looks just like my cat, who I rescued in 2006 when I moved here. He was a neighborhood cat and skinny. I started feeding him, and he asked himself into my house. I found out from the lady across the street that he’d been raised by an elderly woman up the street who had died and he was left out to run the streets.

            He’s like putty in the house, likes women, and prefers to be held, but on the outside he won’t allow himself to be touched.

            He’s spending his winter in my office this year because he’s got a cold. I’m giving him probiotics which have helped. So, now it’s not only “let the dogs in/let the dogs out”, it’s “let Sylvester in/let Sylvester out”. :)

          • Scope

            It sure sounds to me like you need a dog/cat door where they let themselves in and out. Our tortie white cat has her own, and our 3 dogs have their own. And yes, our cat named Kitty LOL adopted us because we started feeding her when she was abandoned. We were shocked that when my husband took her to the vet for the first time, because she was pretty sick with an infection, that she didn’t have the first fear of being there, because her beloved daddy was with her.

            Aren’t you the one with the elderly dog that was very ill? If so, I hope that all worked out well.

          • avagreen

            She probs has Cushings and I’ve enabled her to live longer than she would normally, knowing how/what to do health wise (raw food diet). Another long story. She’s another rescue, a former show dog with Championships in her belt. Fifth one down: Ginny. http://www.foxxrunwires.com/masonpastCH.htm

            But, was the alpha female in her group so she wasn’t allowed to mix with the others at the kennel because of her aggression, which makes a great show dog….they show well. . Long story. The owners gave her to me as no $$ would have been able to buy her……they just wanted her to have a good home in her elder years. I had to teach her how to be a dog. She’s 12 now. I’m at wits’ end about what to do with her.

            Also have 7 budgies that I’ve rescued. Another long story.
            And, another older female cat (Ms. BB….for Big Butt……….all fur) has taken up residence. Just a pet magnet. Always have been.

            Both Sylvester and BB have a door out of the garage, but it’s been too cold for Sylvester to stay in the garage with his cold. He’s feeling better and running off other cats that try to horn in on his territory. In fact, right now he’s sitting on my husband’s pickup hood in the mist/rain laying in wait for a thomas cat across the street that’s trying to sneak food of our front porch. Cats and intrigue.

            Also, feed/water the wild birds in my back yard in this drought, plus an opossum under our shed and an occasional fox that comes in to town for food. Thought it was cat when I first saw it.

            Long answer, but thanks for letting me share. (I’ve also raised/released wildings, including one coyote, black birds, etc.). :)

          • Scope

            If I could ask God to do one thing for me, I would ask that he take the very soft spot out of me for animals. It is far to painful when you lose them, even those that I have never met like Barbaro. I hate having this weakness, yet don’t ever want to become cold and hard with the creatures.

            My husband and I made a pact that when any of our guys stopped eating, were in pain, didn’t do the poop and pee thing, and lost interest in life, we would know it was time. Just went through that and I wanted to falter for selfish reasons. I miss my little 16 year old best friend.

          • izoneguy

            Scope, Sorry to hear of your loss.
            We lost our lab-chow “Sparky” back in March.
            He was being boarded while we were on vacation.
            They were having trouble with him and then he went into seizure
            and the vet said it was time. It was tough since we were away.

            My son just bought him kittens he found while out skateboarding.
            I let him keep one. He is feeding it kitty formula 4 times daily and he seems to be doing well. This brings our cat count up to four. The new one is “Mr. Diamond, we have “Crystal”, “Max” & “Sammie”.

            We just added a collie-rot mix at the end of August. This dog grows about 1 inch per day! We rescued “Mac” from the local humane society. He was found near Waco in a box in a ditch along the side of the road with 4 of his brothers and sisters, probably hours from death.

            “Mac” lives with “Lily” our 4 year old German Shepard/Pit Bill mix.
            We rescued “Lily” on a Mothers Day visit with my parents in 2008.
            A gaggle of 3 pups wandered into the yard. We took those pups to every
            house nearby and one lady said that she had seen the pups wandering around for about a week and they would probably end up getting shot.

            So we bundled them all up and took them home. We sent two to a shelter and kept “Lily” who sleeps in our bed every night.

            Sorry to ramble on – but our pets are special furry people.

          • acat

            One’s got a bit of pointer, the other a bit of .. well, the gene test says scotty, but ..l wonder. Both are rescue dogs.

            The older of the two either got away or – my guess – was deliberately thrown out by a guy in foreclosure. Twice. The rescue we adopted from got her out of a city kill shelter with only 12 hours left on the clock. They tell us there was abuse, I believe it. To this day there’s growling if anyone comes in the house with a ball cap.

            The younger one arrived by way of a vet, having been dumped by the former owner after a severe and infected bite that necessitated an amputation. Happiest dog I’ve ever met, very affectionate, fiercely protective of the rest of “the pack”.

            Mew

          • Scope

            I’ve known some of the very sweetest Pitbulls anyone can know. It isn’t the breed, it’s who owns them and teaches them to be mean. I love the baseball cap connection. Even though they can’t talk, they tell many stories. Our beagle, Peaches (she came with the name), was headed for a kill pound, because she wouldn’t hunt. She was terrified at the sound of opening a soda, or beer can, for months. God bless all those that love his creatures. Isn’t it amazing how you can read the stories of those that were formerly owned, or abandoned. They talk without words.

          • Scope

            Our 13 year old chow-golden mix has had seizures since she was around two. She has been on a very low dose of phenobarbitol since then. The vet had told us that chows were more often prone to seizures. Our Molly has been fine with the medication, and has never had any blood test problems with that medication, and she has had very very infrequent seizures, like maybe one every two years, and are of short duration. She has more problems now with arthritis than with the seizures. Her Glucasimine (sp) has insured that she is able to get her daily rides in the car that she lives for.

            izone I couldn’t thank you and ava more for giving homes to those that may have had a bad outcome. I’m sure not a PETA supporter, but my husband and I have always been advocates of taking those in that so desperately need homes. That’s been my thing in life, to the point that we had 7 inside dogs at one time, until we learned the word NO, and in some cases that was a painful, but financially necessary decision. I’d open an animal sanctuary if I won the lottery. Thank you both so very much for those you have rescued.

            Holy man, we are on serious threadjack now. Sorry strieff.

          • 1bunny

            Dean Clancy from Freedom Works going for Paul so that it would “take the GOP by the lapels and give them a good shake” but Paul would not be the nominee in the general. I was shocked that anyone would be willing to do a protest vote and an endorsement of Paul, which is what this is, in such an important election. Not just defeat Obama but promote conservatives over the rino’s is what’s at stake in this election. Clancy is a vp at FW.

          • acat

            I guess we can call Dean Clancy one of the nuts.

            Mew

      • unclefred

        in the last few years thanks to the “free state project.” This has dramatically expanded Paul’s forces there. Further anyone who dropped their party affiliation can declare themselves a Republican the day of the primary and get a primary ballot. When the Dems do not have an important primary of their own, there is usually a good number of former Democrats voting in the Republican primary.

        For this reason I would not expect Paul’s or Huntsman’s performances in NH to be predictive of their chances in later primaries.

    • Aaron Gardner

      They are a tad more reliable than PPP. ;)

      Poll here.

      • azaeroprof

        shows Perry in 3rd, not 2nd?!? (Still better than other polls, though.)

        • Aaron Gardner

          Look only at the Republican column. He is in 2nd.

          • azaeroprof

            The heading says “Among Registered Voters who will Vote in the Republican Primary”, then has R/D/I breakdown. At any rate, Perry and Paul are very close either way.

          • azaeroprof

            for Perry is that his numbers everywhere but Iowa are seriously in the tank, like Santorum levels, and his favorables (Rasmussen) are the lowest of all the candidates.

          • texashistorian

            A lot of that is the perception that his campaign is on the skids, as the media, both lib, con, and otherwise have gleefully reported since the first debate where he looked mediocre. He wins Iowa or comes in second, or even a strong third, he gets momentum, and the narrative changes. As will, I submit, his numbers in the other early states (NH probably excepted).

          • Scope

            there are still 10.2% of Republicans still undecided. Perry is doing his 14 day, 42 city/town bus tour, doing the retail politicking that he is well know to excel at. 3 weeks in politics is an eternity and Perry still has time to be Rocky Balboa.

          • bzip

            That is great news. It only reaffirms the other poll showing Perry is gaining. I think that poll was taken on 11th? Maybe it doesn’t reflect the debate? It has a date of 12/12/11 but during what periods was it taken?

            The other poll:
            Taken Dec 8-11 (so it doesn’t reflect the good debate that Perry had on the 10th):
            http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

            Newt 22% (was 27%)
            Romney 17%
            Paul 17%
            Perry 13

            There is a upward trend and if that holds (and my guess is it will), then you will see Perry’s momentum translate into other states.

            I honestly think Romney is going down, way down and Perry is going upward.

          • Scope

            But it seems to me that both Romney and Newt are losing some steam, but yes Romney more so.

  • Common_Cents

    Mathews is going insane over Gingrich. Calling him evil daily, intentionally mispronouncing his last name as Gin-rich. Chrissy does that with Dick Cheeeeny too.

    I’d say the Chrissy factor says the admin is scared stiff of Gingrich.

    • Common_Cents

      Savage is offering Newt a million bucks to drop out. Savage says Romney is the only one that can win.

      Gingrich is really picking up some steam here.

    • Scope

      First it was Bachmann that scared the libs like crazy, then it was that Perry scared the libs to insanity, then Cain scared the libs like mad. Now Newtie scares the libs stiff. They wanted Romney as the candidate because he was the easiest to beat, then it was Perry, then it was Cain, now it is Newtie. Glad you have bought the liberal hag bag, lock stock and barrel.

  • gunsrus

    with a Romney as Governor. Same thing the Old man did for Michigan. Deals cut in the back room so on election day you could choose between a “progressive” Republican or a card carrying communist that they kept stored in a trustee job at UofM and trotted out for the election.
    Who could actually vote for Zolton Ferency?

  • After Seven

    n/t

  • Common_Cents

    but Barack Milli Vanilli obama will say its the prompter’s fault because girl, you know its true!

    He screwed up his prompter read on a campaign stop today.

    This guy is pathetic and should have been kicked off the stage with the hook a long time ago. His claim to fame should have been Obama’s best flubs with William Hung, the worst karaoke singer ever.

    I’m waiting for a prompter hacker to set Obamavanilli up on a prank where he closes his remarks with:

    “and I’m Ron Burgundy?”

  • tea4me

    And why Romney has no chance with conservatives.

    Gingrich haters can only complain about what Gingrich has said. With Romney it’s what he has actually DONE!

    And we all know far to well what that is.

    Romney is the equivalent of Ron Paul. They both have a small die hard base of supporters that peaked before the Primaries ever even started. And nothing they do will ever expand it.

  • wbf

    I just finished listening to the McAlvany weekly commentary here:
    http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com

    Don McAlvany just finished traveling for several months all around the world. His insights into what is happening economically is very interesting.

    He gave a global perspective on what is happening in geopolitics,

    One thing he said is that trust is the basic thing that holds the value of a fiat currency. Once that trust is broken it usually takes a generation to get it back.

    Once Americans in greater numbers lose trust in our government and what they have done to us our dollar will be danger and the party in power at that time that occurs will be out of power for a long time.

    When it comes to the election Don McAlvany is not happy about it but he believes Obama will be reelected. Soros will give enormous amounts of money for his campaign. Last time Republicans put up Mcain, a weak candidate and he lost. If Newt Gingrich is the nomiinee he will be bombarded with so much bad publicity he cannot make it. He is a target with so much to aim at!!!

    The next two years are going to be very hard years economically. If Obama is president when all of this happens then democrats will lose in 2016 and be out of power for a long time. The down side to this is that in another term Obama could do so much more damage to our country. It really is in a big mess. We need to pray for America.

    I believe that if Gingrich wins the nomination and somehow manages to beat Obama (which I don’t believe would happen) he would be a one term president and the conservatives would be out for a long, long time. Maybe always.

    Even if Perry were to win the nomination and the election the next few years are going to be brutal for whoever is president.

    I honestly don’t know what the next two years hold. Yesterday, I saw photos on Drudge of a bank run in Latvia. Now bank runs can happened without lines out front because people can withdraw money online.

    McAlvany said that money has begun to leave Europe and is going to Asia.

    Just a few thoughts.

  • wbf

    I just finished listening to the McAlvany weekly commentary here:
    http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com

    Don McAlvany just finished traveling for several months all around the world. His insights into what is happening economically is very interesting.

    He gave a global perspective on what is happening in geopolitics,

    One thing he said is that trust is the basic thing that holds the value of a fiat currency. Once that trust is broken it usually takes a generation to get it back.

    Once Americans in greater numbers lose trust in our government and what they have done to us our dollar will be danger and the party in power at that time that occurs will be out of power for a long time.

    When it comes to the election Don McAlvany is not happy about it but he believes Obama will be reelected. Soros will give enormous amounts of money for his campaign. Last time Republicans put up Mcain, a weak candidate and he lost. If Newt Gingrich is the nomiinee he will be bombarded with so much bad publicity he cannot make it. He is a target with so much to aim at!!!

    The next two years are going to be very hard years economically. If Obama is president when all of this happens then democrats will lose in 2016 and be out of power for a long time. The down side to this is that in another term Obama could do so much more damage to our country. It really is in a big mess. We need to pray for America.

    I believe that if Gingrich wins the nomination and somehow manages to beat Obama (which I don’t believe would happen) he would be a one term president and the conservatives would be out for a long, long time. Maybe always.

    Even if Perry were to win the nomination and the election the next few years are going to be brutal for any president.

    I honestly don’t know what the next two years hold. Yesterday, I saw photos on Drudge of a bank run in Latvia. Now bank runs can happened without lines out front because people can withdraw money online.

    McAlvany said that money has begun to leave Europe and is going to Asia.

    Just a few thoughts.

  • wbf

    nt

  • wbf

    I wrote in such a hurry that my post has multiple grammar and punctuation errors.

  • Pingback: Delicia Skyberg