From Pajamas Media:
The so-called Fairness Doctrine is the anti-First Amendment now unenforced Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule which chilled free speech on the radio from its FCC creation in 1949 until the Commission voted to stop its enforcement in 1987.
The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (H.R. 1934) sprung up immediately after this latter vote to try to turn the Doctrine into law. Then Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich was one of its 71 co-sponsors.
I can’t for the life of me find the final vote, so I do not know if Gingrich voted for it – though it would be a might strange for someone to co-sponsor a bill and then not say Aye.
I did find a pro-Fairness Doctrine video that says the bill passed the House by a 3-1 margin – and that Gingrich voted for it.
It also passed the Senate – but President Ronald Reagan thankfully then broke out his veto pen.
This was all of course in the midst of the dark days of the Republicans’ 40+ years spent wandering in the House Minority wilderness, so there was rarely any need for any Elephant to sponsor anything – they were an irrelevant species.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:37 am
THE single most anti-liberty doctrine enacted during my lifetime, and Newt was FOR it.
Please, Newters…..riddle me this.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:38 am
Newt expanding his pool of voters, that’s all.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
1.
That’s rich!
A mandate and $50 abortion loving Rombot talking about liberty.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
There is not one single true conservative in existence who could ever support the Fairness Doctrine.
#2, answer the policy question, not the political one. Fairness Doctrine is tantamount to a seizure of the most protected of free speech. It’s worse than McCain-Feingold. It’s worse than the wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act. It’s worse than excessive taxation. It’s worse than gun control.
And Newt was FOR IT.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:41 am
#3, forget the strawman. Forget me. Please discuss the Fairness Doctrine, and why it’s okay for Newt to support it.
Thanks.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:42 am
Craig for Huck Says:
A mandate and $50 abortion loving Rombot talking about liberty.
=====================================
Your such a liar…..
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:44 am
#3: What is this, 1984? Abortion rights are pro-liberty.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:44 am
Yes, this was a mistake—bygones!—what else have you got? Anything as damning as RomneyCare with its US$50.00 abortions?
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:45 am
Notice how they’re still not answering the question.
It’s the Goodyear Blimp!
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:45 am
Not if you’re making me pay for your your abortion.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:45 am
He has the ability to bring all factions of the party together like no other candidate. (and polls show he is doing just that)
Besides…Newt has grown. He does not support the fairness doctrine now.
He is not the man he was in 1987. Everyone tends to be a little more liberal in their youth…you know he would never advocate anything like that now.
Hell, Ronald Reagan was originally a democrat!
1987 don’t play in today’s game
You guys are a hoot!
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:46 am
Asked and answered. Bygones. What else you got? Tell me that you can do better than this! Gingrich has a long record that you can mine.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 am
And I’m sure you’d say the same thing if it was Romney doing this in 1987.
I’m 100% positive. Yep.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:48 am
#10 — write this down on the calendar. I actually fully agree with casuist on something.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:48 am
Willardists to howl about double standards in 4, 3, 2 … and 1 …
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:50 am
What I don’t agree with is the notion that somehow Romney supported $50 abortions in Massachusetts. Pitiful and intellectually dishonest mis-characterization.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:50 am
casuist: bygones for Gingrich, but $50 abortions enacted by a liberal Senate (not Romney) is unforgiveable? And the hypocrisy shows…
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 am
See? The double standard argument.
Yes, you are correct, Booyeah, we would be hammering Willard up and down about this issue if he had had his fingerprints on it because it supports a larger narrative about the Willard that continues to unfold to this day as e.g. in his on-again off-again support for the notion of anthropogenic climate change.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 am
Tele at 11.
Besides…Newt has grown. He does not support the fairness doctrine now.
He is not the man he was in 1987. Everyone tends to be a little more liberal in their youth…you know he would never advocate anything like that now.
Hell, Ronald Reagan was originally a democrat!
1987 don’t play in today’s game
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yet you don’t seem very willing to apply that logic to Romney.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:54 am
Absolutely unforgivable now and for all time because Willardists actually defend them. One Willardist posted to this very site Willard’s talking points about the RomneyCare abortion provisions which tried to argue on grounds of pure sophistry that while abortions were made cheaper and more available through public subsidies that Willard signed into law, RomneyCare itself made abortions safer and rarer hence making abortions cheap and plentiful returned an opposite outcome that every pro-lifer should applaud, right? This is the very definition of sophistry, by the way, where you argue that a brute fact is actually its opposite.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:54 am
I’m beginning to think that even if Ronald Reagan’s ghost came back and endorsed Romney, Craig for Huck would still find a way to lie about Romney’s record.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
“Not if you’re making me pay for your your abortion.”
Nobody is making you pay for anything. You don’t live in the US or even MA. Why should anyone here care at all about what you have to say on anything fiscal. You have no skin in the game.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
3 You need to stop with that $50 BS if you’re going to be taken seriously.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
Heck, even if Gov. Huckabee endorsed Romney, Craig for Huck would still be lying about $50 abortions.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
8 “Yes, this was a mistake—bygones!—what else have you got? Anything as damning as RomneyCare with its US$50.00 abortions?”
What a moron you are.
How about this, you idiot,
“RomneyCare with its US$50.00 abortions, yes, this was a mistake—bygones!—what else have you got?”
Oh, I forgot, you are one of the Composite Not-Romney Morons. One standard for Romney and a totally different standard for everyone else.
That makes you a BIGOT!
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
1987? Really? That’s what we’re using to attack Newt on?
I don’t care that Perry was a Dem in ’88 campaigning for Gore & I don’t care that Gingrich supported this in ’87. The way they act now is more pressing. The way they served since then in offices is more important.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 am
Newt Gingrich Co-Sponsored Fairness Doctrine Bill.
Composite Not-Romney Morons hardest hit.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 am
And obviously this wouldn’t fit into a larger narrative of Newt supporting (ardently) F&F, working for them to build good will in the GOP caucus, saying they’re a model of efficiency, then saying we should jail those who profited from them.
Or perhaps being for a national mandate until a few months ago.
Or perhaps appearing VERY recently in a climate change commercial.
If these are ALL merely mistakes, then the narrative that the Fairness Doctrine supports is that he is a guy who can never get anything right. More accurately, though, he’s just a weasel.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 am
Yes, precisely, because this logic doesn’t apply to Willard. He NEVER repudiates himself; he never takes a position critical of himself. In his own testimony he’s always been steadfast in his convictions, which immediately removes from him the logic of growth born in principle that we can apply to other candidates of higher mettle.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 am
Here’s the thing for you Romney supporters to try to understand.
Mitt’s inauthentic persona makes people not trust him when he changes positions. ‘I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!” sums up his core values perfectly. Trust is probably the most important thing for a presidential candidate to gain, and Mitt can’t make the sale.
Everyone in political life changes positions on things. Mitt’s problems are much deeper…they just get expressed in short hand: flip flopper.
it’s more than that.
Newt has had a lot of bad ideas. He has supported some very liberal legislation over his long career.
But we trust what he is saying NOW. He has a record of advancing the conservative agenda that is unmatched.
No one on this race is perfect…it is not a great field.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 am
I posted this at the Child Labor post, but that one seems to be quiet now, so forgive me for the spamming to come.
Where’s Newt getting his great energy ideas? Looks like he’s getting them from Mitt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69570.html
Title: Newt Gingrich Recycles Mitt Romney’s Environment Agenda
Smartest guy in the room!
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 am
And another one.
How did Newt really feel about GSEs?
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34603
Title: Unearthed: Gingrich Makes the Case for GSE’s on Freddie Mac’s Web Site in 2007/2008
This interview is great. Newt basically calls himself a big government conservative and distances himself from the libertarian strand of conservatism that has become the main focus of the Republican party.
I searched and searched to find where he warned Freddie and Fanny about their lending policies and how they were stupid. Guess what? Couldn’t find them. What a charlatan Newt is.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:58 am
8. Even YOU KNOW the 50 dollar mandate was not in Mass Care until someone (NOT MITT) put it there. but of course, honesty and integrity is not your strong suit, that’s obvious.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:58 am
Come people, put the pieces of the puzzle together. Newt is nutz. He’s all over the place. He is NOT like Ronald Reagan, who made a conscious decision overtime to change from Dem to Pub, from pro-choice to pro-life, from amnesty for illegals to realizing it was a big mistake.
Newt is not like Mitt, who has changed to pro-life and has intentionally moved to the right after leaving the Mass governership. Newt’s mother was manic/depressive. Newt shows all the signs.
Newt was having oral sex in a parking lot where his children might have seen him. Tom Coburn wrote a book telling of Newt’s horror as speaker. Newt’s been on a different side of every issue in a manic, random way. He just sounds good in the debate so the stupid, stupid, stupid Teavangelicals are running around like groupies on crack.
If you simply cannot vote for Mitt, then go for Santorum or Bachmann. Of course, if we nominate Newt, he will never beat Obama, I don’t care what the ninny know-nothings say in the current polls. Newt’s craziness will not escape the Obama machine. Why do you think Obama is running ads against Mitt and not Newt?
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:58 am
Newt denying he did what is mentioned in my post at 32.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/newt-gingrich-defends-his-post-congressional-lobbying-gig-with-freddie-mac/
No more spamming from me, I promise.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:59 am
Yes, I am bigoted against lies and error. Just terribly intolerant. I will not allow lies or error to move into my neighbourhood.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
#31 Rob: Ha Ha! Yes, Newt’s environmental policy does have a familiar ring.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
Teledulisionial. Actually it’s a decent field with one out standing candidate. Bachman and Santorum are decent – and I could vote for them if they got the nom. Less enthusiastically for Bachmann. But Romney – he has what it takes. Period.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.
In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America’s most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.
The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.
http://www.newt.org/answers#Fairness
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
Translation: Please, conservatives, divide your vote again and fight among yourselves because otherwise Willard “17% to Gingrich’s 38%” doesn’t stand a chance.
Newsflash: Willard never stood a chance anyway.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:02 am
Go Gingrich!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:04 am
Um, casuist, you do know that Newt has been on record, very publically, in a number of different venues, supporting anthropogenic global warming? Not just the Pelosi commercial, but a climate change forum with John Kerry? And, tell me, what exactly was his position on the subject in the book “The Contract with the Earth”? You might also want to do a little research–assuming you actually know what research is and how to conduct it rather than endlessly repeating big words you don’t understand–on the Center for Health Transformation. I’m pretty confident everything this Gingrich-affiliated think tank published on healthcare does not exactly meet 2011 standards of healthcare purity as applied to Mitt Romney.
Look, Newt’s said and done some really smart things. You just have to sort through a lot of unfiltered idea vometing to find them. No filter, no discipline, and instantly and irrepressably attracted to any shiny new idea which pops into his head. Perfectly acceptable traits in a professor or the head of a think tank. Not so good in a President. And not the sharp conservative contrast with Romney everyone likes to pretend.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:05 am
The links I just posted have one over arching theme. Newt is dishonest in his public life. He has full out lied about his involvement with Freddie and Fanny.
Teledude’s post at 30 just absolutely floors me. Really? You trust what he is saying?
If people feel like Mitt is a panderer, fine, that is your right. But to support Newt while simultaneously calling Mitt a panderer or flip flopper or saying Mitt has no core is ridiculous.
People, myself included, have said that Newt’s baggage was already baked into the cake. We were so, so wrong. Newt is a cornucopia of crap to hand to the Democrats. There is not enough time in the next year to pull out every stupid thing Newt has said.
I could care less how well Newt will do in the debates against Obama, because by that point, it really won’t matter. The moment Newt looks like he will secure the nomination, you will see hail, fire and brimstone fall down on him from the DNC and team Chicago.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:06 am
Yes, bygones. Youthful indiscretion. An error in judgment. Whatever. He has nothing like RomneyCare on his record.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
Yes, and here he is at nearly 50% in FL. No wonder Willardist heads are spinning so hard that time is almost moving backwards.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
39 – So in other words, liberalism is alright if it hurts the other side.
Newt is a partisan to the core. His philosophy is whatever aggrandizes himself and hurts his opponents is right.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
45 The entire campaign would be about what crazy thing that Gingrich said or did that the media decided to bring up that week.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
39 “Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade . . . ”
So it is just another thing he has flip flopped on.
Newton is the biggest flip flopper in the race.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:09 am
The charge stands no matter what agent or agency approved the subsidy—whether court ordered or otherwise—as it was RomneyCare itself as state law that enabled the subsidy to begin with. No RomneyCare, no RomneyCare mandatory coverage for abortions forced on insurance providers. Duh.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:09 am
casuist,
You are the epitome of bigoted, full of lies and error, and terribly intolerant.
I am glad I don’t live in your neighborhood.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:10 am
Um, he’s partisan, yet he’s only in it for himself? How does that follow when the term PARTIsan itself means fidelity to the position of a PARTy?
He’s one or the other. He can’t be both.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:11 am
I’m not sitting here with my Mitt button on, trying to bring everybody into the fold,” said Mr. Christie, the vice chairman of the governors association.
“It’s not my job. It’s his job.”
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:11 am
Boo,
“Fairness Doctrine is tantamount to a seizure of the most protected of free speech.”
Really?
I mean, I’m against the Fairness Doctrine and all, but are we really going to say that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the most protected of free speech.”
More so than say, your priest, pastor, or rabbi? More so than what you say to your friends, colleagues, and neighbors?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:11 am
What is so delicious about all this is seeing the Rombots arguing the flip flipper meme.
Okay…we’re stuck with a couple flip floppers.
Which one should we pick?
I’ll take the one who can (and has) articulated the conservative message in a believable manner and isn’t afraid to do so, and can destroy Obama in a debate…not the cupcake who focus group tests every utterance in fear of being politically incorrect.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:12 am
Because you live far from the truth. If you ever choose to move closer to the truth I would welcome you with open arms provided you pass through a short probationary period.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:12 am
If talk radio is truly “the most protected of free speech,” why can’t Rush use the “f” word?
I can.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 am
What is ironic is how the Willardists rail against the conservative media that the fall of the fairness doctrine made possible.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 am
56. It is obvious that you are delusional.
LOL!!!!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 am
casuist,
“I would welcome you with open arms provided you pass through a short probationary period.”
Jews believe in purgatory?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:14 am
Go Gingrich!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:15 am
“But we trust what he is saying NOW. He has a record of advancing the conservative agenda that is unmatched.” Really? Unmatched? Paul Ryan has done more serious work on entitlement reform in six months than Newt did in forty years in elected office. Bobby Jindal’s five years of conservative governance of Louisiana showed more real, practically-adopted innovations than did Newt’s six years as speaker. Pat Toomey, Tom Coberhn, and yes, Rick Santorum have been better warriors on cultural and economic issues respectively.
Newt has done a lot of good things. The Contract with America was a brilliant campaign strategy, and in so far as he accomplished it, was very effective. Newt deserves a lot of credit for the house victories in 1994, just as he deserves a lot of the blame for Republicans’ utter mishandling of Clinton’s second term. He’s a very smart, very eratic man with no executive experience, whose primary qualification is the ability to speak more convincingly than anyone else on stage. I’m not convinced, however, that these are really the qualities we need in the 45th President. Romney’s far from perfect, and far from the rock-ribbed conservative governotr of a difficult state who was able to accomplish a lot of conservative goals in tough environments that we had in Tim Pawlenty. But he’s pretty much the closest thing we’ve got at the moment, and it sure looks as though he’s got a better shot at beating Obama than anyone else.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:17 am
Okay, now the Rombots have a serious explanation for their hapless candidate. And finally, after years without a plausible explanation, Mitt can point to Newt’s support for the Fairness Doctrine as the reason why Mitt was opposed to the GOP of Reagan/Bush.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:18 am
We’re all over the map. The Jews in my tradition, however—I attend a Chabad Lubavitch shul—believe that hell, if you end up there, only lasts as long as a year if you’ve been particularly evil, say, like Hitler or something, and it is a place not of punishment but of cleansing so that your soul, which is a part of the infinite, can return to the infinite where it belongs, and where it longs to return.
http://www.chabadvi.org/ (my daughter’s face is the second from the right on the bottom row, the little blonde girl face)
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:19 am
Marque,
The Rombots have already told us (many times) that Mitt was an Independent during Reagan/Bush and didn’t want to return to Reagan/Bush because…… Reagan wasn’t conservative enough for Mitt.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:19 am
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one even as I point out that Willard has done a terrible job of convincing anyone of his so-called conservative principles.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:20 am
…..that’s why he ran to Reagan’s right any time he campaigned in Massachusetts.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 am
Casuist: “youthful indiscretions”? Huh? The Center for Health Transformation opened it’s doors within the last ten years. I believe Contract with the Earth was published in 05 or 06. Gingrich supported the kind of individual mandates Romney enacted at Heritage, also within the past ten years. Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s budget–the only serious crack at entitlement reform anyone has taken since the New Deal as far as I can tell– “right-wing social engineering” less than six months ago.
Your malleable definition of a youthful indiscretion is positively Clintonian.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:24 am
I would vote for Clinton—either one, take your pick—before I would vote for Willard, as each stands to the right of Willard in their policy positions and their records in office.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Romney is damaged goods now. He was exposed on Fox and ridiculed everywhere. And how does a man survive being called “cupcake” by a woman? He has been publicly emasculated.
If you notice the dems have retreated in their criticism, not wanting to be held responsible for what could may turn into a complete nervous breakdown. That is not a man who can lead a party, much less a country.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Newt opposes the left’s efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and vocally supported Rep. Mike Pence’s 2007 bill that prohibited government censorship in radio.
Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.
In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America’s most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.
The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Here is a picture of me flying a kite with my daughter at a Jewish event: http://www.chabadviphotos.org/LagBOmer_5771/ photo 1/21
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 am
MWS, I’m referring to political speech. It is unquestionably the very essence of the First Amendment.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:28 am
“youthful indiscretions” is ONGOING for Newton because Newton still hasn’t grown up.
Got it.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:28 am
I don’t know casuist, Romney managed to convince Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and National Review he was the most electable conservative in 2008, so I can’t say he’s been a total failure in that respect. Not exactly a line-up of credulous Rombot cloans, those folks. That many of them are now dissing him as hard as they are owes, I think, more to the fear of diluding the general election candidate’s ability to attack Obamacare. I totally get that, but with Newt we get that plus marrital infidelity and a hyper-intelligent but hyper-active and totally unfiltered brain with about a fifty percent chance of saying something catastrophically dumb on any given day. Myself, I’ll take the less flawed flip-flopper with executive experience over the one who managed to piss off his house colleagues so badly that almost none of them, from that time, are endorsing him now. If I thought for one second Rick Santorum had a chance in heck of beating Obama I’d probably back him right away. Barring that, or drafting Jindal or Pawlenty, it’s Mitt.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:29 am
could/may?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:29 am
71. “Newt opposes the left’s efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine . . . ”
Ok, so Newton FLIP FLOPPED on it.
Just add that to the very LONG list of flip flops for the Newton.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Romney’s been Newtered. Get it? I know. Puns are the lowest form of humour.
Willard himself as disappeared into the warm embrace of his loving family to recover from only the latest in a long series of painful humiliations. We miss him sorely as he was the progressive foil for the conservative candidates.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:31 am
Since it’s boring arguing with people who make up their own facts, I was wondering if there’s ANY chance Romney would promise to cover Cain’s debts if he stays in the race? I know it’s not likely, and I’m not really sure it helps Romney, but do you think that could happen?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
39.
Thank you, Dan
And sorry for the Rombots’ behaviour.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
Newt is not your average flipper. Newt is nutz. He is all over the place. He just sounds so convincing while spouting one contradictory position after another. Even if he could win the general election, can you imagine the chaos in the White House if he were to win?
Newt has mental health issues. Look into it.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 am
More youthful indiscretion. History proved them flat wrong. I, however, was perfectly correct in my estimation of Willard’s prospects in 2008.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 am
Um, Hilary Clinton isn’t to the right of anybody who’s been a Republican general election standard-bearer since at least Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton really isn’t either, unless you’re talking about Bill 1996, who basically won by…oh, right, demonizing Newt Gingrich.
Romney is well to the right of any Democratic nominee in the past 75 years. Claiming otherwise says more about your lack of political knowledge than it does about Romney or the Clintons. Even Gary Johnson–an ardent social liberal and non-interventionist–is probably practically well to the right of any such Democratic nominee on most every issue save drug legalization.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 am
40.casuist Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
If you simply cannot vote for Mitt, then go for Santorum or Bachmann.
Translation: Please, conservatives, divide your vote again and fight among yourselves because otherwise Willard “17% to Gingrich’s 38%” doesn’t stand a chance.
Newsflash: Willard never stood a chance anyway.
===
Comment of the DAY!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:34 am
#79 – LOL. That would smell like desperation all the way in Nairobi.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:34 am
casuist,
Nice pictures. I never pegged you as the kite flying sort, however….
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
Maybe my biggest problem with Newt is my religious bigotry. I disapprove of his polygamy.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
3:
So how is it Romney’s fault if courts decide that $50 dollar abortion belongs to health care plan?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
I have got so little done this week because this site has just been so entertaining!
Holy crap…what a week!
More fun than a human being should be allowed to have!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
All great leaders are a little nuts. http://coexistencejournal.com/?p=25
This is just one of Willard’s problems. He’s drearily sane. He’s just not that bright.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
Boo,
Again, I’m against the Fairness doctrine, but it’s hardly the supreme test of our civilization. Speech on the radio is already restricted.
Same with broadcast media.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
Fool me once, shame shame, fool me twice, don’t get fooled again…
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
26. Matthew. It’s fair to look at Newt’s actual legislative record. If he had a VOTING record that was more recent, then, yes, we should look at that. But, we don’t. So, we use what we’ve got.
But, there’s PLENTY of more recent stuff he’s SAID since then.
The funny thing is, many Newters, here have said SAYING something is not as bad as VOTING or SIGNING something (i.e. Smack said Newt’s vocal support for mandates is not as bad as Mitt’s signing one).
So,Newts legislative record is fair game.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 am
ROTFL. ftw.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 am
Did it? We ran John McCain, the not-Romney of 2008, and his campaign sank because…he said and did eratic things on economic issues, clearly without consulting his advisors first. In fact, whimsical is probably the best description for every campaign decision McCain ever made…which kind of seems a bit like Newt’s past history of policy positions. Does anyone think nominating a candidate who magnifies many of the flaws of our 08 offering is a good way to get Obama reelected, or is it just me?
[To which casuist replies; partial quote of above..Willard bad!]
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:38 am
I would appreciate it if you guys would quit trying to smear us with Christine O’Donnell
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/christine-odonnell-rejected-by-iowa-tea-party-groups-again/
it’s just not accurate or honest
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
70.PabloZed Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Romney is damaged goods now. He was exposed on Fox and ridiculed everywhere. And how does a man survive being called “cupcake” by a woman? He has been publicly emasculated.
If you notice the dems have retreated in their criticism, not wanting to be held responsible for what could may turn into a complete nervous breakdown. That is not a man who can lead a party, much less a country.
===
Exactly.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
Yes it is! Go for it. See how much traction it gets you among conservatives.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:40 am
Gingrich: I’m not perfect.
Romney: I am.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:41 am
Newt is practically a socialist on national issues and almost aligns right with Obama on cap and trade etc. Newt will take the whole party down.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:41 am
#89 – I haven’t had the most productive week either. Can’t believe it’s Friday. I need to learn from Romney how to disappear while being present.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Mark G: Who is a more consistent electable alternative in this field? Newt is sometimes more conservative, and sometimes a lot more progressive. Depends on which Newt shows up on any given day. Bachmann, Cain and Santorum can’t win a general, Huntsman can’t get any traction in the primary, Paul will instantly lead all sane foreign policy analysts to defect to Obama or vote third party, and Johnson will probably end up going third party himself.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
It was our Rabbi’s idea of a joke. The Yiddish word for Jew is Yiddishkiet—Yiddish … kite … get it? I know. I hate puns too. You can find my wife—the woman in the green hat—at picture 37 of 121 at the same link. I can’t find any pictures of my son. Apparently he didn’t make the cut.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:43 am
95 They want another Washington insider but to double down on the affairs, and corruption scandals, minus the military service and we’re supposed to think it will work this time.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:43 am
ROTFL. ftw.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:44 am
AJ, Romney was the quintessential conservative back in 07/08. Try to keep up.
He has since softened his three-legged stools.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:45 am
Willard served in the military? No? You say he fled to France when he was of age to serve in Vietnam?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:45 am
re: Christine O’Donnell
“Specifically of concern:
* Ms. O’Donnell’s statements that Tea Partiers should unite regardless of which candidate wins.
* Statements expressing her personal leanings to be 70% in support of Mitt Romney.
* Statements regarding her personal donations to his campaign.”
Ha!
Take that Willarists/O’Donnellists!
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
OK., it took me a moment to get that … ROTFL.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
106 “He has since softened his three-legged stools.”
WOW!!! Your just another stupid Composite NOT-Romney Moron.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
We so-called Rombots support Mitt because he has always been the best of the bunch. This has been proved by the fact that all the non-Mitt’s have fallen on their own accord, having been shown to be unfit for office. Newt languished at the bottom for a reason. Now HE has bubbled up and he may be the least fit for office of any of them.
Look at him en toto. Newt is a disaster. Sure, he has good things for him, but he cannot be trusted as the most powerful person on the planet.
I own a small (50 employees), but complex business. Would I choose Mitt or Newt to run it for me for a few weeks? What would I come back to? Case closed.
PS: No “cupcake” has ever been able to accomplish what Mitt has in his life. Get a grip on reality.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:47 am
O’Donnell hearts Willard. I think she wants that endorsement payola that Willard spreads around like scented lotion at a swinger’s club.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
No. That doesn’t follow. What’s the real reason?
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
95.
A.J. the Rombot,
Rombots,
Say we nominate Willard Romney (the dim-witted architect of ObamneyCare’s monstrous mandates, subsidies, and exchanges who our base despises) INSTEAD OF Newt Gingrich (who carries a lifetime 94% ACU voting record which is higher than Jesse Helms, you Rombot jackasses) — it would be like nominating Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain again, which would be politically insane, imho.
How did those three mushy moderates work out? Did we gain or LOSE seats those years?
You know the answer.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
AJ, everyone else in the field is more consistently conservative than Mitt and Newt. Both of them have been all over the map. The only differences between them that I can see is marital fidelity and the fact that Mitt is sort of an ineloquent parody of Gingrich.
Oh, and I guess there’s the minor point that Newt actually managed to get conservative ideas passed into law. He failed to get any progressive legislation crafted and passed, an area where Mitt is a notable standout.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:51 am
113.
We know.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:51 am
But will they admit it, at least to themselves. My magic eightball says “all signs point to YES”! My magic eightball is never wrong as evidenced by Willard’s tanking numbers as Willard supporters defect to Gingrich.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:52 am
I know we know. But I want one of them to come out and say it (again).
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:54 am
Go failed progressive! Would rather have one of those than a successful progressive any day of the week.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:54 am
#111 – There are plenty of rich cupcakes, missionary cupcakes, and certainly plenty of bishops who are as well. You don’t find many fighting on the frontlines, or breaking their backs in the fields or mines. No, the cupcakes are the elite, the effete, the ones who stay home while the men go to war.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:56 am
102.
AJ,
You conveniently forgot Perry.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:58 am
Craig for Huck at 114:
“you Rombot jackasses”
Truly the sign of small and petty mind.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I love how people are so tough as to call other people jackasses on the internet. He belongs with the pseudo-tough moderators at Redstate.
Pansy.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Craig: I thought you’d been hanging around here long enough to know I was one of the original TPawns. And McCain had an 89 percent ACU rating. I’d be willing to bet Dole’s was pretty high as well. Know what else all the candidates you mentioned have in common? They’re all not governors. Governors win, legislators don’t, when running for President. Fact.
Mark G: I’ll agree that several of the other candidates are more consistently conservative than Mitt or Newt. But can you really imagine Bachmann or Santorum beating Obama?
Huntsman…maybe. Depends on whether he could consolidate the base. I personally prefer Mitt’s (rather consistent) foreign policy hawkishness to Huntsman’s sorta kinda but not really foreign policy realism (Newt, to be fair, has been…more or less…consistent on this issue), but Huntsman would be a credible and plausible nominee.
I’ll vote for whoever we nominate, but I want the most conservative candidate who can actually beat Obama. Right now, that looks like Mitt Romney to me, because I can’t see that Newt ois actually more conservative than Romney, and he’s certainly less electable.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
As for me I’ll take the one that has not lived in the world of DC politics for the last 20 years and been a direct link to what has become what we hate so much in DC. I’ll also take the one that I can look to as a good example of high character quality instead of an admitted serial adulterer. I’ll take the one that has a history of turning things around that have been broken (multiple companies via Bain, Massachusetts that was on the verge of bankruptcy, & SLC Olympics)
You go ahead and take the bloviating college professor that can talk like nobody else. Last I checked we already had one of those in the WH. I’d like to replace him with something different.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
118.
Everytime a Rombot sees the light, a Fallen Angel gets his wings.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:02 pm
No. That doesn’t follow. What’s the real reason you support Willard?
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
121 Craig: *smacks head* Doh, I did forget Perry. Honestly, had he run a better campaign, I could have considered supporting him. “Fed up” was a pretty good book, with some solid and nuanced arguments for federalism. Unfortunately Perry never made the sale for himself, and while I don’t want a candidate who’s _all_ talk, I shudder to think how Perry would handle himself against Obama if he can’t take Mitt or Newt in a debate (then again, he got out-degbated by 9-11 truther Deborah Madina in the 2010 TX gubernatorial primary, so I suppose that wasn’t really that surprising).
There, is the honor of all Perrywinkles past and present satisfied?
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
128.
AJ,
As past president of the Perrywinkle Marching & Chowder Society at RACE42012, I sadly agree.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
#125
STUCK IT RIGHT ON!
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Casuist:
You caught me. My brain has been occupied by an evil Rombot robotic parasite, produced deep within the heart of either Beacon Hill or Salt Lake City, depending on which conspiracy theory is in vogue at the moment. This robotic parasite has reprogrammed me to believe that Mitt Romney is the source of all goodness and light, and can do no wrong. All those who disagree must be exterminated…
For crying out loud dude, it’s called rational political calculation. This is what happens when a person, given his/her core beliefs and values, and desire to actually win elections, tries to determine which candidate will actually be the best fit. It’s a process rarely engaged in by people talking about politics on the internet, I know, but it does occasionally happen, and on this site more often than others. Of course, the symptoms of rational calculation are difficult for many irrational, paranoid or hyper-partisan individuals to understand, particularly given that two people with reasonably similar beliefs can actually make different rational calculations. A messy process, and not as emotionally satisfying as a good fanatical tyrade or three, but there you have it.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Ben at 125, perfect. Just perfect.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
72.
Fun times
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Craig: Good. I would have hated the necessity for us to engage in an E-duel at twenty paces, though I assume we could have agreed on the Book of Concord as the weapon of choice?
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
131.
AJ,
Who did you settle on in the ’08 primaries?
(And don’t say Romney
)
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Casuist at 127, why don’t you and your buddy Craig have some intestinal fortitude and pony up the balls to make the accusation you are insinuating?
Oh that’s right, we all know that all Rombots are Mormons chomping at the bit to get Romney elected so we can establish a Mormon new world order.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Touché, AJ.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
The idea that ANYONE could take Gingrich seriously for the ‘highest’ office in the land is so preposterous that it renders serious discussion impossible.
Fortunately, he has no organization in Iowa and doesn’t have the time or money to form one….which means he will underperform there, leading to a severe beating in New Hampshire, out of which he won’t get one of the 2 tickets.
Sanity will prevail and the Party will be saved from electoral disaster.
Gingrich is going DOWN.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Newt is less likable than Cain, more hypocritical than Mitt, more bombastic than Michele, has less governing experience than Perry, is less charming than Paul and has fewer brains than Huntsmann.
If Republicans really, truly believe that this guy is their ticket to the White House, they should go for it. They get what they deserve.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Rob,
Chill, sometimes. It’s only Poli Sci 101.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
CF Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“If Republicans really, truly believe that this guy is their ticket to the White House, they should go for it.”
Democrat,
Thank you. You see the light..
And a Fallen Angel just got her wings
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
#136 – most, not all.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
138.Dave Says:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“Gingrich is going DOWN.”
And per Rombot logic, you mean UP.
I’ve checked the new polls coming out shortly…
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Go Gingrich!
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Up is down. Dark is light. Cold is hot. Willard is a conservative. You get the idea. Everything is the opposite in Willardville.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Here’s an interesting post about Newt’s trajectory…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
It doesn’t sound like Rush got the news yet!
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:57 pm
146. And, a scathing concluding paragraph from the same article…
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Another scathing commentary about Newt…
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
142 “#136 – most, not all.”
Thanks for admitting that with you, it is about religion, and not politics.
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
146 “This week we reached Stage 2 in the surge of the latest not-Romney contender. Stage 1 is: “Our conservative savior!” Stage 2 is when conservatives begin to realize: “Oh wait, this guy’s worse than [fill in the blank], the prior not-Romney candidate.” Stage 3 is when the candidates’ shills and misinformed mainstream reporters announce that he’s not harmed by Stage 2. Stage 4 is when Stage 2 sinks in with the electorate at large. Stage 5 is the decline in polls. And Stage 6 is the beginning of the search for the new Stage 1.”
Hitting the nail on the head.
We are at Newton stage 2.
Stages 3, 4, 5 & 6 to follow in the next four weeks.
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
151. Let’s hope so, Bill.
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Fairness Doctrine?
Rush, if he has any spine, would demolish Newt over this.
My bet is, he has no spine.
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
146 I’m having visions of Newt flashdancing to “he’s a maniac, maniac! On the floor!”
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
[...] Co-Sponsored Fairness Doctrine Bill I wonder what other anti-conservative thing he supports. Newt Gingrich Co-Sponsored Fairness Doctrine Bill | Race 4 2012 The so-called Fairness Doctrine is the anti-First Amendment now unenforced Federal Communications [...]
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
This is it, this will be one of the nails that will crucify Gingrich. I cant wait for you all to see the show we’re about to put on. It’s going to be incredible.
December 2nd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Hannity 2007 Interview: Newt Gingrich on “Fairness Doctrine”
In part:
Gingrich:
“I think a conservative ought to introduce a bill that calls for equal time in Hollywood, equal time on college campuses, equal time in the “New York Times” editorial page, equal time at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and “Time” and “Newsweek,” and then we could have a conversation. But, as you point out, this is an absurdity. You’ve got — Congressman Mike Pence has the right bill. He’s introduced a bill to block any effort to impose government censorship on talk radio.”
“No, look, Sean, this is affirmative action for liberalism. They tried talk radio; they couldn’t succeed. Nobody wanted to listen to them. They were boring. They were dumb. When they were in a competitive environment, they got crushed.”
“And so what they want us to do now is give liberals, whether they earn it or not, access to the airwaves, even if nobody wants to listen to them. And their goal, frankly, is to kill your radio show, Bill Bennett’s, Rush Limbaugh’s, Michael Reagan, all the various hundreds of local shows around the country, our good friend Neal Boortz.”
“And why do they want to kill it? They want to kill it because every time we have an extended conversation with the American people, liberalism falls apart and its ideas collapse.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/newt_gingrich_on_fairness_doct.html
December 3rd, 2011 at 10:17 am
[...] Newt Gingrich Co-Sponsored Fairness Doctrine Bill [...]
December 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I have to laugh with the Republican front runners being Romney, Gingrich and Perry. The Republicans must be demented to think these liberal light politicians will cause the base to come out and vote. Just another example to show that the Republicans aren’t the answer but part of the problem.
December 3rd, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Gingrich come up to our C>D> #19 NY with a RINO to run against Joe Dioguardiwho was good enough to beat Bella Abzug, was the only CPA ever elected to the House, but not good enough to STAY IN CONGRESS !!!WHY ???
December 3rd, 2011 at 1:25 pm
I want to vote for a candidate who is as intelligent or more intelligent as I am. I submit, most of what I know of these candidates is from the debates in general, but there are only 3 candidates that fit that criteria: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Other than them, the rest give specious answers, butcher historical facts, have no clue what the question is about, and/or are so ideological, they can’t break out of character and just answer the question.
So given that, I am left with one man who is deeply flawed because he is a career politician and had to vote, sponsored bills, and/or advocated for things that create a hypocrisy to his present position/platform (Newt) a man who is literally on both sides of every single issue and as a resident of MA since 1992 I was here when Mitt took over so I can tell you, Romneycare has so severely screwed up this state for this man NOT to apologize will be his downfall, and Ron Paul who should not even be in this debate, he should be on a Libertarian ticket.
Now I have nothing against Libertarians, but Libertarians are not Republicans and I feel there is something very cultish about Ron Paul supporters. I have never met a derelict Libertarian. Most Libertarians I meet are like Penn Gillette: very smart, tax paying, responsible adults albeit agnostic, pot smoking, quirky, intellectual types–and that’s fine, but it explains why they believe the way they do because in their independent world, if there was no traffic lights, they would have the brains to stop and look both ways, hence their position on…everything. But the world is full of poor drivers who would drive 50 mph through an intersection and for those drivers we need troopers with big guns and tight handcuffs to make sure the rest of us survive our commutes, which is what Libertarians never understand and which is why Ron paul will always be the Ralph Nader of the right.
Say what you will about Newt. he’s a jerk, a cheater, a career politician-fine, but he has grand ideas that make sense, he’s done it before, he’s beating the entrenched political machine of Romney, and every talking head is suspicious of him including Savage. Sounds like my kind of candidate.
December 4th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Just remember back then, there was no conservative talk radio or Fox news. I use to scream at the liberals presenting the news. We had no where else to go. So maybe that was why he was behind it, because back then there was no conservative opinions anywhere allowed to be on the air
December 4th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Newt voted for the Fairness Doctrine, House bill 1987 on June 3, 1987. A link to the government roll call is below. 223 Democrats and 79 Republicans voted for the bill and 16 Democrats and 86 Republicans voted against the bill. Newt voted for the bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1987-158
December 12th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
[...] •co-sponsored the 1987 fairness doctrine http://race42012.com/2011/12/02/newt-gingrich-co-sponsored-fairness-doctrine-bill/ [...]
December 12th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
[...] the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987 in violation of the 1st [...]
December 15th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
[...] Newt once supported the “fairness doctrine”, a bill that would require equal airtime for both left and right points of view on talk radio, [...]