An absolute pasting that will surely leave a mark. Now honestly, how many of the zillions of new Newt Gingrich fans that are seen in these polls know ANY OF THIS about Newt? I’m sure very few of them know any of this…
If you accept Gingrich but don’t like Romney because of mandates, you are a hypocrite. If you accept Gingrich, but don’t like Romney because of supposed flip-flopping, you are a hypocrite. If you accept Gingrich, but don’t like Romney because you say he has no core, you are an delusional.
Newt Gingrich is quite possibly one of the most corrupt politicians we have ever had in America. Everything about Gingrich, from his schlooping congressional aides to slapping Paul Ryan in the face, demonstrates one thing. Newt Gingrich is in it for Newt Gingrich.
Newt is shooting sky high right now. If Republicans have any brains, or morals, they will reject him.
The one caveat I have is that Paul would run a similar ad against Mitt, mostly with out-of-context stuff, but the real difference here is the money that Newt made off his political office.
Being a Romney guy, I see the sharp contrast: Mitt didn’t take a paycheck when he was gov. That’s service, right there.
Either way, a devastating ad from the Paul camp. For the first time, I applaud them; this year’s campaign is much better than 2008′s for the Paulies.
Bachmann & Paul will probably go after Gingrich hard in the next debate. Romney should just call in sick, pop a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy. Of course he won’t do that, but watch for a “I agree with Congressman Paul”, or “I agree with Congressman Bachmann” from Romney in the next debate.
…and Newt is doing what Newt always does. As I said in another post, I live in Newt’s former Congressional district and if there is one thing we all know it is that Newt has a propensity for shooting himself in the foot. It never happens when he charging up the hill but when he reaches the top, he inevitably fires a shot for the ground and strikes his own foot. He gets cocky and he gets lose and arrogant and thus begins his disent back down the hill.
Case in point from The Washington Post:
“In an interview airing on Fox News’ Hannity tonight, Gingrich is bullish. “And it’s clear that across the country, people are saying, you know, I think we need Newt Gingrich,” he said. “Whereas I would have thought originally it was going to be Mitt and not-Mitt, I think it’s going to — it may turn out to be Newt and not-Newt.””
While this isn’t necessarily damaging, it is indicitive of Newt’s persona and there’s likely more to come. Romney was for the most part humble about being a front runner and now that the mantle has passed to Newt, we’ll see whether he too can achieve humility or if he starts to act like he’s the new King-of-the-World.
Truthfully Paul is hurting for money right now basically because we’re not keeping up pace with our Q4 from 07′, which makes sense since that was record breaking quarter even when compared to the “frontrunners.” We had about 20 million in Q4 that year.
He certainly has enough to keep his operations going, but I don’t think he has enough to saturate the airways at the moment.
That I think is part of his weakness. I had a friend comment to me, “If I’m reading his policies, it all makes perfect sense to me. But when I hear the guy talk, holy ****.”
Romney only supported a mandate after his idea was shot down and he needed to work with an 80% democrat congress. He never supported it on a national level. Just for a state that was contemplating 3 other democrat plans at the time. Newt came up with mandates like it was his own brilliant idea to implement on the country. Now he says oops and all is forgiven? In that case, just bring back Perry.
You know the Rombots are really into desperation stage when they start depending on RON PAUL to rescue His Royal Mittness.
SoJo, it’s not that we’re DEPENDING on him, but we’re sure glad he’s doing this. It needed to be said, it’s better if it doesn’t some from Mitt. And, the MEDIA sure doesn’t seem to want to say it.
Newt supported mandates SIX MONTHS ago. We’ve been told, repeatedly, that it’s a no-no to support something for most of your natural life, only to reverse course when it’s politically expedient. 6 months ago- more than a year after Obamacare passed- Newt Gingrich was trumpeting an individual mandate. If he’s apologized or recanted since it’s roughly as credible as a recusant suddenly deciding to attend Anglican services in early 17th century England.
CR, don’t be so naive. Newt was touting mandates until very recently. If you fall for Newt’s fake apologies, there really is no hope for you. But seriously, I do appreciate your willingness to support Newt since everyone you support has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Pretty simple actually and has been said many times. The one Romney helped implement is at the state level and is perfectly legal and popular with the citizens of MA.
The one Newt advocated for was at the national level and is un-Constitutional and not popular at all.
This is why I think Newt’s numbers are soft, no one has yet really gone after him in the primary. Now they will, and ads like this are INCREDIBLY devastating.
And we haven’t even got into his personal life yet.
Romney only supported a mandate after his idea was shot down and he needed to work with an 80% democrat congress. He never supported it on a national level
Errr. No.
Romney Backed Health Care Plan With Individual Mandate
Back in 1994 when he was running for Senate, Romney said he would support a federal individual health care mandate. Yes, yes, he did.
See, in 1993, then-Senator John Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, floated a health care bill that was supposed to be an alternative to the Clinton administration’s proposal. It never really went anywhere, but it did garner 20 co-sponsors in the Senate, including a couple of Democrats (Boren of AR and Kerrey of NE). And a key feature of that bill was that, if it passed, the bad ol’ federal government would have required every American (with the usual hardship etc. exceptions) to purchase health insurance.
The question about Romney is where he would stand in Congress’s internecine battles. Would he side with Republicans such as John Chafee who have tried to develop constructive alternatives to Democratic legislation or with Republicans such as Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich who have been willing to paralyze Congress for the sake of embarrassing the Clinton administration? Romney has indicated that he would side with the moderate wing. He endorsed the crime bill and refused to back Gingrich’s jejune “Contract with America.” He told me [John Judis of TNR] he would have backed Chafee’s health care bill. “I’m willing to vote for things that I am not wild with,” he said.
What admittedly looks bad for Romney right now could actually be good news. Although the DNC is firing potent shots at Mitt, his competitors, as witnessed by this ad, have a new target in Mr. LeRoy McPherson.
Romney’s being seriously trashed by many, including the DNC, right now. Having the former Speaker in the lead and taking a bit of incoming fire instead could be the silver lining to the disappointing (for Rombots) poll numbers.
Pretty simple actually and has been said many times. The one Romney helped implement is at the state level and is perfectly legal and popular with the citizens of MA.
#34 – Romney can’t get to Gingrich’s right; he can barely get to Obama’s. Newt didn’t vote for or sign a mandate, which makes his position superior to Romney’s.
Woah. Who did Ron Paul sign on? They are intense. Romney oughtta borrow this ad. I mean, I knew all this already, but seeing it put together like that with the movie soundtrack….it’ like the doughboy from he!@, y’know?
Good luck trying to “out conservative” Newt on this one.
SoJo, no need to try to do that. Mitt will do what he’s done this entire election and let the FOTM fly too close to the light and get burned. It looks like the others who want to be the Romney Alternative are willing to sling the arrows for Mitt.
Yes, a good question will be whether Fox News will play this ad as they did with the DNC ad against Romney. Greta seemed to relish the opportunity to play and discuss the Mitt v. Mitt ad put out by the other team.
52.Sojourner Truth Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
So now we have Gingrich, who backed the mandate and said he was wrong and we have Romney who actually instituted one.
Good luck trying to “out conservative” Newt on this one.
They can’t and they know it. Thus the meltdown, whining, and thrashing out like children.
Newt didn’t vote for or sign a mandate, which makes his position superior to Romney’s.
Pablo, that’s such a funny statement.
If you’re trying to decide who to elect, do you give it to the guy who WANTED a bad thing but never had a CHANCE to enact it? It would be different if he’d been in any kind of POSITION to vote or sign a mandate, but he wasn’t. So, you can’t give him credit for never voting or signing. He WANTED to.
Exactly. Everyone knows Romney’s record but Newt has been positioning himself as the True Conservative. Romney doesn’t have to out anything Newt. He just has to let Newt be Newt and as always, Newt will find a way to shoot himself in the foot.
55.PabloZed Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
#34 – Romney can’t get to Gingrich’s right; he can barely get to Obama’s. Newt didn’t vote for or sign a mandate, which makes his position superior to Romney’s.
Is this interview more evidence that if Cain drops out, he’d endorse Mitt. He says “Maybe the Democrats want Newt Gingrich to win the nomination, so they can then go after his personal life.” It’s hard to see Herman endorsing Newt after that.
Ron Paul will likely use this in Iowa to nuke Gingrich. If anyone remembers, he did the same thing to Rick Perry.
We have happily spent the future of the country into oblivion and pretty much every so-called conservative has been an eager participant, which is why Ron Paul’s had a very lonely life in the House.
82. Only people like Ron Paul refuse to vote for something because it’s not 100% what he wants. Of COURSE Romney did and will compromise and accept less than he wants if it gets him MORE of what he wants.
SoJo, is it your position that a good candidate should never vote for a bill that has ANYTHING less than perfect in it?
The media would play the ad if it were from Romney. Ron Paul is not treated as a contender. The issues in the ad have certainly been the topic of many news segments, however.
#94 – That is intellectually dishonest as it pertains to Romneycare. Romney was at the table negotiating. He had the power to sign or veto it and thus could have demanded changes he considered necessary to get his signature. Moreover, I have not heard Romney say he would have preferred a bill without a mandate. His position has been that the mandate was necessary for his state.
Keith – My understanding is this ad is running in Iowa where they lap this stuff up. I bet it gets wide distribution there by the Paul supporters.
Everyone keeps talking about the expectations for Romney but Newt is now the perceived frontrunner. If he stumbles in Iowa, with his lack of money and organization, he could be in deep doo doo.
Ron Paul has a very lonely life because he demands perfection. He refuses to compromise or negotiate. HE knows what’s right and anything else is dross.
A good politician knows how to get what he wants by giving the other guy what he wants.
Ron can’t do that, so he’ll never be president.
I mean, what has he ever actually accomplished in the House? Passed any bills? Built any coalitions? Even the best ideas need someone who can persuade and negotiate.
Despite Romnot attempts to the contrary, the issue here is not whether Mitt can successfully attack Newt, nor is it about what Paul’s ceiling is or isn’t. It’s whether other candidates will succeed in thoroughly vetting Newt in ways the media has not caught onto yet. It’s whether Newt can withstand the evidence that HE is not who he says he is. It’s about whether HE can defend the indefensible. It’s about whether voters will catch on to what Paul, Bachmann, Cain, and potentially others will be hammering Newt on for the next several weeks.
SoJo, is it your position that a good candidate should never vote for a bill that has ANYTHING less than perfect in it?
Who ever said that?
I’m talking about politics in this election and I’m talking about how above in this very thread some of the Rombots glommed onto Newt’s foray into supporting a national mandate as a way for Romney to attacks.
Then I just pointed out that in addition to supporting (previously AND now) a state level mandate, Romney ALSO supported and said he would “vote” for a national mandate.
So politically, there isn’t any way that Romney is going to be able to claim the conservative mantle on this one – and if he brings it up it only opens him up to yet another flip flop charge.
97. Pablo, my comment was in reference to one by SoJo about some other bill I haven’t heard about that supposedly had a national mandate in it. SoJo was slamming Romney for saying he’d support it because he’s willing to vote for things he’s not in love with.
I doubt it. My recollection (not perfect) is that Newt gets very nasty when attacked. He’s stayed above the fray, so far, because he wasn’t IN the fray.
But the political reality is that because of certain views, Paul can only climb so high.
I disagree. Neoconservatism has had its day and overreach blew it spectacularly, and I just don’t imagine it surviving a showdown between granny’s Medicare and the Afghanistan war budget. Ron Paul has emphasized that he believes in a defense that doesn’t bankrupt the country it’s trying to defend. Trillions of dollars in silly foreign adventures that didn’t even accomplish their stated objectives save for killing a rogue loser isn’t a good use of money.
And he’s adamant against foreign aid, another pet project of the neocons, and one which Americans aren’t so fond of.
Gingrich’s connections to Freddie Mac and the mortgage market, the ethanol industry and big health care industries make him the embodiment of everything the Tea Party claimed to stand against.
But hey, he’s not a weirdo Mormon, right? So there’s that.
Wow. Looks like some of the True Conservatives are starting to revolt.
>>None of this compares to the shameless attempt for Newt to pretend to be an advocate of the Tea Party and to suggest that he is our ideal candidate. Quite the contrary, he is the candidate not of the Tea Party but of the “inside the beltway” mentality that has seemingly corrupted him.
103. hamaca, I liked your comment so much I decided to quote it so no one misses it and hopefully get to read it twice!
Despite Romnot attempts to the contrary, the issue here is not whether Mitt can successfully attack Newt, nor is it about what Paul’s ceiling is or isn’t. It’s whether other candidates will succeed in thoroughly vetting Newt in ways the media has not caught onto yet. It’s whether Newt can withstand the evidence that HE is not who he says he is. It’s about whether HE can defend the indefensible. It’s about whether voters will catch on to what Paul, Bachmann, Cain, and potentially others will be hammering Newt on for the next several weeks.
So politically, there isn’t any way that Romney is going to be able to claim the conservative mantle on this one – and if he brings it up it only opens him up to yet another flip flop charge.
SoJo, that suggests that the mandate is the only thing Romney doesn’t like about ObamaCare.
The ONLY reason Mitt ever brought up mandates, I think, is because Newt claimed it was a liberal concept. It’s not.
Somehow it became a conservative boogeyman when Obama included it in his horrible plan. But, there’s MUCH more wrong with ObamaCare than mandates.
And here’s one more example of a flip flop by Romney.
SoJo, No, it’s not. For 2 reasons.
1) I have never heard Romney say that he’s AGAINST a national mandate. Maybe I missed it.
2) Even if he did, his saying he would support a bill that had a national mandate in it, and then saying that he’s willing to vote for things he’s not in love with mean that he could be supporting a bill with a national mandate without actually being FOR a national mandate.
Don’t wear yourself out. You and the Teavangelicals will have to keep up your energy for 2016 when you try to nominate TeaClown Allen West over Chris Christie. You will need your strength for some crap like this:
Do you know that Newt took the last piece of Birthday Cake at The “Culpepper Nursing Home” when he visited Ms. Tammy Whinginithoffer for her 108 Birthday?
Ron Paul has a very lonely life because he demands perfection. He refuses to compromise or negotiate. HE knows what’s right and anything else is dross.
A good politician knows how to get what he wants by giving the other guy what he wants.
Ron can’t do that, so he’ll never be president.
I mean, what has he ever actually accomplished in the House? Passed any bills? Built any coalitions? Even the best ideas need someone who can persuade and negotiate.
Thanks to Ron Paul many, many more people now see what is going on – that America is headed on the quick road to debt slavery, stagnation, and decline as a nation. Had Ron Paul compromised, his message would be compromised. I don’t agree with him on all issues (though the debt is the only real issue nowadays), but because he’s got his principles and sticks by them through thick and thin, he’s got the support he’s getting now. This country is in deep trouble and Ron Paul has been tireless in warning against those things which are threatening now to destroy us.
We can almost picture how it’s going to go down, can’t we?
A bunch of talk radio fools and TeaClowns pushing Allen West for president and trashing Chris Christie as a “Muslim lover” for nominating a qualified Muslim judge.
This, unfortunately, is what is left of our party.
Sojourner – You’re arguing valiantly but the point is way over there -> .
Everyone knows Romney is a flip flopping RINO. You True Conservatives have been telling everyone for years. But Newt has been positioning himself as the Tea Party True Conservative and it is only now that it is coming to light that he is anything but. He wants to be the not Romney but he can’t be because he is at least as big a flip flopping RINO (and in the minds of many who actually know the facts and the circumstances of where the positions were taken) as Romney.
128. No, SoJo. Are you just being obtuse? Or, really not getting this?
Politicians vote for bills all the time that have stuff in them they don’t like. So, Mitt saying he’d vote for the bill does not MEAN he’s for a national mandate, just because the mandate is in the bill.
Funny thing is, I have no idea if said bill ever really existed or if Romney ever said what you quoted. I’m just going off of what you wrote.
Doesn’t need one Craig, he just took Newt’s. But Newt shouldn’t worry, Freddie Mac will send him a whole case if he continues to peddle their debt-poison to the rest of the country
Gingrich might actually have corporate sponsorship if he is nominated, like a big fat NASCAR covered with product logos for industries he’s lobbied for.
Boomer, actually, Newt just said he thinks it’s going to be Newt and the not Newt! So, he doesn’t want to bot the not Romney. He wants Romney to be the not Newt.
How did you like that link to Redstate, the place you are constantly touting as the home of your True Conservative brothers, tossing Newt under the bus? Or is Redstate now a bunch if RINOs, too?
135. Be careful, Boomer, in your responses, that you don’t sound like you’re ceding the flip flops on Mitt.
I’m sure you were only saying that everyone already CLAIMS Mitt’s a flip flopper, so it’s more damning that Newt is pretending his NOT when really he’s flipped more than they CLAIM Romney flipped.
Another offering of RomNot hypocrisy from a clueless little punk.
The Willardists are still in a foul mood even after some guy named Ron Paul tried to save their massive and unshapely cottage-cheese butts with this Gingrich exposé about news that has already been priced into the Gingrich mix by those who support the man, the message, and his mission.
147, continuing the theme of Newt calling the Kettle black, check out this quote from Steve Foley.
…while he condemned his colleagues over the House overdraft scandal, it turned out he did the same. As he criticized President Clinton’s personal life, he himself, suffered from similar behavior. As he has been critical of Fannie and Freddie Mac, it comes out that he took nearly two million in consulting fees
How did you like that link to Redstate, the place you are constantly touting as the home of your True Conservative brothers, tossing Newt under the bus? Or is Redstate now a bunch if RINOs, too?
Are you always so painfully literal? You can take issue with Gingrich in good faith. Discussion, debate, and adversarial reasoning are what redstate.com exists to support. With respect to Willard, however, the debate is closed. Resolved: Willard is a problem to be solved.
Gingrich 31%
Romney 23%
Cain 12%
Perry 11%
Paul 6%
Bachmann 4%
Roemer 2%
Huntsman 1%
Santorum Did not register a vote
“If Rick Perry can’t do better than fourth place in a neighboring state that has a popular Republican governor supporting him, then where can he do well? So this isn’t a good sign for Rick Perry at all,” Faucheux said.
71… I’m watching it on mute and it looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill political ad to me. Oh, heavens! Foreclosures! Beyond that, I got “policy” in big letters and other vague crap. Maybe with the sound on, I’ll find something to care about.
I sure hope it doesn’t waste my time hand-wringing about who he banged and when.
Keith, yes of course I was being sarcastic. Much like the word conservative, the not Romneys are now attempting to make that term meaningless as well by claiming that Newt is pure while Romney is guilty.
This whole campaign is becoming a joke brought to you by the people who thought Christine O’Donnell should have been a US Senator. If these clowns are determined to drive us further into oblivion by jumping behind every non-serious candidate I’m going to have fun mocking them the whole way down.
The Willardists are still in a foul mood even after some guy named Ron Paul tried to save their massive and unshapely cottage-cheese butts with this Gingrich exposé about news that has already been priced into the Gingrich mix by those who support the man, the message, and his mission.
Romney aside, casuist, I doubt most of Newt’s supporters in Iowa really have seen Newt sit at on couch looking lovingly at Nancy as they discuss global warming.
Romney aside, casuist, I doubt most of Newt’s supporters in Iowa really have seen Newt sit at on couch looking lovingly at Nancy as they discuss global warming.
Yes, only Gingrich’s charming and boyish excesses are already priced in just like Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” imbroglio that GOPers thought was fatal the then-candidate to their peril. Willard on the other hand has been bracketed by the narrative of long-standing ideological cross-dressing and can never break free as evidenced by his declining poll numbers in advance of even the first primary contest.
>>Are you always so painfully literal? You can take issue with Gingrich in good faith. Discussion, debate, and adversarial reasoning are what redstate.com exists to support. With respect to Willard, however, the debate is closed. Resolved: Willard is a problem to be solved.
I know you think that you are terribly witty and droll but the only people you entertain with your nonsense are your fellow knuckledraggers.
You’ve been gleefully tossing Redstate around for weeks as evidence that True Conservatives such as yourself want nothing to do with “weird Willard” and his followers. Now that your latest not Romney is getting the same treatment by Redstate you try to move the goal posts again.
You are intellectually bankrupt. You couldn’t discuss, debate or reason your way out of a paper bag even with instruction. All you do is toss out insults in hopes of getting a rise.
A few weeks ago I posted that one thing that worried me about Gingrich was that his negatives were already built into his campaign. I’ve learned a lot about Newt since then, and I would like to retract that statement.
I read Redstate nearly everyday, and I have been surprised at the level of Newt hate going on there. There are even posters arguing that Romney would be better than Newt. That’s just crazy talk for Redstate.
Willard on the other hand has been bracketed by the narrative of long-standing ideological cross-dressing
But Newt isn’t? I think people are just grasping at straws because as someone noted earlier, people didn’t want Romney and were looking for an alternative.
Problem is this alternative has pretty much every flaw that Romney has and he’s bound to start getting shot at for the same reasons. He may look like a Romney-killer, and Romney has a lot of weaknesses, but I don’t think the average voter loathes Romney enough to vote for a guy who has done the same “ideological cross-dressing”. He’d rather vote someone else or stay home.
I don’t think Newt will sink as quickly as the others, but he will level off.
It is about time. The hypocrisy from this man is sickening, as well as his government insider scandals.
I was just watching the Five and I had to laugh when Greg Gutfield (sp?) who is very funny said that the problem with Newt is that he is so full of himself that he actually needs two heads. He carries one around in a duffle bag when this one is full. No matter what he says, people are like “more Newt”.
A Newtable is a short quote by Newt of some liberal or crazy idea.
Here’s the first:
Newt Gingrich Said What?
November 30, 2011 12:22 P.M.
By Jim Geraghty
Tags: Newt Gingrich
Recalling a speech where Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing tenure at state universities, I decided to go through the news archives for other examples of bold, intriguing ideas that went nowhere. There is no doubt that Newt Gingrich is one of the most creative and energetic thinkers in the Republican Party. Since leaving the House of Representatives in 1999, he has been bursting at the seams with unexpected, head-turning proposals. Of course, there’s more to political life than thinking, and only a small percentage of those ideas have ever moved past the drawing board or speech.
Instead, I found a slew of ideas and comments that… probably would not be helpful if one were hoping to win the votes of conservative Republicans in a GOP presidential primary.
A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:
August 30, 2004: “Now he’s back, preaching the gospel of party moderation. At an Aug. 30 forum held by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, Gingrich heralded the GOP’s new, bigger big tent. “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”
Now that your latest not Romney is getting the same treatment by Redstate you try to move the goal posts again.
Redstate is not a goal post. It is simply a community of conservative opinion writers that reflects some of the current views on various issues. So in your world because a site that I have linked to has also posted opinion critical of Gingrich, I should also be critical of Gingrich?—they have also posted opinion in support of Gingrich, so on its face your claim is incoherent. In other words, it doesn’t follow. It assumes a causal and uncritical relationship to a resource that I call upon for information, not guidance. But even if it were my holy writ it hosts a variety of views on Gingrich.
Smack for all your silly calls you do make some good ones from time to time. I remember when Cain was starting to peter out you jumped on Newt before he had really gone anywhere.
I’ll beat you to the next one and say Bachmann will get more votes than Newt in Iowa.
I actually didn’t think the word “serious” was the effective part of the ad. The effective parts were showing Newt with Pelosi, Newt bashing Paul Ryan, Newt taking millions from Freddie Mac.
“That is one of the most devastating attack ads I’ve ever seen.
It puts the DNC’s Mitt vs Mitt to shame.”
We’ll see. The DNC ad is partly responsible for the Bret Baier line of questioning that discombobulated Romney. Coming unglued during a routine interview undermines Romney’s attempt to sell himself as steady and prepared. The footage of Romney being condescending, shifty and evasive also will find itself in ads if Romney manages to survive.
Like Cain, Newt was probably more surprised than anyone at his sudden success in the polls. Even more surprising for him was being accused of called conservative. His first reaction may have been to backhand the first person who said it, but then he realized what was happening and he flashed that smile and said something to the effect of, “Why yes, yes, conservative, that’s me!”, all the while thinking “what the hell am I getting myself into.” Now he has to pretend to be pandering to the certain subset of conservatives that believe anything a not-Romney tells them.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country [Iraq] after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
In fairness, there may be some truth to this — at least the WAY it was attempted. But, still, not sure it counts as a conservative statement.
“If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don’t have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they’re relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn’t matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.”
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country [Iraq] after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
If Ron Paul gets Gingrich on this in a debate, Gingrich will either have to run away from himself, or do what he did on immigration, which legitimizes Ron Paul’s own position.
Ron Paul’s attack ad just makes him seem desperate.
The more his rivals attack Newt, the higher his poll numbers climb. Newt has a 90% consistent conservative lifetime record… as time goes on, the world changes… and so do opinions. No candidate is perfect.
Most of things mentioned in the ad, have already been vetted in the media.
Mandate to Purchase health insurance:
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
Freddie Mac:
Newt was in the PRIVATE sector, and no longer in government.
Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.
Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats’ destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
The more his rivals attack Newt, the higher his poll numbers climb.
LOL, You say that based upon what evidence? Until now WHEN has Newt been attacked by his rivals? This is the first real attack and we have yet to see how it will affect his numbers.
I like the ad, but it also encapsulates what I deplore about today’s journalists. They mix and mingle so much “analysis” and “commentary”, that anyone can now cut and paste these pieces and turn them into a far more damaging message than is real.
I deplore Newt for the filandering and dishonest insider that he is, but I feel bad for anyone when these types of ads, using these analytical comments from brainless folks like Rush and Ed Shultz, are used in this way. This as is just like the DNC ad on Romney from Monday, sound bytes, out of context and unfairly used to depict a position that aint necessarily true.
I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.
Well, THAT message seemed to come through loud and clear!
207. Smack, I’m not sure what Max said that set you off, but I will say there’s a difference between a non-Romney supporter and a rabid ABR supporter.
It really IS crazy the rationalizations that some of these ABR folks go through to justify their support for candidates that AT LEAST as flawed, but usually more so, than Mitt Romney.
I’ll say. Imagine a candidate so hated that for at least 75% of the party nearly any other placeholder of a candidate would be acceptable as an alternative. That would be Willard Romney. This in itself is an achievement noteworthy for its novelty in the history of U.S. electoral politics.
We won’t have to purge, we’ll just leave. You keep saying Mitt has 25%, well good luck without that 25%, because it will never come back after this garbage.
We won’t have to purge, we’ll just leave. You keep saying Mitt has 25%, well good luck without that 25%, because it will never come back after this garbage.
Great Americans? Looks like a room full of O’Donnell-ites ready to hand a second term to Barry.
Awwww. You sound bitter. It’s not the GOP voters fault that Willard could never discover within himself the reserves of moral courage, stern resolve, or integrity of character necessary to connect with them at their level of need.
“Anyone supporting Newt is a TeaClown. If that leaves me with only the sane 25% for Mitt and the sane 1% for Hunstman, so be it.”
Not sure you have been paying attention, but Mitt would love to be at 25% in IA, SC, FL or even MT. Basically, its down to extended family and his flock (once a bishop, always a bishop).
215. Smack, no one is disputing Newt’s got some momentum and has created some excitement.
BTW, I’m rather upset with you!
Where were you when CR was calling me names and saying my posts were foolish? I expected you to step up for me, as I’ve stood for you when you were unfairly attacked.
Way to go Casuist, the result of your Gingrich support:
I accept without hedge or qualification the full responsibility for whatever consequence obtains provided that Willard is not the GOP nominee, or that if he wins it, somehow, he wins it without the support of movement conservatives, say through an establishment putsch from above made possible by a brokered convention, which was always Willard’s only hope anyway.
Watching the TeaClown destruction of the republican party, watching the forfeiting of the election to Obama, watching the unforgivable return of Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership, it’s like watching a loved one die. The GOP is in a death spiral. If Newt is not stopped, this really could be the end.
Like I said, these crazies are not above sabotaging Christie in 4 years for some disgrace like Allen West. This is the new reality for the remains of our failed party.
Of course I’m bitter, my political party is dying.
It was never your party. Nor was it mine. The first principle of political action is that you accept the world as it is before you ever try to change it. The conservative movement is what it is. Accept it. Then try to persuade them on their own terms. This is something Willard never did, nor is it clear that he was ever capable of doing so. Anyway, bygones. Candidates come and go.
Powerful ad. And it only went half way. He didn’t even touch Newt’s substantial personal life baggage.
What this ad makes clear is that any flip flop ad O could throw @ Mitt, he can throw at Newt. He can also hammer Newt w/supporting universal healthcare including a mandate, being a big-time lobbyist and insider & being a terrible human in his personal life for years.
There’s a reason the DNC is currently spending millions in @ least 12 battleground states to bash Romney right now. They desperately want to face Newt in the general.
104 – Idiot! Newt advocated a national individual mandate or 15 freaking years. You have found one indirect quote that somewhat infers that Romney would have supported a plan that included it in 1994. Get the hell out of here.
So if the country is ruined under four more years of Obama, you accept without hedge or qualification the full responsibility of that result?
Yes, because I oppose the progressive view of an affirmative government, which is both Obama and Willard’s point of view. There is not enough of a distinction between the two for me to favour Willard over Obama: both produced the same healthcare plan in the form of RomneyCare and ObamaCare, two plans that are functionally identical. Besides, I would prefer that the progressive who ruins our country be a Democrat so as not to further taint the Republican brand.
I’m no longer convinced that what’s left of my party deserves Romney as president. I’m reaching the point where I’d prefer the GOP be destroyed by this absurdity, and driven into the political wilderness for decades until sanity is restored.
So if the snooty elites and Willardist’s refuse to support the party’s nominee because their preferred candidate didn’t win the nomination…it will be the Tea Party’s fault if the republicans loose the general election?
Keith…thanks for the clarification above… I concur that the positions he takes in the ad are accurate, its the fact that someone (Paul in this case) can take snippets from video/audio, particularly snippets using other’s voices, and create more out of them than is real. I realize that if something is true, it’s true, but in politics, it’s so easily distorted. That’s all.
The national GOP deserves to suffer the same destruction that the Colorado GOP has suffered due to the TeaClown plague. Only then can real introspection and growth occur.
We can only win the general election by winning independent voters. The TeaClowns are knowingly sabotaging the only candidate that wins independents against Obama in favor of a candidate already universally despised once by the American people as Speaker. A man so morally bankrupt and corrupt he was thrown out of DC by his own party.
I mean the loss among women for nominating Newt alone will cost us a half dozen swing stages and a dozen congressional districts. It is political suicide. This is what suicide looks like played out in politics.
It’s the same logic that told you people again and again that only Mike Castle could win that Senate seat. But noooooooo, the TeaClowns insisted that crazy Christine should be the nominee. We are seeing this kind of thinking played out nationally, with the exact same result all but guaranteed.
Max, you sound like you are losing your vertical hold again.
You shouldn’t tie your self esteem to a political candidates success, that is not healthy. Look how it has you acting out on a public forum…snarling and vitriolic…it’s just not cool dude.
The reason why this ad is so effective is that it is all true. None of the lies or out of context sound clips we see in other ads. It is devastating. The key is to keep hammering on the truth until Newt is gone for good.
243. Its not that we wouldn’t vote for Newton if we had too, its the fact that nobody else would. The Tea Party may get who they believe is the best candidate in Newton, but the nation will not see him as a viable alternative to Obama. Newton would be destroyed in a national campaign.
We can only win the general election by winning independent voters.
Yes, and before you can run in the general election you need to win the base of your own party. Funny how Willard just assumes that he’s entitled to their support when his entire record as a governor is progressive in character.
243 – The people on this board won’t make an ounce of difference in the election. I, like many Mitt supporters, am not a Republican and have no devotion to the Republican Party. Newt will lose because independents despise him. So yes, if the psychos on the extreme right of the party pick someone the independents can’t support, it is absolutely their fault.
It’s the same logic that told you people again and again that only Mike Castle could win that Senate seat.
Yes, only we would rather lose the seat then send a person like Mike Castle to the senate who will caucus with Republicans but vote with the Democrats. This was the Tea Party sending a message to the party establishment: recruit candidates acceptable to conservatives or prepare to face primary costly primary challenges. The message was heard. This is e.g. how Speaker Boehner suddenly discovered that he had a spine in his negotiations with Obama about the debt ceiling and other issues.
Yea, it wasn’t the message that was heard. It was the laughter of Harry Reid that was heard at the jaw-dropping shock that he was somehow reelected and miraculously allowed to keep his majority. He thanks you for that, big time.
Nah. I’m in a “purging fire is good for new growth” mood. The humiliation that Gingrich would suffer as nominee is starting to appeal to me as a way to blame the Tea Party, talk radio, and Fox.
Then hopefully Christie can save us from these crazies and Hillary in 2016.
259. Well apparently, there is no room in this party for we moderate fiscal conservatives. Let’s see how many elections you win without us making you guys look sane.
He would have voted for a GOP majority leader, GOP chairmen, GOP judges. We could’ve blocked Obama court appointees, his cabinet hacks, and had another branch of government to investigate Holder and other corrupt Obama officials.
But no. You gave us a former witch instead. Thanks.
All we ask is that you support the party like we have when our conservative candidates lost out to you smarter moderates…like I did when I voted for Dole and McCain.
This is so weird…we are always being told we need to come together for the good of the party…but now…if the shoe might be on the other foot…look how you act!
A political party that doesn’t want to win elections is a political party that will die.
Yes, I suppose, if for you the party is everything. For movement conservatives the GOP is a medium of expression—a means to an end—so if elements of the party resist those ends by forwarding candidates who oppose conservative principles, then it is the party itself that is to be resisted. The party elites—the so-called establishment in its various forms—should expect fierce resistance when they forward someone like Willard. This is just reality. Live with it. The party may rise or fall. The movement will persist as long as it remains consistent in its principles with the lived experience of ordinary people who are trying to raise families or make a living.
In return, however, the conservative movement has developed its own media, its own grassroots networks, and its own institutions and other resources that candidates can call upon provided their views are consistent with conservative principle.
That’s not the description of a political movement, it’s the description of a religious cult. The GOP is nothing more now than the teavangelical Christianist cult. In other words, it’s dead.
270. See Exhibit A: your fellow Newt supporters Causit, SoJo, etc. along with many of your fellow former Sarah supporters. Why don’t you have a little chat with them? Or are they too convenient for your latest cause?
Your reasons for liking Newt and disliking Mitt have nothing to do with conservative values or policy.
Yes, because it’s all those moderates and independents who have pushed Gingrich up to e.g. 47% in FL, right? Thank you for admitting to Gingrich’s awesome crossover appeal.
270 Ugh McCain was not one of ours! He was a national defense conservative, I am a moderate fiscal conservative. Romney was my guy in 07 when I was screaming to the world about coming economic collapse. But oh no! We had to beat Hillary!
Hey, aren’t you the guy who told me I was a moron yesterday for saying that Newt will get most of the “John McCain voters 2008″ in the state of Florida?
Have you seen the last 2 FL polls?
…and aren’t you the same guy who said the following just 3 weeks ago?
“Jaxemer11 Says:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
There is nothing to be worried about when it comes to Newt. He will last about three weeks at best. His record is a mess.”
I don’t think you should be calling anyone else here an idoit.
And I never…ever thought you were a Reupublican.
That we can agree on.
I have worked for the GOP longer than you have been alive. I could tell you were more about Mitt than anything else…….
I’m all about defeating Obama with Mitt or Newt.
First time there is weakness in the ROMBORG…the ROMBOTS go fleeing.
272 – The party means nothing to me. You are so infatuated with your own flawed ideology that you are willing to destroy the country in a foolish mission to punish anyone who disagrees with you. Pure insanity.
Max: I think you go to far. I really do. Like you I find it obvious that Gingritch is worse than Mitt in every way, especially in terms of corruption, competence and moral values. And although there are some who’s primary beef w/Mitt is based on religion or irrational reasons, there are plenty who dislike him for legitimate flaws.
Newt has been spectacular on Hannity so far tonight. Newt has mentioned the name Reagan about 10 times so far in this interview…no joking.
Very effective.
Newt has also mentioned the name “Jack Kemp” at least 5 times tonight..which warms my heart. I campaign for Jack Kemp in 2007/8 in Iowa…and to hear his name mentioned over and over again by Newt is a real treat for me.
If you think declaring out loud that Florida is the place you will seal the GOP nomination was a good idea….. 1 week before 2 Florida Polls shows you getting crushed………..you must be a Romney.
Was Reagan ever the most despised Speaker of the House in history driven out of his own party by reality-based members?
It’s not a breakdown to declare if by some horror the Gingrich tragedy happens and he wins the nomination that I will oppose his candidacy on moral grounds.
Some of us have a conscience, and are willing to wait for 2016 for something far better than Obama or Gingrich.
KurtSchlichter Kurt Schlichter
Watching #Newt on #Hannity. Holy cow, am I coming around like @benshapiro? He’s fantastic tonight. Maybe this guy can win…
What we Rombots should begin to do, if the Gingrich disaster is allowed to endure, is start pressuring the remaining moderates to leave the party publicly. A public mass exodus with Senators like Snowe, Collins, Brown, McCain, Corker, Portman, etc. would be the first move, driving the TeaClowns into a steep minority. The swing-district House republicans should follow suit, leaving the O’Donnell wing powerless throughout Obama’s Gingrich-endorsed second term.
The ad I want to see is a group of ten former associates explaining together why it is they, as Republicans, will not be supporting Newt after having worked wtih him up close and personal.
They are out there. Like the Cain women they will need to be coaxed. Not one has come out for Newt. There are reasons. Let us hear from them . . . .
309, Watchin, yeah, that would be good. I posted one a day or 2 ago from someone who worked with him in the House when Newt was Speaker. Called him “evil”.
Lesson must be taught to the base unless we want our good nominees to be wrongfully attacked every cycle from now on. Max is right about what they’ll try to do to Christie, Mark Levin has already started with the early smears.
What we Rombots should begin to do, if the Gingrich disaster is allowed to endure, is start pressuring the remaining moderates to leave the party publicly.
Yes, thank you, and please start right away, because this has been a part of the Tea Party project from the beginning starting with Dede Scozzafava who—cough, cough—Gingrich—COUGH—endorsed, damn it. Something got stuck in my craw throat. But I forgive him this one youthful indiscretion among many others. At least G-Dawg never gave us a program like RomneyCare.
If only Willard would pull an Arlen Spector and defect already. You know he wants to. Willard is too far left for Democrat Leadership Committee members who tend to dominate in the South, but he could compete with most Democrat candidates at the national level in the Obama era.
Some of us have a conscience, and are willing to wait for 2016 for something far better than Obama or Gingrich.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We get it already. This has to be the longest goodbye ever. This is like one of those old cowboy movies where a dying gunfighter clutches at his chest to breath what you think is his last breath only he breaks into a raspy final-words soliloquy that lasts for half the damned film. At this point you want to shout at the screen: WILL ONE OF YOU GRISLED COW-HANDS PLEASE SHOOT THAT MAN AND PUT US ALL OUT OF OUR MISERY?
Yes, only how do you intend to discipline the base—as in basis, as in the electoral basis of the party itself—when it is precisely the task of the party to interpret and to represent its own constituencies, that is, it’s own base.
Like most Willardists you see the world as upside down. The people do not exist for the party; the party exists to serve the people who constitute the party. Duh. Start your own damned party. Or, like the Tea Partiers, build coalitions from within and participate in primary contests to express your views by means of ballot boxes.
If they won’t come out for him, maybe Gingrich’s former associates could be interviewed to explain why, in spite of the many 10 day old supporters Gingrich has suddenly acquired, he can’t tap into a wealth of former associates who admire and support him based on long exposure to him.
The longer he goes without getting any of them to sign on with him and endorse him, the weirder it seems.
You are an arrogant prick and your generalizations are as empty as your principles.
In 2010 I served as a delegate my state’s convention to boot a corrupt establishment GOP senator and replace him with my Tea Party candidate. It took me a lot of personal time and energy, but we got it done. Barely.
The vast majority of Romney supporters are/were heavily involved in the Tea Party or at least outside fans of the movement. Even now, when morons like you try to assume ownership of the movement and act as though Romney backers are different kind of conservatives, I still recognize the good the Tea Party has done and I’m glad I was involved in it last year. Romney supporters are every bit as principled and patriotic as followers of other candidates. If I were as arrogant as you I’d say we’re much more so. However, unlike you I can recognize that equally enlightened people can weigh qualifications differently and have disagreements.
Newt said that he is not non-Romney, and now is time of Newt VS. non-Newt. I would love to see the end of Romney VS. non-Romney, and more anybody-but-Newt coming.
People, if you want to save the party, you have to do all you can to get the word out on Gingrich. Link the Ron Paul ad on Facebook, etc. A grassroots effort to educate the masses on who Newt really is and what he has done. Who is with me? Who will circulate Ron Paul’s ad with me? Let’s make a difference instead of complaining that FOX and others won’t cover this. I am serious, we can go viral with this ad. I am going to do my part right now.
I’m a huge Romney fan. I thought Bret Baier’s interview of Mitt yesterday was tough, but fair. Mitt’s got to start pushing back or he risks these images of him as a finger-in-the-wind politician setting up like concrete. Rather than get pissed at Bret for asking the question, get pissed at pundits who say it behind his back ad nauseum but won’t bring it up to his face.
Romney needs to step it up at least a notch in this department.
329 – How was it fair to publicize dishonest DNC cheap shots and then press the candidate when he calls them what they really are? Baer pushed him hard on things that he knew were flat out lies.
Baier had publicly commented, previously, about being miffed that Romney had not yet deigned to come on his show. As if he’s the world’s most important journalist. Romney has, obviously, been laying low on the media side and is just now getting himself more air time. Baier used the interview to draw attention to himself as a “tough interviewer” through his weird usage of DNC talking point questions about Romney rather than, say, asking him about the Arab Spring, Syria, China, his jobs plan, or any other relevant issue to the American electorate today. I agree that Romney was a bit peevish during the interview – but Baier was more concerned about how he looked in the interview than about actually interviewing Romney on questions of the day and of concern to the electorate. Once again, a journalist makes himself look small and self-interested, making the journalist the story rather than the story, or “how tough I was in the interview” becomes the story. Ridiculous.
[...] is only one perfect person, Ron Paul is his name. The little Tin Foil god has a new ad up and running that castigates everything Newt has ever [...]
Sojourner
I would be very suspect of this article from NRO. NRO isn’t a huge fan of Romney. They are quick to spin it against him. They really had to go back to 1994 and take his words out of context once again. We don’t know if Romney had read the whole bill or what his side of the story is. The article does not say specifically that he said that he supports a national mandate. This is reaching. The distortions working against Romney throughout the internet are very unfortunate.
We do know for certain that Gingrich has expressed his support for an individual national mandate as late as May or March of this year.
Rob …12
A National Mandate that Gingrich supports is vastly different from a mandate on a state level and Romney does not support it for every state. Only states with a low number of uninsured and a balanced budget or low debt level. Each state should craft their own plan that suits that state.
I’m not sure the place you’re getting your information, but good topic. I must spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for excellent information I was looking for this information for my mission.
certainly like your website but you have to check the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very troublesome to tell the truth nevertheless I’ll definitely come again again.
Simply wish to say your article is as astounding. The clarity on your put up is just cool and i can think you’re knowledgeable on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to take hold of your feed to stay up to date with impending post. Thanks a million and please continue the rewarding work.
Hi there, simply was alert to your weblog via Google, and located that it is truly informative. I?m going to be careful for brussels. I?ll be grateful in case you continue this in future. Numerous other people can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Fantastic ad.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
An absolute pasting that will surely leave a mark. Now honestly, how many of the zillions of new Newt Gingrich fans that are seen in these polls know ANY OF THIS about Newt? I’m sure very few of them know any of this…
November 30th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
There’s one thing clear from this ad – Ron Paul thinks he can win Iowa.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Wow. They didn’t even need to mention his personal baggage. Ouch.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Ka-BOOOM.
This looks just as devastating as the Mitt vs. Mitt ad.
Looks like Newt and Mitt will be fighting it out for flip-flopper-in-chief.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Nightmare!
This man is corrupt as any politician can be. God helps us if GOP voters don’t wake up!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
As tough as this ad is, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg. Newt is that bad.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Who’s a good buy on Intrade now?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
And I love how Rush’s hypocrisy is catching some shrapnel in all this as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
“And here….we….GO!”. BOOM!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Dirty politician. Dirty personal life.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
If you accept Gingrich but don’t like Romney because of mandates, you are a hypocrite. If you accept Gingrich, but don’t like Romney because of supposed flip-flopping, you are a hypocrite. If you accept Gingrich, but don’t like Romney because you say he has no core, you are an delusional.
Newt Gingrich is quite possibly one of the most corrupt politicians we have ever had in America. Everything about Gingrich, from his schlooping congressional aides to slapping Paul Ryan in the face, demonstrates one thing. Newt Gingrich is in it for Newt Gingrich.
Newt is shooting sky high right now. If Republicans have any brains, or morals, they will reject him.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I would donate as much as possible to air this ALL DAY LONG in Iowa. Is this just going to end up being a web ad?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
If Romney doesn’t win Iowa, I hope Paul or Bachmann do.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Ron Paul has shown a willingness to go after the other candidates, but no one has made it as easy for him as Gingrich.
Ron Paul for Iowa!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
The one caveat I have is that Paul would run a similar ad against Mitt, mostly with out-of-context stuff, but the real difference here is the money that Newt made off his political office.
Being a Romney guy, I see the sharp contrast: Mitt didn’t take a paycheck when he was gov. That’s service, right there.
Either way, a devastating ad from the Paul camp. For the first time, I applaud them; this year’s campaign is much better than 2008′s for the Paulies.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I love how in the minute and thirty seconds it took me to watch the clip, there were 11 more comments on this video.
But wow, that is a hard hit on Gingrich. And a much deserved hit also I might add.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Thank you Ron Paul thank you..
November 30th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Will someone give Grandapa Paul a juice?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Bachmann & Paul will probably go after Gingrich hard in the next debate. Romney should just call in sick, pop a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy. Of course he won’t do that, but watch for a “I agree with Congressman Paul”, or “I agree with Congressman Bachmann” from Romney in the next debate.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
…and Newt is doing what Newt always does. As I said in another post, I live in Newt’s former Congressional district and if there is one thing we all know it is that Newt has a propensity for shooting himself in the foot. It never happens when he charging up the hill but when he reaches the top, he inevitably fires a shot for the ground and strikes his own foot. He gets cocky and he gets lose and arrogant and thus begins his disent back down the hill.
Case in point from The Washington Post:
“In an interview airing on Fox News’ Hannity tonight, Gingrich is bullish. “And it’s clear that across the country, people are saying, you know, I think we need Newt Gingrich,” he said. “Whereas I would have thought originally it was going to be Mitt and not-Mitt, I think it’s going to — it may turn out to be Newt and not-Newt.””
While this isn’t necessarily damaging, it is indicitive of Newt’s persona and there’s likely more to come. Romney was for the most part humble about being a front runner and now that the mantle has passed to Newt, we’ll see whether he too can achieve humility or if he starts to act like he’s the new King-of-the-World.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
WOW! That was POTENT. Sharp. Damning.
WAY more powerful, I think than Bachman’s attack.
I DO hope Ron Paul is investing to AIR this. Romney couldn’t ask for a better Christmas gift.
And, as far as I know, nothing was spun-cut to make it look worse than it was.
I’m starting to have a warm spot in my heart for Ron Paul.
It was really nice to see this after the gloat thread.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
So who is the Not-Newt folks?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I love Ron Paul. I hope he wins Iowa.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Truthfully Paul is hurting for money right now basically because we’re not keeping up pace with our Q4 from 07′, which makes sense since that was record breaking quarter even when compared to the “frontrunners.” We had about 20 million in Q4 that year.
He certainly has enough to keep his operations going, but I don’t think he has enough to saturate the airways at the moment.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I’m SO glad they used a professional voice actor rather than Ron’s voice. He just sounds crazy when he talks — even when he’s saying smart stuff.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
You know the Rombots are really into desperation stage when they start depending on RON PAUL to rescue His Royal Mittness.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Absolutely scathing web ad. Absolutely scathing.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Newt apologized for supporting mandates. He’s forgiven.
Willard keeps shouting, “NO APOLOGIES!!” How can we conservatives forgive him then?
Hence Romney’s dismal and falling polling numbers COMPARED to Newt’s.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I would like to hear the defense to this ad. Just to put things in context.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
26
That I think is part of his weakness. I had a friend comment to me, “If I’m reading his policies, it all makes perfect sense to me. But when I hear the guy talk, holy ****.”
November 30th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Where do I donate to put this ad on the air all day in IA, SC, and FL?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Hahahaha and here come the RomNots, spinning HARD.
Hold onto your hats children, Craig for Losers and SoJo are on the bus!!!!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I’m just waiting to hear how ROMNEY tries to get to Gingrich’s right on mandates.
We saw the pathetic attempt on immigration that fell flat and allowed Gingrich to catapult ahead in Iowa/SC/FL.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
newt sux i hope this werkz!
down with penus gingrich.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Romney only supported a mandate after his idea was shot down and he needed to work with an 80% democrat congress. He never supported it on a national level. Just for a state that was contemplating 3 other democrat plans at the time. Newt came up with mandates like it was his own brilliant idea to implement on the country. Now he says oops and all is forgiven? In that case, just bring back Perry.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
33.
We like to watch you all hang yourselves first and then we nudge the ropes
November 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
OUCH!!! Holy crap that was as good ad.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
27
SoJo, it’s not that we’re DEPENDING on him, but we’re sure glad he’s doing this. It needed to be said, it’s better if it doesn’t some from Mitt. And, the MEDIA sure doesn’t seem to want to say it.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
CR,
Newt supported mandates SIX MONTHS ago. We’ve been told, repeatedly, that it’s a no-no to support something for most of your natural life, only to reverse course when it’s politically expedient. 6 months ago- more than a year after Obamacare passed- Newt Gingrich was trumpeting an individual mandate. If he’s apologized or recanted since it’s roughly as credible as a recusant suddenly deciding to attend Anglican services in early 17th century England.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
CR, don’t be so naive. Newt was touting mandates until very recently. If you fall for Newt’s fake apologies, there really is no hope for you. But seriously, I do appreciate your willingness to support Newt since everyone you support has gone the way of the dodo bird.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
34.
Pretty simple actually and has been said many times. The one Romney helped implement is at the state level and is perfectly legal and popular with the citizens of MA.
The one Newt advocated for was at the national level and is un-Constitutional and not popular at all.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
dang, mitt should throw some coin to paul to take this national. even from paul and coming from another source it really is powerful.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
WOW! FANTASTIC AD. That about sums it all up right there. Good job Ron Paul!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I think Romney needs to donate money to Ron Paul to get this add on tv ALL DAY LONG!!!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Ha,43. Good thinking!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
41
Rob, you’re just figuring that out, now???
November 30th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
36.
Perry never supported mandates. Nice try.
The curse of ObamneyCare is on two men: Obama & Obama-Lite Mitt.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
This is why I think Newt’s numbers are soft, no one has yet really gone after him in the primary. Now they will, and ads like this are INCREDIBLY devastating.
And we haven’t even got into his personal life yet.
Hold on, it’s going to be a rough ride.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Errr. No.
Romney Backed Health Care Plan With Individual Mandate
Back in 1994 when he was running for Senate, Romney said he would support a federal individual health care mandate. Yes, yes, he did.
See, in 1993, then-Senator John Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, floated a health care bill that was supposed to be an alternative to the Clinton administration’s proposal. It never really went anywhere, but it did garner 20 co-sponsors in the Senate, including a couple of Democrats (Boren of AR and Kerrey of NE). And a key feature of that bill was that, if it passed, the bad ol’ federal government would have required every American (with the usual hardship etc. exceptions) to purchase health insurance.
The question about Romney is where he would stand in Congress’s internecine battles. Would he side with Republicans such as John Chafee who have tried to develop constructive alternatives to Democratic legislation or with Republicans such as Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich who have been willing to paralyze Congress for the sake of embarrassing the Clinton administration? Romney has indicated that he would side with the moderate wing. He endorsed the crime bill and refused to back Gingrich’s jejune “Contract with America.” He told me [John Judis of TNR] he would have backed Chafee’s health care bill. “I’m willing to vote for things that I am not wild with,” he said.
http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/266982/94-romney-said-he-d-vote-health-care-plan-federal-mandate-katrina-trinko
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
If fox plays this or even CNN newts gonna start imploding.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
So now we have Gingrich, who backed the mandate and said he was wrong and we have Romney who actually instituted one.
Good luck trying to “out conservative” Newt on this one.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
What admittedly looks bad for Romney right now could actually be good news. Although the DNC is firing potent shots at Mitt, his competitors, as witnessed by this ad, have a new target in Mr. LeRoy McPherson.
Romney’s being seriously trashed by many, including the DNC, right now. Having the former Speaker in the lead and taking a bit of incoming fire instead could be the silver lining to the disappointing (for Rombots) poll numbers.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Boomer Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
34.
Pretty simple actually and has been said many times. The one Romney helped implement is at the state level and is perfectly legal and popular with the citizens of MA.
===
NOT with Republicans.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
#34 – Romney can’t get to Gingrich’s right; he can barely get to Obama’s. Newt didn’t vote for or sign a mandate, which makes his position superior to Romney’s.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I think my favorite parts of the ad were the segments where Rush was dissing Newt. Now, a few months later he loves him. Talk about a flip flopper.
Of course the part where Paul Ryan says “With friends like that who needs a left?” was pretty sweet, too.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
55. Your dumb.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
55.
Nonsense. Newt got paid to lobby for a national mandate. Lets see him spin his way out of that.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Is this just a bad dream (aka, a NEWTmare)?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“You’re an embarrassment to our party” – Iowa voter to Gingrich
That guy is my favorite guy from Iowa ever.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
48 Just read this part, and tell me if you get it?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
It’s about time Newt was called out.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69475.html#ixzz1fEdgv64s
Here’s Cain ripping on Newt!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Woah. Who did Ron Paul sign on? They are intense. Romney oughtta borrow this ad. I mean, I knew all this already, but seeing it put together like that with the movie soundtrack….it’ like the doughboy from he!@, y’know?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
52
SoJo, no need to try to do that. Mitt will do what he’s done this entire election and let the FOTM fly too close to the light and get burned. It looks like the others who want to be the Romney Alternative are willing to sling the arrows for Mitt.
I’m a happy camper.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
55 Look up the bill Romney actually introduced.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
LOL @ “Dough Boy is Getting Baked”
Yes, a good question will be whether Fox News will play this ad as they did with the DNC ad against Romney. Greta seemed to relish the opportunity to play and discuss the Mitt v. Mitt ad put out by the other team.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Libs want to go against Newt according to Cain and virtually everyone else with a brain.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
#57 – You mean “you’re” brainiac.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
They can’t and they know it. Thus the meltdown, whining, and thrashing out like children.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I’m sitting in my university class watching this video on mute. Even without audio this video seems pretty damning. Pretty excited about this one.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The mandate that Romney TOLD John Judis he supported?
The mandate that Romney thought was so good that he’d give it a go in Massachusetts?
The idea that Romney is going to beat up on ANYONE over this is laughable.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
55
Pablo, that’s such a funny statement.
If you’re trying to decide who to elect, do you give it to the guy who WANTED a bad thing but never had a CHANCE to enact it? It would be different if he’d been in any kind of POSITION to vote or sign a mandate, but he wasn’t. So, you can’t give him credit for never voting or signing. He WANTED to.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
69. No, I mean dumb “like a rock”.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
65.
Exactly. Everyone knows Romney’s record but Newt has been positioning himself as the True Conservative. Romney doesn’t have to out anything Newt. He just has to let Newt be Newt and as always, Newt will find a way to shoot himself in the foot.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Man, Gingrich for President is the worst idea since Greedo shooting first.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
72.
If you notice, this ad was from Ron Paul. Romney hasn’t said a word.
But if you think this isn’t going to hurt Newt your kidding yourself.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
What a nightmare for Willard & the Rombots.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
73 – In other words, you’re conceding that Romney’s no better on the issue?
The worry for the Rombots is that many already know what Newt is…..and still prefer him to Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
72. As far as I can tell, Romney didn’t say he love the national mandate, but that he was willing to vote for things that weren’t ideal.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
77 – Fine. But Paul has a limited ceiling because of his wacko foreign policy views.
If Romney is to win he’s going to have to actually get people to like him.
So far that hasn’t happened.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
80 – He didn’t have to LOVE it. He said he would “vote” for it.
That’s what matters.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
77 – Fine. But Paul has a limited ceiling because of his wacko foreign policy views.
But you’d have to agree, bankrupting the country isn’t exactly defending it very well.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
#63 MWZ,
Is this interview more evidence that if Cain drops out, he’d endorse Mitt. He says “Maybe the Democrats want Newt Gingrich to win the nomination, so they can then go after his personal life.” It’s hard to see Herman endorsing Newt after that.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
77. Boomer, it depends on how many people see it.
Let’s HOPE the media plays it like they did Mitt v Mitt. And/or that Ron spends some cash to spread it.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
83 – Sure. I’ll give him credit for pointing that out.
But the political reality is that because of certain views, Paul can only climb so high.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Gingrich makes Joseph Paine seem like an honest, honorable guy.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Which one of you whacky Rombots jinxed Willard’s campaign?
Come clean
November 30th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
the concept of newt as conservative has always been pathetic, always will be
November 30th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
This video needs to viral.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Keith, Boomer, you guys rock. This is awesome.
Seriously, grats to Paul, bring it on to Newt, power on to Romney!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
84.
You completely misunderstood Cain’s point there.
But dream on!
November 30th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Ron Paul will likely use this in Iowa to nuke Gingrich. If anyone remembers, he did the same thing to Rick Perry.
We have happily spent the future of the country into oblivion and pretty much every so-called conservative has been an eager participant, which is why Ron Paul’s had a very lonely life in the House.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
82. Only people like Ron Paul refuse to vote for something because it’s not 100% what he wants. Of COURSE Romney did and will compromise and accept less than he wants if it gets him MORE of what he wants.
SoJo, is it your position that a good candidate should never vote for a bill that has ANYTHING less than perfect in it?
November 30th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
The media would play the ad if it were from Romney. Ron Paul is not treated as a contender. The issues in the ad have certainly been the topic of many news segments, however.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
91. Thanks, GNV. It’s nice to be acknowledged. So many of my posts go unremarked and I sometimes wonder if I’m just playing with myself.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
#94 – That is intellectually dishonest as it pertains to Romneycare. Romney was at the table negotiating. He had the power to sign or veto it and thus could have demanded changes he considered necessary to get his signature. Moreover, I have not heard Romney say he would have preferred a bill without a mandate. His position has been that the mandate was necessary for his state.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
The wagons are gonna start circling for Gingrich and the continued opening of the door in your face comedy hour will commence.
Watch for a resurgence of either Bachmann or Perry and an uptick of Santorum. I don’t think Huntsman will move much if at all.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
85.
Keith – My understanding is this ad is running in Iowa where they lap this stuff up. I bet it gets wide distribution there by the Paul supporters.
Everyone keeps talking about the expectations for Romney but Newt is now the perceived frontrunner. If he stumbles in Iowa, with his lack of money and organization, he could be in deep doo doo.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
93.
Ron Paul has a very lonely life because he demands perfection. He refuses to compromise or negotiate. HE knows what’s right and anything else is dross.
A good politician knows how to get what he wants by giving the other guy what he wants.
Ron can’t do that, so he’ll never be president.
I mean, what has he ever actually accomplished in the House? Passed any bills? Built any coalitions? Even the best ideas need someone who can persuade and negotiate.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Is this real life?
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/
November 30th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
Did you catch the Rasmussen Poll today showing Newt is now ahead of Obama 45-43?
Go ahead, keep underestimating Newt.
As for this AD…nice job Paul. I know you got one ready to crank out on Mitt as well in NH.
Newt is going to stay positive.
Newt is going to keep smiling and have a conversation with the American people.
Newt will let you all compete for the most scathing TV AD.
Newt will be the most positive candidate in the race.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Despite Romnot attempts to the contrary, the issue here is not whether Mitt can successfully attack Newt, nor is it about what Paul’s ceiling is or isn’t. It’s whether other candidates will succeed in thoroughly vetting Newt in ways the media has not caught onto yet. It’s whether Newt can withstand the evidence that HE is not who he says he is. It’s about whether HE can defend the indefensible. It’s about whether voters will catch on to what Paul, Bachmann, Cain, and potentially others will be hammering Newt on for the next several weeks.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Who ever said that?
I’m talking about politics in this election and I’m talking about how above in this very thread some of the Rombots glommed onto Newt’s foray into supporting a national mandate as a way for Romney to attacks.
Then I just pointed out that in addition to supporting (previously AND now) a state level mandate, Romney ALSO supported and said he would “vote” for a national mandate.
So politically, there isn’t any way that Romney is going to be able to claim the conservative mantle on this one – and if he brings it up it only opens him up to yet another flip flop charge.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
97. Pablo, my comment was in reference to one by SoJo about some other bill I haven’t heard about that supposedly had a national mandate in it. SoJo was slamming Romney for saying he’d support it because he’s willing to vote for things he’s not in love with.
No dishonesty, here, Pablo.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
99. Boomer, from your lips to God’s ears. (a prayer)
November 30th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
#102 – LOL. We know Newt better than that.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
No. Actually I wasn’t.
I was setting the record straight after the Rombot “asparagus” WRONGFULLY claimed that Mitt never supported a national mandate.
In fact he did.
And here’s one more example of a flip flop by Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
102
I doubt it. My recollection (not perfect) is that Newt gets very nasty when attacked. He’s stayed above the fray, so far, because he wasn’t IN the fray.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
But the political reality is that because of certain views, Paul can only climb so high.
I disagree. Neoconservatism has had its day and overreach blew it spectacularly, and I just don’t imagine it surviving a showdown between granny’s Medicare and the Afghanistan war budget. Ron Paul has emphasized that he believes in a defense that doesn’t bankrupt the country it’s trying to defend. Trillions of dollars in silly foreign adventures that didn’t even accomplish their stated objectives save for killing a rogue loser isn’t a good use of money.
And he’s adamant against foreign aid, another pet project of the neocons, and one which Americans aren’t so fond of.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Gingrich’s connections to Freddie Mac and the mortgage market, the ethanol industry and big health care industries make him the embodiment of everything the Tea Party claimed to stand against.
But hey, he’s not a weirdo Mormon, right? So there’s that.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
National Review joins the “Expose Phony Newt” pile on:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati
November 30th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Wow. Looks like some of the True Conservatives are starting to revolt.
>>None of this compares to the shameless attempt for Newt to pretend to be an advocate of the Tea Party and to suggest that he is our ideal candidate. Quite the contrary, he is the candidate not of the Tea Party but of the “inside the beltway” mentality that has seemingly corrupted him.
http://www.redstate.com/steve_foley/2011/11/24/newts-tea-party-comparison-should-put-newt-in-tea-party-kettle/
Perhaps the entire country isn’t calling for more Newt.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
103. hamaca, I liked your comment so much I decided to quote it so no one misses it and hopefully get to read it twice!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
The link in 101 is a dirty website that my anti-spyware programs blocked, as a heads up to others.
Do not access it, and anyone with mod privileges should remove it, please.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Newt left his first wife while she had uterine cancer. The second he left just after she was diagnosed with MS, for a much younger mistress.
Coupled with this ad, Newt is a pretty disgusting guy.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
104.
SoJo, that suggests that the mandate is the only thing Romney doesn’t like about ObamaCare.
The ONLY reason Mitt ever brought up mandates, I think, is because Newt claimed it was a liberal concept. It’s not.
Somehow it became a conservative boogeyman when Obama included it in his horrible plan. But, there’s MUCH more wrong with ObamaCare than mandates.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
114. Keith–thank you, sir!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Remember when Anne Romney got MS and Mitt dropped her like a bad habit.
Wait….that was Marianne Gingrich and that charmer, Newton Leroy! My bad.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Whew…
I can barely keep up with these posts.
After a rough couple of days of poll numbers the ROMBOTS have their fighting spirit back.
It’ nice to see.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
108
SoJo, No, it’s not. For 2 reasons.
1) I have never heard Romney say that he’s AGAINST a national mandate. Maybe I missed it.
2) Even if he did, his saying he would support a bill that had a national mandate in it, and then saying that he’s willing to vote for things he’s not in love with mean that he could be supporting a bill with a national mandate without actually being FOR a national mandate.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
#121 – Romney says a federal mandate is unconstitutional.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Smack
Don’t wear yourself out. You and the Teavangelicals will have to keep up your energy for 2016 when you try to nominate TeaClown Allen West over Chris Christie. You will need your strength for some crap like this:
Newt/Blackburn 2012, West/Angle 2016! YEEEEAAAHHHOOOO
November 30th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Do you know that Newt took the last piece of Birthday Cake at The “Culpepper Nursing Home” when he visited Ms. Tammy Whinginithoffer for her 108 Birthday?
Disgusting.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
122. Ahh, is that the part that’s unconstitutional? If so, then I stand corrected. And, I apologize.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
123. Max, you must mean 2020, since Mitt will win and get re-elected!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Ron Paul has a very lonely life because he demands perfection. He refuses to compromise or negotiate. HE knows what’s right and anything else is dross.
A good politician knows how to get what he wants by giving the other guy what he wants.
Ron can’t do that, so he’ll never be president.
I mean, what has he ever actually accomplished in the House? Passed any bills? Built any coalitions? Even the best ideas need someone who can persuade and negotiate.
Thanks to Ron Paul many, many more people now see what is going on – that America is headed on the quick road to debt slavery, stagnation, and decline as a nation. Had Ron Paul compromised, his message would be compromised. I don’t agree with him on all issues (though the debt is the only real issue nowadays), but because he’s got his principles and sticks by them through thick and thin, he’s got the support he’s getting now. This country is in deep trouble and Ron Paul has been tireless in warning against those things which are threatening now to destroy us.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
121 – He has said it.
And on this,
November 30th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Rombots,
We can almost picture how it’s going to go down, can’t we?
A bunch of talk radio fools and TeaClowns pushing Allen West for president and trashing Chris Christie as a “Muslim lover” for nominating a qualified Muslim judge.
This, unfortunately, is what is left of our party.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
124. I READ about that, Smack. That’s when I absolutely knew that Newt was totally unqualified for POTUS.
Of course, Rush is spinning it. He says Newt was just tying to be polite by showing how much he loved the cake!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
CR Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Newt apologized for supporting mandates. He’s forgiven.
Willard keeps shouting, “NO APOLOGIES!!” How can we conservatives forgive him then?
Hence Romney’s dismal and falling polling numbers COMPARED to Newt’s.
=========
Yeah right.
If Romney apologized for the mandate you’d be the first little butterfly flitting around this site screaming “Flip Flopper” and everyone knows it.
Which is why you have zero respect from serious people.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
127. MPC, I’ve ALWAYS said on this site that Ron Paul’s a valuable voice. He has influenced the conversation in an important way.
But, he’d never get elected and if he were, he’d be a horrible president.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Keith Price,
HA!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
126
Let’s hope so. But I’m afraid this is the Walking Dead. And we’re surround by TeaClown zombies just overwhelming our civilization.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
128.
Sojourner – You’re arguing valiantly but the point is way over there -> .
Everyone knows Romney is a flip flopping RINO. You True Conservatives have been telling everyone for years. But Newt has been positioning himself as the Tea Party True Conservative and it is only now that it is coming to light that he is anything but. He wants to be the not Romney but he can’t be because he is at least as big a flip flopping RINO (and in the minds of many who actually know the facts and the circumstances of where the positions were taken) as Romney.
You can’t be the not Romney when you ARE Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
SoJo posts: You know the Rombots are really into desperation stage when they start depending on RON PAUL to rescue His Royal Mittness.
————
Another offering of RomNot hypocrisy from a clueless little punk.
As if you don’t crow when anyone hits Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
128. No, SoJo. Are you just being obtuse? Or, really not getting this?
Politicians vote for bills all the time that have stuff in them they don’t like. So, Mitt saying he’d vote for the bill does not MEAN he’s for a national mandate, just because the mandate is in the bill.
Funny thing is, I have no idea if said bill ever really existed or if Romney ever said what you quoted. I’m just going off of what you wrote.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Will someone give Grandapa Paul a juice?
Doesn’t need one Craig, he just took Newt’s. But Newt shouldn’t worry, Freddie Mac will send him a whole case if he continues to peddle their debt-poison to the rest of the country
November 30th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Gingrich might actually have corporate sponsorship if he is nominated, like a big fat NASCAR covered with product logos for industries he’s lobbied for.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
He should have put in that Newt is overweight and needs a haircut, too while he was at it.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Please inform your Willardist brothers and sisters of your epiphany of the truth about Willard. Spread the word. Shout it from the rooftops. Testify.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
138.
That has my vote for comment of the thread.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Looks like Paul is going after Iowa…
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
135.
Boomer, actually, Newt just said he thinks it’s going to be Newt and the not Newt! So, he doesn’t want to bot the not Romney. He wants Romney to be the not Newt.
LOL
November 30th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
WOW!
That ad STINGS!
And the best part… it doesn’t come from the DNC. This is a real stinger.
Is this going on TV?
I’m going to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign so this can go on TV.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
casuist-
How did you like that link to Redstate, the place you are constantly touting as the home of your True Conservative brothers, tossing Newt under the bus? Or is Redstate now a bunch if RINOs, too?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
135. Be careful, Boomer, in your responses, that you don’t sound like you’re ceding the flip flops on Mitt.
I’m sure you were only saying that everyone already CLAIMS Mitt’s a flip flopper, so it’s more damning that Newt is pretending his NOT when really he’s flipped more than they CLAIM Romney flipped.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The Willardists are still in a foul mood even after some guy named Ron Paul tried to save their massive and unshapely cottage-cheese butts with this Gingrich exposé about news that has already been priced into the Gingrich mix by those who support the man, the message, and his mission.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
What mission is that? Jacking up his speaking fees after he becomes a failed presidential nominee?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
At least Ron Paul gets it.
If GOP voters could even meet the “reasonable person” criterion, this would be a devastating ad.
But I’m beginning to wonder…
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
147, continuing the theme of Newt calling the Kettle black, check out this quote from Steve Foley.
http://www.redstate.com/steve_foley/2011/11/24/newts-tea-party-comparison-should-put-newt-in-tea-party-kettle/
Now, he’s saying Mitt changes position at the drop of a hat whereas he’s actually done it more.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Max could just have easily titled his post, “PAUL ENDORSES MITT ROMNEY.”
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Very effective ad.
Well done.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Are you always so painfully literal? You can take issue with Gingrich in good faith. Discussion, debate, and adversarial reasoning are what redstate.com exists to support. With respect to Willard, however, the debate is closed. Resolved: Willard is a problem to be solved.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
141 Mitt Romney doesn’t flip flop. Where are you getting your warped information from, ACORN?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
148
This is the last warning: Keep your sexual fantasies off this site.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
http://www.wwltv.com/news/politics/Gingrich-soars-to-top-of-new-WWL-TV-poll-on-GOP-presidential-race-in-La-134715068.html
Louisiana GOP Poll
Gingrich 31%
Romney 23%
Cain 12%
Perry 11%
Paul 6%
Bachmann 4%
Roemer 2%
Huntsman 1%
Santorum Did not register a vote
“If Rick Perry can’t do better than fourth place in a neighboring state that has a popular Republican governor supporting him, then where can he do well? So this isn’t a good sign for Rick Perry at all,” Faucheux said.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
#87 – I get it Max- Claude Rains 1939 – Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Redstate is a bunch of bigots. Well, one anyways. They have been more emotion and religion than information for a while now. Are you into that?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
71… I’m watching it on mute and it looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill political ad to me. Oh, heavens! Foreclosures! Beyond that, I got “policy” in big letters and other vague crap. Maybe with the sound on, I’ll find something to care about.
I sure hope it doesn’t waste my time hand-wringing about who he banged and when.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
147.
Keith, yes of course I was being sarcastic. Much like the word conservative, the not Romneys are now attempting to make that term meaningless as well by claiming that Newt is pure while Romney is guilty.
This whole campaign is becoming a joke brought to you by the people who thought Christine O’Donnell should have been a US Senator. If these clowns are determined to drive us further into oblivion by jumping behind every non-serious candidate I’m going to have fun mocking them the whole way down.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I was quoting a Willardist who identifies himself as “boomer”. Take it up with him. On the other hand there’s this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp2QIGejq4
November 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Don’t forget that Newt CREATED the mess we are in now. He is a government-a-holic. Ron Paul for VP for exposing what we already knew!!!!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I refuse. Do your worst.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
This is going to be disturbing for Callista. She’ll need a Caribbean cruise or another run through Tiffany’s to deal with this turn of events.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
The Willardists are still in a foul mood even after some guy named Ron Paul tried to save their massive and unshapely cottage-cheese butts with this Gingrich exposé about news that has already been priced into the Gingrich mix by those who support the man, the message, and his mission.
Romney aside, casuist, I doubt most of Newt’s supporters in Iowa really have seen Newt sit at on couch looking lovingly at Nancy as they discuss global warming.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
That’s good enough for me. At least he’s NOT-Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Yes, only Gingrich’s charming and boyish excesses are already priced in just like Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” imbroglio that GOPers thought was fatal the then-candidate to their peril. Willard on the other hand has been bracketed by the narrative of long-standing ideological cross-dressing and can never break free as evidenced by his declining poll numbers in advance of even the first primary contest.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
166
exactly
November 30th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
154.
>>Are you always so painfully literal? You can take issue with Gingrich in good faith. Discussion, debate, and adversarial reasoning are what redstate.com exists to support. With respect to Willard, however, the debate is closed. Resolved: Willard is a problem to be solved.
I know you think that you are terribly witty and droll but the only people you entertain with your nonsense are your fellow knuckledraggers.
You’ve been gleefully tossing Redstate around for weeks as evidence that True Conservatives such as yourself want nothing to do with “weird Willard” and his followers. Now that your latest not Romney is getting the same treatment by Redstate you try to move the goal posts again.
You are intellectually bankrupt. You couldn’t discuss, debate or reason your way out of a paper bag even with instruction. All you do is toss out insults in hopes of getting a rise.
Back to just skipping your drivel.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Web ad.
Two and a half minutes – way too long for TV.
Still, it will get attention if the cable channels show excerpts.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
A few weeks ago I posted that one thing that worried me about Gingrich was that his negatives were already built into his campaign. I’ve learned a lot about Newt since then, and I would like to retract that statement.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I read Redstate nearly everyday, and I have been surprised at the level of Newt hate going on there. There are even posters arguing that Romney would be better than Newt. That’s just crazy talk for Redstate.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Willard on the other hand has been bracketed by the narrative of long-standing ideological cross-dressing
But Newt isn’t? I think people are just grasping at straws because as someone noted earlier, people didn’t want Romney and were looking for an alternative.
Problem is this alternative has pretty much every flaw that Romney has and he’s bound to start getting shot at for the same reasons. He may look like a Romney-killer, and Romney has a lot of weaknesses, but I don’t think the average voter loathes Romney enough to vote for a guy who has done the same “ideological cross-dressing”. He’d rather vote someone else or stay home.
I don’t think Newt will sink as quickly as the others, but he will level off.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
It is about time. The hypocrisy from this man is sickening, as well as his government insider scandals.
I was just watching the Five and I had to laugh when Greg Gutfield (sp?) who is very funny said that the problem with Newt is that he is so full of himself that he actually needs two heads. He carries one around in a duffle bag when this one is full. No matter what he says, people are like “more Newt”.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Hey everyone! Post your Newtables.
A Newtable is a short quote by Newt of some liberal or crazy idea.
Here’s the first:
November 30th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Boomer – Massachusetts Conservative,
Did you notice in this Paul TV AD that the word “serious” is used?
This is the exact word I thought the Mitt Camp should use on Newt for an effective attack.
Remember?…?
Remember I brought this up two days ago?
Do I know how to promote or what?!!!!
To promote the idea that Newt should not be the nominee…the word “serious?…unserious” should be used many times from here on in.
I will send Paul and Romney a bill for my services.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
That is one of the most devastating attack ads I’ve ever seen.
It puts the DNC’s Mitt vs Mitt to shame.
Obama’s billion dollar ad campaign will probably pay Paul for the rights and just run that 24/7.
wow….just wow!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Redstate is not a goal post. It is simply a community of conservative opinion writers that reflects some of the current views on various issues. So in your world because a site that I have linked to has also posted opinion critical of Gingrich, I should also be critical of Gingrich?—they have also posted opinion in support of Gingrich, so on its face your claim is incoherent. In other words, it doesn’t follow. It assumes a causal and uncritical relationship to a resource that I call upon for information, not guidance. But even if it were my holy writ it hosts a variety of views on Gingrich.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
SPREAD IT AROUND, folks!
Peddle this video, endlessly!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Not in the least, no. But you keep trying to push that narrative and see how far it gets you, K?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Smack for all your silly calls you do make some good ones from time to time. I remember when Cain was starting to peter out you jumped on Newt before he had really gone anywhere.
I’ll beat you to the next one and say Bachmann will get more votes than Newt in Iowa.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The problem has been the “Not Romneys” have faded way too fast. Hopefully Newt will do the same.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
This next debate will be intersting. Who thinks Newt will be a punching bag???
November 30th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
177
I actually didn’t think the word “serious” was the effective part of the ad. The effective parts were showing Newt with Pelosi, Newt bashing Paul Ryan, Newt taking millions from Freddie Mac.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Another Newtable
I couldn’t find a QUOTE of this, but here’s a clip from The Beaufort Gazette, October 13, 2005:
I dunno, that doesn’t SOUND conservative, but maybe it is?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Causit, CR and SoJo and all the other Rom-Nots
Take a look in the mirror kiddies…..
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/11/irrationality-of-anybody-but-romney.html#comments
November 30th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
“That is one of the most devastating attack ads I’ve ever seen.
It puts the DNC’s Mitt vs Mitt to shame.”
We’ll see. The DNC ad is partly responsible for the Bret Baier line of questioning that discombobulated Romney. Coming unglued during a routine interview undermines Romney’s attempt to sell himself as steady and prepared. The footage of Romney being condescending, shifty and evasive also will find itself in ads if Romney manages to survive.
We’ll see if this ad shakes Newt up. I doubt it.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
MPC,
Watch for Huntsman in NH…he is at 11%…..his FAV/UNFAVS are getting better and better.
That is the next one.
Bachmann has a ceiling of 15% in Iowa…that’s it. Maybe 3rd or 4th…..not good enough.
Stay alert,
Stay Tune.
Stay close to RACE42012.
This is the only place to witness SMACKDADDY at his finest!!!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Like Cain, Newt was probably more surprised than anyone at his sudden success in the polls. Even more surprising for him was being
accused ofcalled conservative. His first reaction may have been to backhand the first person who said it, but then he realized what was happening and he flashed that smile and said something to the effect of, “Why yes, yes, conservative, that’s me!”, all the while thinking “what the hell am I getting myself into.” Now he has to pretend to be pandering to the certain subset of conservatives that believe anything a not-Romney tells them.November 30th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Smack, this is at your FINEST??
November 30th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Another Newtable…
In fairness, there may be some truth to this — at least the WAY it was attempted. But, still, not sure it counts as a conservative statement.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Another Newtable
In April 2007, in a debate against John Kerry…
November 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Another Newtable:
November 30th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country [Iraq] after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
If Ron Paul gets Gingrich on this in a debate, Gingrich will either have to run away from himself, or do what he did on immigration, which legitimizes Ron Paul’s own position.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Another Newtable:
November 30th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Ron Paul’s attack ad just makes him seem desperate.
The more his rivals attack Newt, the higher his poll numbers climb. Newt has a 90% consistent conservative lifetime record… as time goes on, the world changes… and so do opinions. No candidate is perfect.
Most of things mentioned in the ad, have already been vetted in the media.
Mandate to Purchase health insurance:
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
Freddie Mac:
Newt was in the PRIVATE sector, and no longer in government.
Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.
Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats’ destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
194. I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that–it would have come out my nose.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Another Newtable, lobbyist version:
November 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Did any of you goofballs notice that Willard collapsed on Intrade to about 50% from 70%? http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-romney-falls-under-50-on-intrade-2011-11
Where is Katechon? He’s way over exposed on Willard.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Another Newtable, taking credit for Reagan’s accomplishments version:
November 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Newt is the MOST un-Presidential of all the field.
He won’t get within groping distance of the Electoral College votes needed to win.
Obama will be on cruise control.
But he’s not Romney so the ABR Queens can party on!
November 30th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Newt continued…
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
196. GOOD one, Max!
November 30th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I’m certain McCarthy appreciated Newt’s efforts in that regard.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
197
LOL, You say that based upon what evidence? Until now WHEN has Newt been attacked by his rivals? This is the first real attack and we have yet to see how it will affect his numbers.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Max Twain,
You keep ripping the Tea Party base.
Do you know that Newt is ahead of Mitt in FL & MT among the non-Tea party base of the party?
Will you brand all Non-Romney supporters as stupid…Tea Clown?
You will end up with a very small party.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I like the ad, but it also encapsulates what I deplore about today’s journalists. They mix and mingle so much “analysis” and “commentary”, that anyone can now cut and paste these pieces and turn them into a far more damaging message than is real.
I deplore Newt for the filandering and dishonest insider that he is, but I feel bad for anyone when these types of ads, using these analytical comments from brainless folks like Rush and Ed Shultz, are used in this way. This as is just like the DNC ad on Romney from Monday, sound bytes, out of context and unfairly used to depict a position that aint necessarily true.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/audio-gingrich-pitched-consulting-clients-florida-lawmakers#comments
November 30th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Another Newtable
Well, THAT message seemed to come through loud and clear!
November 30th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
208. Riccardo, I didn’t notice anything out of context in the ad that depicted a position that wasn’t true. What did I miss?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Anyone supporting Newt is a TeaClown. If that leaves me with only the sane 25% for Mitt and the sane 1% for Hunstman, so be it.
TeaClowns supported O’Donnell, Angle, Buck, Paladino, Cain, and now Newty Leroy. You can keep those folks.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
207. Smack, I’m not sure what Max said that set you off, but I will say there’s a difference between a non-Romney supporter and a rabid ABR supporter.
It really IS crazy the rationalizations that some of these ABR folks go through to justify their support for candidates that AT LEAST as flawed, but usually more so, than Mitt Romney.
It’s just hard to get.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
A lot of GOP voters who never supported Angle, Buck, Paladino, Cain are now supporting Newt (me included).
Mitt’s numbers are going down…Newt is taking some of those “Smart GOP voters” away.
Will you banned those people forever?
You funny guy.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I’ll say. Imagine a candidate so hated that for at least 75% of the party nearly any other placeholder of a candidate would be acceptable as an alternative. That would be Willard Romney. This in itself is an achievement noteworthy for its novelty in the history of U.S. electoral politics.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
http://twitpic.com/7mbqv3
Take a look…that is happening right now in Council Bluff, Iowa.
The people in the crowd look like Great Americans to me.
…don’t be afraid…take a look.
Newt 2012!!
November 30th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Only the Willardists are a vanishingly small minority themselves. Good luck trying to purge the GOP of its own base voters, guys.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
casuist
It’s a reminder to change religions before trying to appeal to the TeaClown brigade.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Great Americans filled with a hope and a vision for a better America. The future belongs to them.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Casuist
We won’t have to purge, we’ll just leave. You keep saying Mitt has 25%, well good luck without that 25%, because it will never come back after this garbage.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Great Americans? Looks like a room full of O’Donnell-ites ready to hand a second term to Barry.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
If you have an extra 30 minutes take a look into who this Newt guy is. I know it’s been a while but let’s all remember him…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EXVc1oxm_VQ
November 30th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Obama PAC taking victory lap over Newt surge. Biggest coup in Democrat history in many ways.
https://twitter.com/#!/billburton716
November 30th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
C-Ya!
November 30th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Way to go Casuist, the result of your Gingrich support:
http://obamaforwards.com/content/binary/image10.jpg
November 30th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Awwww. You sound bitter. It’s not the GOP voters fault that Willard could never discover within himself the reserves of moral courage, stern resolve, or integrity of character necessary to connect with them at their level of need.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
“Anyone supporting Newt is a TeaClown. If that leaves me with only the sane 25% for Mitt and the sane 1% for Hunstman, so be it.”
Not sure you have been paying attention, but Mitt would love to be at 25% in IA, SC, FL or even MT. Basically, its down to extended family and his flock (once a bishop, always a bishop).
November 30th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
225
Of course I’m bitter, my political party is dying. It’s not fun to watching a once-great party become the Whigs.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Do Newt’s wives matter? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2011/11/16/do-newt-gingrichs-wives-matter/
November 30th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
215. Smack, no one is disputing Newt’s got some momentum and has created some excitement.
BTW, I’m rather upset with you!
Where were you when CR was calling me names and saying my posts were foolish? I expected you to step up for me, as I’ve stood for you when you were unfairly attacked.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I accept without hedge or qualification the full responsibility for whatever consequence obtains provided that Willard is not the GOP nominee, or that if he wins it, somehow, he wins it without the support of movement conservatives, say through an establishment putsch from above made possible by a brokered convention, which was always Willard’s only hope anyway.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
227. That’s a premature pronouncement. Let’s see what happens when the “real” mainstream starts getting involved.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
225. Yes, because Newton is the embodiment of “integrity and character”.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Watching the TeaClown destruction of the republican party, watching the forfeiting of the election to Obama, watching the unforgivable return of Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership, it’s like watching a loved one die. The GOP is in a death spiral. If Newt is not stopped, this really could be the end.
Like I said, these crazies are not above sabotaging Christie in 4 years for some disgrace like Allen West. This is the new reality for the remains of our failed party.
GOP 1854-2012
November 30th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
So if the country is ruined under four more years of Obama, you accept without hedge or qualification the full responsibility of that result?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
It was never your party. Nor was it mine. The first principle of political action is that you accept the world as it is before you ever try to change it. The conservative movement is what it is. Accept it. Then try to persuade them on their own terms. This is something Willard never did, nor is it clear that he was ever capable of doing so. Anyway, bygones. Candidates come and go.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Powerful ad. And it only went half way. He didn’t even touch Newt’s substantial personal life baggage.
What this ad makes clear is that any flip flop ad O could throw @ Mitt, he can throw at Newt. He can also hammer Newt w/supporting universal healthcare including a mandate, being a big-time lobbyist and insider & being a terrible human in his personal life for years.
There’s a reason the DNC is currently spending millions in @ least 12 battleground states to bash Romney right now. They desperately want to face Newt in the general.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Max, slow down! Hasn’t happened, yet. And may not. LIKELY will not. Don’t give up until you have to.
Just imagine if Mitt pulls this off. Imagine if he got re-elected! Think about how much good Romney could do with 8 years.
Trust a little, Max.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
104 – Idiot! Newt advocated a national individual mandate or 15 freaking years. You have found one indirect quote that somewhat infers that Romney would have supported a plan that included it in 1994. Get the hell out of here.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Yes, because I oppose the progressive view of an affirmative government, which is both Obama and Willard’s point of view. There is not enough of a distinction between the two for me to favour Willard over Obama: both produced the same healthcare plan in the form of RomneyCare and ObamaCare, two plans that are functionally identical. Besides, I would prefer that the progressive who ruins our country be a Democrat so as not to further taint the Republican brand.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Gingrich-Sharpton. Now there’s the ticket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXwqYnBqJBI&NR=1
November 30th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
237
I’m no longer convinced that what’s left of my party deserves Romney as president. I’m reaching the point where I’d prefer the GOP be destroyed by this absurdity, and driven into the political wilderness for decades until sanity is restored.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Best friends!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDoTg-Kljw&feature=related
November 30th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
So if the snooty elites and Willardist’s refuse to support the party’s nominee because their preferred candidate didn’t win the nomination…it will be the Tea Party’s fault if the republicans loose the general election?
That is some twisted logic, right there.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Keith…thanks for the clarification above… I concur that the positions he takes in the ad are accurate, its the fact that someone (Paul in this case) can take snippets from video/audio, particularly snippets using other’s voices, and create more out of them than is real. I realize that if something is true, it’s true, but in politics, it’s so easily distorted. That’s all.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
The national GOP deserves to suffer the same destruction that the Colorado GOP has suffered due to the TeaClown plague. Only then can real introspection and growth occur.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
243
We can only win the general election by winning independent voters. The TeaClowns are knowingly sabotaging the only candidate that wins independents against Obama in favor of a candidate already universally despised once by the American people as Speaker. A man so morally bankrupt and corrupt he was thrown out of DC by his own party.
I mean the loss among women for nominating Newt alone will cost us a half dozen swing stages and a dozen congressional districts. It is political suicide. This is what suicide looks like played out in politics.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
243
It’s the same logic that told you people again and again that only Mike Castle could win that Senate seat. But noooooooo, the TeaClowns insisted that crazy Christine should be the nominee. We are seeing this kind of thinking played out nationally, with the exact same result all but guaranteed.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Max, you sound like you are losing your vertical hold again.
You shouldn’t tie your self esteem to a political candidates success, that is not healthy. Look how it has you acting out on a public forum…snarling and vitriolic…it’s just not cool dude.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
The reason why this ad is so effective is that it is all true. None of the lies or out of context sound clips we see in other ads. It is devastating. The key is to keep hammering on the truth until Newt is gone for good.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
243. Its not that we wouldn’t vote for Newton if we had too, its the fact that nobody else would. The Tea Party may get who they believe is the best candidate in Newton, but the nation will not see him as a viable alternative to Obama. Newton would be destroyed in a national campaign.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Yes, and before you can run in the general election you need to win the base of your own party. Funny how Willard just assumes that he’s entitled to their support when his entire record as a governor is progressive in character.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
243 – The people on this board won’t make an ounce of difference in the election. I, like many Mitt supporters, am not a Republican and have no devotion to the Republican Party. Newt will lose because independents despise him. So yes, if the psychos on the extreme right of the party pick someone the independents can’t support, it is absolutely their fault.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Tele
You shouldn’t be here worrying about what I say. You should be out celebrating Obama’s reelection. You made it possible, pal.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
251. You’re making assumptions in character that speaks to your own personal bias and lack of objectivity.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
241. MAX! Mitt is not running for president of the PARTY!! He’s running for ALL OF US.
Don’t bail, yet. Let’s see this through.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Yes, only we would rather lose the seat then send a person like Mike Castle to the senate who will caucus with Republicans but vote with the Democrats. This was the Tea Party sending a message to the party establishment: recruit candidates acceptable to conservatives or prepare to face primary costly primary challenges. The message was heard. This is e.g. how Speaker Boehner suddenly discovered that he had a spine in his negotiations with Obama about the debt ceiling and other issues.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
255
I’ll be voting for Mitt on primary day. If Newt wins, I’m gone. Pretty simple.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
257. Great, Max. In the meantime, let’s keep a good, positive fight going. No need to be fatalistic.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Either way I think you’ll be happier among Democrats. Fewer conservatives to vex you.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
257. Ha, Mitt could always run third party. I’m sure that would boil the blood of a few purist.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
casuist
Yea, it wasn’t the message that was heard. It was the laughter of Harry Reid that was heard at the jaw-dropping shock that he was somehow reelected and miraculously allowed to keep his majority. He thanks you for that, big time.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
256 – And we are all now suffering the consequences of that with unprecedented gridlock in Congress. Thanks for that!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Max, dude, I’m just here to help.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
A political party that doesn’t want to win elections is a political party that will die.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Mike Castle would have served Reid’s interests anyway. Same difference.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
258
Nah. I’m in a “purging fire is good for new growth” mood. The humiliation that Gingrich would suffer as nominee is starting to appeal to me as a way to blame the Tea Party, talk radio, and Fox.
Then hopefully Christie can save us from these crazies and Hillary in 2016.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
259. Well apparently, there is no room in this party for we moderate fiscal conservatives. Let’s see how many elections you win without us making you guys look sane.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
tele
replace “help” with “annoy” and you’re on the mark, pal.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
265
He would have voted for a GOP majority leader, GOP chairmen, GOP judges. We could’ve blocked Obama court appointees, his cabinet hacks, and had another branch of government to investigate Holder and other corrupt Obama officials.
But no. You gave us a former witch instead. Thanks.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
267. Not true at all!
All we ask is that you support the party like we have when our conservative candidates lost out to you smarter moderates…like I did when I voted for Dole and McCain.
This is so weird…we are always being told we need to come together for the good of the party…but now…if the shoe might be on the other foot…look how you act!
It’s very unbecoming. Childish actually.
And you guys always say you’re the smart ones.
I am skeptical.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
cas: “Fewer conservatives to vex you.”
Brother, you don’t speak for conservatives. Your reasons for liking Newt and disliking Mitt have nothing to do with conservative values or policy.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Yes, I suppose, if for you the party is everything. For movement conservatives the GOP is a medium of expression—a means to an end—so if elements of the party resist those ends by forwarding candidates who oppose conservative principles, then it is the party itself that is to be resisted. The party elites—the so-called establishment in its various forms—should expect fierce resistance when they forward someone like Willard. This is just reality. Live with it. The party may rise or fall. The movement will persist as long as it remains consistent in its principles with the lived experience of ordinary people who are trying to raise families or make a living.
In return, however, the conservative movement has developed its own media, its own grassroots networks, and its own institutions and other resources that candidates can call upon provided their views are consistent with conservative principle.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Really? He was never able to make that case. Hence, his problem.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
272
That’s not the description of a political movement, it’s the description of a religious cult. The GOP is nothing more now than the teavangelical Christianist cult. In other words, it’s dead.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
270. See Exhibit A: your fellow Newt supporters Causit, SoJo, etc. along with many of your fellow former Sarah supporters. Why don’t you have a little chat with them? Or are they too convenient for your latest cause?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
True. I speak only for myself.
Yes, because it’s all those moderates and independents who have pushed Gingrich up to e.g. 47% in FL, right? Thank you for admitting to Gingrich’s awesome crossover appeal.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
“Fewer conservatives to vex you.”
I wish I had conservatives to vex me, a few Bill Buckleys and Barry Goldwaters.
But I don’t. I’m surrounded by fools Dan Maes and Carl Paladino.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
270 Ugh McCain was not one of ours! He was a national defense conservative, I am a moderate fiscal conservative. Romney was my guy in 07 when I was screaming to the world about coming economic collapse. But oh no! We had to beat Hillary!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
270 Who gives a crap about the Republican Party? It is America that needs saving!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
270 – You are putting your own hate of Romney over the good of the country, and we are the childish ones? Grow up!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
jax,
Hey, aren’t you the guy who told me I was a moron yesterday for saying that Newt will get most of the “John McCain voters 2008″ in the state of Florida?
Have you seen the last 2 FL polls?
…and aren’t you the same guy who said the following just 3 weeks ago?
“Jaxemer11 Says:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
There is nothing to be worried about when it comes to Newt. He will last about three weeks at best. His record is a mess.”
I don’t think you should be calling anyone else here an idoit.
And I never…ever thought you were a Reupublican.
That we can agree on.
I have worked for the GOP longer than you have been alive. I could tell you were more about Mitt than anything else…….
I’m all about defeating Obama with Mitt or Newt.
First time there is weakness in the ROMBORG…the ROMBOTS go fleeing.
Priceless.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
272 – The party means nothing to me. You are so infatuated with your own flawed ideology that you are willing to destroy the country in a foolish mission to punish anyone who disagrees with you. Pure insanity.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Wow, what an ad. The Ron Paul camp nailed this one right on the head.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Newt’s baggage has baggage!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Max: I think you go to far. I really do. Like you I find it obvious that Gingritch is worse than Mitt in every way, especially in terms of corruption, competence and moral values. And although there are some who’s primary beef w/Mitt is based on religion or irrational reasons, there are plenty who dislike him for legitimate flaws.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Newt has been spectacular on Hannity so far tonight. Newt has mentioned the name Reagan about 10 times so far in this interview…no joking.
Very effective.
Newt has also mentioned the name “Jack Kemp” at least 5 times tonight..which warms my heart. I campaign for Jack Kemp in 2007/8 in Iowa…and to hear his name mentioned over and over again by Newt is a real treat for me.
Again, very effective.
Why doesn’t Mitt ever mention the name Reagan?
Mitt did alot in 2007/8…why not now?
Very ineffective.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
If you’re a Republican and think that a FoxNews interview is rough, you might be a Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
286. funny, I thought you were being sarcastic. It may get your blood pumping but to the rest of us it sounds cliche to invoke Reagan every 2 seconds.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
287. No one thinks a Hannity interview is rough. There’s a reason Perry was willing to go there and nowhere else.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Maybe only democratic mormons are good politicians.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
286.
Watching it, Smacks
It is amazing to watch him on his game which is kinda like..always. A great communicator that rivals even a Mike Huckabee.
Comparing all this to Willard’s meltdown yesterday during his interview on the issues.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Craig for Huck,
If you think talking to the masses without a tie makes you connect to the voters…..you might be a Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
289. That was a reference to Mitt whining about Bret Baier yesterday.
Mitt told him in a huff after the interview: “those question were uncalled for!”
LOL poor Willard
November 30th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
If you think declaring out loud that Florida is the place you will seal the GOP nomination was a good idea….. 1 week before 2 Florida Polls shows you getting crushed………..you must be a Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
281
Smack, where did THAT come from? Where are you seeing that that Rombots are fleeing? Or, are you talking about the polls?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
teledude,
Mitt didn’t really say that to Bret Baier after the interview did he?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
294. You’re not CRUSHED until the voting starts and ends. Let’s have this conversation again, then.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
If you’re the only guy who can beat Obama….you must be a Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Keith Price,
That was for Max and jax who have declared they will not be voting for Newt against Obama.
It’s kind of funny that Max has a breakdown 4 hours after he declares Mitt #1 in his own POWER RANKINGS…..hhhuuummmmmmm..
November 30th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Tim,
Rasmussen Poll came out today showing newt beating Obama 45-43.
Did you know Reagan was never ahead of Carter until 1 month before the vote?
So your statement on comment 298# is…well……not to bright.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
296. oh yes he did
http://www.therightscoop.com/bret-baier-romney-told-me-my-questions-were-uncalled-for/
November 30th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
300
Was Reagan ever the most despised Speaker of the House in history driven out of his own party by reality-based members?
It’s not a breakdown to declare if by some horror the Gingrich tragedy happens and he wins the nomination that I will oppose his candidacy on moral grounds.
Some of us have a conscience, and are willing to wait for 2016 for something far better than Obama or Gingrich.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
ftw.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Electoral College projection, Obama vs. Gingrich:
Obama – 451
Gingrich – 76
Tie – 11
Worst. Nominee. Ever.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Max …your posts are uncalled for!
LOL
November 30th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
304.
LOL
I project you will have a stroke if you don’t chill out dude.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
via Twitter:
KurtSchlichter Kurt Schlichter
Watching #Newt on #Hannity. Holy cow, am I coming around like @benshapiro? He’s fantastic tonight. Maybe this guy can win…
November 30th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
What we Rombots should begin to do, if the Gingrich disaster is allowed to endure, is start pressuring the remaining moderates to leave the party publicly. A public mass exodus with Senators like Snowe, Collins, Brown, McCain, Corker, Portman, etc. would be the first move, driving the TeaClowns into a steep minority. The swing-district House republicans should follow suit, leaving the O’Donnell wing powerless throughout Obama’s Gingrich-endorsed second term.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
The ad I want to see is a group of ten former associates explaining together why it is they, as Republicans, will not be supporting Newt after having worked wtih him up close and personal.
They are out there. Like the Cain women they will need to be coaxed. Not one has come out for Newt. There are reasons. Let us hear from them . . . .
November 30th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
308. It’s a nice dream, but I don’t see how a 3rd party every breaks the 2 party duopoly.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Hopefully, if Newt gets the nomination, Paul will go third party, locking in a 50 state sweep for Obama and the total destruction of Gingrich.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
309, Watchin, yeah, that would be good. I posted one a day or 2 ago from someone who worked with him in the House when Newt was Speaker. Called him “evil”.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Watchinitall
I want to see the ad with Marianne Gingrich just reminding us how huge a scumbag Newt is.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
311. Tim, I don’t see how that’s a good thing, at all.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Lesson must be taught to the base unless we want our good nominees to be wrongfully attacked every cycle from now on. Max is right about what they’ll try to do to Christie, Mark Levin has already started with the early smears.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Holy crap on a cracker. Willard really is in an emotional tailspin. Uncalled for?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Yes, thank you, and please start right away, because this has been a part of the Tea Party project from the beginning starting with Dede Scozzafava who—cough, cough—Gingrich—COUGH—endorsed, damn it. Something got stuck in my
crawthroat. But I forgive him this one youthful indiscretion among many others. At least G-Dawg never gave us a program like RomneyCare.If only Willard would pull an Arlen Spector and defect already. You know he wants to. Willard is too far left for Democrat Leadership Committee members who tend to dominate in the South, but he could compete with most Democrat candidates at the national level in the Obama era.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
If you’re talking about completely deserting the Republican Party and wanting to help Obama gain a point or two,
you might be a RINO.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We get it already. This has to be the longest goodbye ever. This is like one of those old cowboy movies where a dying gunfighter clutches at his chest to breath what you think is his last breath only he breaks into a raspy final-words soliloquy that lasts for half the damned film. At this point you want to shout at the screen: WILL ONE OF YOU GRISLED COW-HANDS PLEASE SHOOT THAT MAN AND PUT US ALL OUT OF OUR MISERY?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
320.
lol
rotf
ftw.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Yes, only how do you intend to discipline the base—as in basis, as in the electoral basis of the party itself—when it is precisely the task of the party to interpret and to represent its own constituencies, that is, it’s own base.
Like most Willardists you see the world as upside down. The people do not exist for the party; the party exists to serve the people who constitute the party. Duh. Start your own damned party. Or, like the Tea Partiers, build coalitions from within and participate in primary contests to express your views by means of ballot boxes.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
If they won’t come out for him, maybe Gingrich’s former associates could be interviewed to explain why, in spite of the many 10 day old supporters Gingrich has suddenly acquired, he can’t tap into a wealth of former associates who admire and support him based on long exposure to him.
The longer he goes without getting any of them to sign on with him and endorse him, the weirder it seems.
Maybe they know something we ought to know . . .
November 30th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
322. “Like most Willardists…”
You are an arrogant prick and your generalizations are as empty as your principles.
In 2010 I served as a delegate my state’s convention to boot a corrupt establishment GOP senator and replace him with my Tea Party candidate. It took me a lot of personal time and energy, but we got it done. Barely.
The vast majority of Romney supporters are/were heavily involved in the Tea Party or at least outside fans of the movement. Even now, when morons like you try to assume ownership of the movement and act as though Romney backers are different kind of conservatives, I still recognize the good the Tea Party has done and I’m glad I was involved in it last year. Romney supporters are every bit as principled and patriotic as followers of other candidates. If I were as arrogant as you I’d say we’re much more so. However, unlike you I can recognize that equally enlightened people can weigh qualifications differently and have disagreements.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Newt said that he is not non-Romney, and now is time of Newt VS. non-Newt. I would love to see the end of Romney VS. non-Romney, and more anybody-but-Newt coming.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
325.
I call it Newt Gingrich versus Obama-lite Romney.
Pick one.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Newt’s a better BS artist than Romney.
Both are full of it, though.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
People, if you want to save the party, you have to do all you can to get the word out on Gingrich. Link the Ron Paul ad on Facebook, etc. A grassroots effort to educate the masses on who Newt really is and what he has done. Who is with me? Who will circulate Ron Paul’s ad with me? Let’s make a difference instead of complaining that FOX and others won’t cover this. I am serious, we can go viral with this ad. I am going to do my part right now.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
I’m a huge Romney fan. I thought Bret Baier’s interview of Mitt yesterday was tough, but fair. Mitt’s got to start pushing back or he risks these images of him as a finger-in-the-wind politician setting up like concrete. Rather than get pissed at Bret for asking the question, get pissed at pundits who say it behind his back ad nauseum but won’t bring it up to his face.
Romney needs to step it up at least a notch in this department.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
329 – How was it fair to publicize dishonest DNC cheap shots and then press the candidate when he calls them what they really are? Baer pushed him hard on things that he knew were flat out lies.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:27 am
Baier had publicly commented, previously, about being miffed that Romney had not yet deigned to come on his show. As if he’s the world’s most important journalist. Romney has, obviously, been laying low on the media side and is just now getting himself more air time. Baier used the interview to draw attention to himself as a “tough interviewer” through his weird usage of DNC talking point questions about Romney rather than, say, asking him about the Arab Spring, Syria, China, his jobs plan, or any other relevant issue to the American electorate today. I agree that Romney was a bit peevish during the interview – but Baier was more concerned about how he looked in the interview than about actually interviewing Romney on questions of the day and of concern to the electorate. Once again, a journalist makes himself look small and self-interested, making the journalist the story rather than the story, or “how tough I was in the interview” becomes the story. Ridiculous.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:32 am
We are stuck with Romney unless we nominate Huntsman which as a result seals the election for republicans.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:15 am
Newt’s campaign will be bookended by two cruises; the first in the Greek isles and the second aboard the Titanic, which seems to be boarding now.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:43 am
[...] is only one perfect person, Ron Paul is his name. The little Tin Foil god has a new ad up and running that castigates everything Newt has ever [...]
December 1st, 2011 at 11:35 am
Great ad… if it was coming form the DNC. Welcome to the general election….
What does Paul stand for? Like Huntsman’s ad today, can’t tell from this.
December 1st, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Sojourner
I would be very suspect of this article from NRO. NRO isn’t a huge fan of Romney. They are quick to spin it against him. They really had to go back to 1994 and take his words out of context once again. We don’t know if Romney had read the whole bill or what his side of the story is. The article does not say specifically that he said that he supports a national mandate. This is reaching. The distortions working against Romney throughout the internet are very unfortunate.
We do know for certain that Gingrich has expressed his support for an individual national mandate as late as May or March of this year.
Rob …12
A National Mandate that Gingrich supports is vastly different from a mandate on a state level and Romney does not support it for every state. Only states with a low number of uninsured and a balanced budget or low debt level. Each state should craft their own plan that suits that state.
January 15th, 2012 at 10:20 am
I’m not sure the place you’re getting your information, but good topic. I must spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for excellent information I was looking for this information for my mission.
January 15th, 2012 at 10:31 am
certainly like your website but you have to check the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very troublesome to tell the truth nevertheless I’ll definitely come again again.
January 15th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Simply wish to say your article is as astounding. The clarity on your put up is just cool and i can think you’re knowledgeable on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to take hold of your feed to stay up to date with impending post. Thanks a million and please continue the rewarding work.
January 20th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Hi there, simply was alert to your weblog via Google, and located that it is truly informative. I?m going to be careful for brussels. I?ll be grateful in case you continue this in future. Numerous other people can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!