Patterico's Pontifications

12/3/2011

What Republicans see in Newt (and what they don’t…yet)

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 12:00 am



[Posted by Karl]

Matt Lewis, explaining why (some) GOP voters prefer Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney, makes a number of good points, but he may be misinterpreting the latest from Charles Krauthammer in the process:

As Krauthammer notes,

Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing. Romney has no signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative.

That is well put, and I don’t recall anyone else having made the point as eloquently.

Krauthammer also concludes his column by noting: “Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?”

That last sentence is the reason Gingrich has a chance.

I’m not sure Dr. K would agree, as Lewis leaves out this part of the column:

Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.

Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”

This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental — his favorite adjectives — if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy, or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness.

Gingrich has always had a revolutionary bent that makes him — to use some Newt-onian terms — profoundly, fundamentally un-conservative, which is why he has had a near-Romneyesque run of flip-flops.  Yet aside from Krauthammer, it’s been mostly lefty pundits noticing the difference in the quality of those flip flops.  For example, as Jonathan Bernstein puts it:

[I]f you’re a mainstream conservative and wind up with Romney as president, you know that he’ll betray you sometimes, but — to the extent this is true — it will be a careful, thought-out, purposeful betrayal. That means a lot of things. It means the betrayal may be one in which you would agree, if you knew what Romney knew about the situation; it may be one in which organized opposition could prevent the betrayal, because overcoming that opposition would have to factor into the situation; or, at worst, it would be a betrayal that was designed to keep a Republican (that is, Romney) in the White House. Hey, it’s still a betrayal — and you have to figure going in that Romney doesn’t actually believe the stuff you believe. But it’s somewhat manageable. It’s not unlike the Reagan betrayals, or on the other side the Obama betrayals.

Newt? You’ll be betrayed by him, too. *** The problem is that his betrayals will be, essentially, random and personal. *** It’s not so much that Gingrich has taken the wrong position (from a conservative point of view) on various things; it’s the way he comes to it, which appears to be entirely personal and idiosyncratic. I’m not just saying that he has nothing in common with Burkean conservativism ***, but that there’s no consistency or predictability at all. Or, rather, the only consistency is that he completely wants to redo and remake and tear out everything and start all over again, although what he wants to remake and how it should be remade vary from week to week, or even hour to hour.

For that matter, post-Speakership, what Newt wants to remake and how may bear a resemblance to the business interests of the companies funding his various think tanks.  GOP voters may weigh all of that and nevertheless conclude that Gingrich is preferable to Romney.  But they ought to weigh all of it.

–Karl

230 Responses to “What Republicans see in Newt (and what they don’t…yet)”

  1. In some ways, Newt Gingrich reminds me of the best and the worst of Thomas Jefferson.

    Murgatroyd (e0d30c)

  2. Why should I vote for him?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  3. Newt is smart, but he is not true. He believes in Newt and what Newt wants, Newt gets.

    Regardless of his shortcomings, I would vote for him over the current President without remorse.

    Ag80 (ec45d6)

  4. Karl, it is rapidly coming on time to provide alternatives if you tear down a candidate. Who in the field is satisfactory? All seem to have outstanding defects.

    Ron Paul does not believe in national defense. He is the only candidate that I really believe when I hear in talking about reducing the size of our monstrous out of control federal government. Could he pull it off? He lacks the charisma; but, he has VERY vocal supporters.

    Cain might be good but stands little chance because of the women thing. (Most of them seem utterly spurious Axelrod creations. The long term relationship seems to be just that and not an “affair” with sex involved. But getting that across to the public will not be easy in the time available.) Cain’s 9-9-9 seems to be to not be practical or safe for the future. He talks about reducing the size of government; but, can he manage to do it even with a friendly congress? There’s a better chance than with most.

    Romney is a proponent of government solutions to what should be private sector issues. Larger government from him is likely to be closer to the Big Government is in bed with and property of Big Business model of classic fascism. Obama’s model is Big Government is all there is, which is raw Communism. Both end up with a loss of our freedoms in the long run. All that changes is who owns us.

    Newt is – well – Newt. There is some good there and some fairly serious bad there. We know about most of it already so we can ask whether he will be likely to do the job we want. He knows how to work with congress. Does he know how to figure out what needs to be done so he can do it? Is he seriously talking about eliminating wide swaths of the bloat? Do you believe him when he does?

    Perry is – well – Perry. At least he talks seriously about dramatically reducing the size of government. And with his experience he might be able to pull it off if he can stop acting so darned distracted and “I’m in this for the heck of it.”

    Michelle Bachmann has her heart in the right place, mostly. But she’s so “blonde” it hurts. She has some really screwball ideas and does not seem to have the ability to get done what must be done.

    The others are pretty much nebbishes so far with one as far gone as Romney without the flip-flops and the other as far gone as one might envision Paul if he was younger.

    Instead of telling us who not tell us who to. We are aware of the respective faults. Now lets see some analysis of why one or another might make a good candidate AND a good POTUS given what needs to be done by the new POTUS.

    {^_^}

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    jbd (99eed4)

  5. I think many conservatives still remember George H.W. Bush’s description of what would become known as “Reaganomics” as being “voodoo economics” in the 1980 GOP presidential primaries. When Reagan picked Bush-41 as his running mate, Bush became, by all appearances, a more dedicated soldier for the conservative cause. And thus, when Bush campaigned again for POTUS against Dukakis in 1988 with the most famous pledge of that election– “Read my lips: No New Taxes!” — conservatives generally embraced Bush as a worthy successor to Reagan’s mantle.

    And then Bush was persuaded that he “had” to raise taxes as part of a compromise with congressional Democrats. That broken promise led more or less directly to the semen stains on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.

    As a fellow Texan, and a Republican from the days when Texas Republicans were rarer than hen’s teeth, I’d been a fan of Bush going back well before 1980, and I still admire him and think that his overall service to his country, including but not limited to his tenure as POTUS, is among the most remarkable stories of American history. Nevertheless, it was a colossal misjudgment, a breach of faith made with good intentions but for the worst of reasons.

    Every conservative who remembers that history, that feeling of betrayal, is inclined to squint pretty hard at either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. I certainly do. I fear that Gingrich will capitulate out of foolishness, and that Romney will capitulate out of deference to “the experts” and “conventional [which is to say, progressive] wisdom” as soon as the going gets tough. If either of these men ends up as the nominee, I will, of course, vote for him and against Obama. But this reservation remains my biggest one. (FWIW, I have the same reservation about Herman Cain, if he’s still a factor.)

    Beldar (65378a)

  6. Unfortunately we are at that point in the contest where acceptance, prima or secunda facie, of any conversants sincerity and authenticty is as doubtful as that of the politicians we discuss.

    Ann Romney “Mitt can argue both sides of any issue, and at times with such passion that one begins to think he really believes in a position he’s taken. But he doesn’t.”

    While I believe her quote telling, Mitt has never, and I now believe cannot, communicate to me my thinking on an issue, no matter how studied.

    Our disconnect is congenital and essential.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  7. In contradistinction to others in our field of candidates, Newt has had success in bending Congress to his will, whatever that happens to be in the instant.

    I do very much appreciate his admitting his stupidities rather than telling me, my finger on the tape counter, that I’m wrong and out-of-line.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  8. The worst thing about Newt is his lack of executive experience. We could end up with another ‘thinker’ like Obama instead of an actor.

    Sadly, we know exactly what kind of executive Romney will be, since we have the evidence of his governorship to judge him by.
    No thanks. Newt is a gamble, but Romney is a sure (wrong) thing.

    Heck, I even think Romney is more likely to lose the general election; since he is tailor made to fit the role of a class-warfare villain in the Obama re-election campaign play.

    Brad (56f223)

  9. Either Romney or Gingrich would be a better president than the man who now sits in that office. Of the two, I believe that Romney is the only one who has a good chance of beating Obama. Contrary to what some have posted, Romney did a pretty good job of governing Massachusetts. I also like what the man has proposed, including his approach to reforming Medicare. He understands how capitalism – and our economy – works, and if some of us don’t understand the gravity of the situation, he certainly does.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  10. As an aside, I am consistently amused by the pomposity and outright delusions of grandeur displayed by the man from the land of a thousand lakes. His over-blown sense of self regard and apparent belief in his intellectual superiority mirrors the jackass who currently resides in the White House. It is most amusing.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  11. Not surprisingly the Journolister is wrong, Romney will do it on pragmatic reasons Newt will find a grand intellectual rationale for it.

    Arnold Schwartzenegger (87e966)

  12. This is what I’m speaking of;

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34603

    narciso (87e966)

  13. I think all these pundits are overestimating what one man can do. If Newt is elected, it’s not like he will be able to wake up each morning and think, “Hm, what grand new project based upon my overinflated ego can I put in place today?” Um, there’s a little thing called Congress and a nice idea called “check and balance” in play. Newt would not be able to prance free through the tulips of his imaginings. But he will at least be starting from true bedrock principles.

    My fear is that Romney will be soft, like his hair mousse. He does not inspire. No pragmatist ever does. When he starts to betray us, and he will, we will hate ourselves, just like we did that morning in Tijuana when we woke up…

    And one thing more, perhaps the most important item of all (and I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere): We need someone who knows and understands the lessons of HISTORY. For that reason alone, Newt is to be preferred.

    JohnD (88b349)

  14. Yes, I didn’t read the last part of the Krauthammer column, maybe Lewis didn’t either;

    narciso (87e966)

  15. 12. $1.6 million over a decade in consulting fees making a case in the abstract for GSEs for their concrete instantiation in Freddie Mac which gave yearly bonuses in the eight figures to Raines et al. is not quite comparable to Romney’s experience.

    The latter made roughly $200 million in something over a decade buying into companies, breaking them up and creating jobs in China.

    Anyone who thinks the past will bite Newt harder than Mitt is dreaming.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  16. 10. My point re: Romney, Gingrich, and the war of words, exactly. All Romney will be able to put up are champions, attitude and dissembling.

    He will look bad doing it.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  17. 10.As an aside, I am consistently amused by the pomposity and outright delusions of grandeur displayed by the man from the land of a thousand lakes

    You mean the guy with the MASSIVE lead over Mitt in all state?

    That guy?

    EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7)

  18. in all states

    EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7)

  19. Just sink, how we were spared the embarassment of the moose hunting gal, a very bitter sarc indeed.

    narciso (87e966)

  20. Post #15? Utter bullsh@t.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  21. Total, cream-filled menduciousness, wrapped in a layer of envy, topped with “regrets-for how-my-life turned out” nuttiness.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  22. 19. I’m still in a darkish mood over May Day being put off, but the Boehner suckage reassures me the day is approaching.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  23. 21. “regrets-for how-my-life turned out”

    You’re so right, my prose is so unreadable against Haiku.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  24. Taking all into consideration, including the fact that no votes have yet been cast and that the play hasn’t played out in a word: Perry!

    GM Roper (d58b94)

  25. There is a consensus among Republican candidates on our agenda. The candidate who has the best chance at being elected president and throwing the current, preening Bum0TUS out of office is Mitt Romney. Nominating Newt Gingrich will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats. We – as Republicans – generally like the man and respect his intelligence, but that doesn’t mean women voters or independents will find Newt to their liking.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  26. Gulrud, your envy and sheer propensity for the propagation of pure, unadulterated falsehoods/bovine excrement is telling.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  27. as is your preening, self-reverential nature.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  28. You mask horsesh@t as “opinion” and that’s a tough sell, even in the seller’s market you operate in.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  29. Professor Jacobson has a post up on the avalanche from Politico characterizing Newt, his past and likely future.

    I listened to Abramoff on Hannity who said Newt was clean as far as he knew. A net worth of $6.7 Million would lend some credence to that surmise.

    “One is known by the company one keeps”.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  30. Col

    Woaw there guy, Gary just is reiterating what many established conservative have been expounding about Mitt.

    Mitts not and never was a conservative, nor really a Republican in the main stream sense, and his rapidly eroding poll numbers as support is firming up closer to V day is telling.

    True there hasn’t been a vote yet, but the thinking that Mitt can realistically fundraise effectively in this environment is problematic.

    You can take out your frustrations on gary but Mitts melt doen with Baier is all you need to know

    He’s as done as Cain

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  31. Eric I hope your happy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  32. Krauthammer has said a few things recently that really have me scratching my head and wondering about his own perspective and worldview. This is one of them:

    “Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline

    So, according to Krauthammer the one has his massive ego and narcissism in check and has tamed his self-regard? That’s crazy talk! He is certainly not describing the calamity of a president I have been watching strut around the world for the past three years.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  33. Karl: you keep thinking the world thinks like you do.

    You look into detail into the candidates, their personalities and policies, and you decide based on your balancing of what you consider to be the pros and cons of each candidate… and once you decide, you’re unlikely to all of a sudden change your mind.

    Contrast that with most voters, who spend a tiny fraction of that time in deciding on which candidate they’re going to vote for. Not only do they not spend that much time, they are much more likely to decide based on what I’d refer to as a superficial factor: a sound bit (“9-9-9”), whether their neighbor likes someone, the way the candidate looks, or, in Gingrich’s case, because of his declaration that he’s the big thinker in the group (and without the voter giving much thought to what those big thoughts are).

    Their support only runs an inch deep so they’re more likely to switch to someone else… to someone with a better soundbite or from someone whose dirty laundry gets exposed… but only to the extent that they’re even paying attention.

    Put another way, Krauthammer makes some very good points about Gingrich…. but are the masses paying attention?

    steve (254463)

  34. The masses will see a commercial about Newt’s flip flops, or the results of a nasty Bain and company
    reorganization, that’s it,

    narciso (87e966)

  35. jbd,

    4.Karl, it is rapidly coming on time to provide alternatives if you tear down a candidate. Who in the field is satisfactory?

    I haven’t said anyone is not satisfactory. I have said that people need to weigh out the strangths and manifest weaknesses of each of the field.

    steve,

    I don’t think the masses think the way I do, which is why I tweeted to Allahpundit that I don’t think Newt’s negatives are fully baked in to his candidacy. Indeed, while I quote Jon Bernstein in the original post from his own blog, here he is at TNR:

    The main reason for all this instability in the polls is that most Republicans just aren’t paying very much attention to the contest right now. That’s hard for the sorts of people who read The New Republic to accept, because for us politics is an active ongoing part of our lives, verging for some on an obsession. But that’s not how it is for most people. Even for those who will eventually care enough to vote, politics most of the time is background noise and an occasional conversation topic, not something to stay up-to-date on; it’s the difference between season ticket holders and people who start watching when the playoffs begin.

    Moreover, most rank-and-file Republican voters just don’t care very much about the subtle differences between Romney and Cain and Perry and Gingrich and the rest. They pretty much like ’em all; after all, they’re all basically conservatives, and they’re all Republicans, aren’t they? The one that they’ll pick if they happen to get polled is therefore most likely going to be whichever one they’ve most recently heard something positive about, which in most cases probably boils down to whoever has been in heaviest rotation on Fox News recently. Two months ago that was Prince Herman. Now, it’s Newt. Current poll numbers, in other words, aren’t a good measure of firm decisions about who folks are going to support; they’re just placeholder answers for a question that the overwhelming bulk of Republicans haven’t really thought about much yet.

    This doesn’t represent exceptionally irrational behavior on the part of GOP primary voters, either. After all, unless they live in Iowa or New Hampshire, voters won’t ever be choosing from this unwieldy ten candidate (or so) field, and the odds are good that for most Republicans, in most states, they’ll never have to make any choice since the nomination will be wrapped up before it gets to them. So why should they waste their time trying to figure out which one is the “real” conservative? Why go through the painful business of choosing sides?

    So why write about it? Because other political junkies like to read it… and they tend to be opinion leaders, even if only within their own families.

    Karl (e39d6b)

  36. One thing’s for sure… whatever Pee Wee describes as fact or a trend, one can put all his/her chips on the exact opposite being the case.

    He’s a bellwether, of sorts.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  37. “people need to weigh out the strangths and manifest weaknesses of each of the field”

    hybrid of “strangle” and “strength”? or just a minor spelling error?

    You be the judge.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  38. Steve… never underestimate the desire of many to associate themselves with a “winner”.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  39. We are all political junkies, ‘and we can quit at any time,’ but Bernstein, has got the wrong end of the horse, not for the first time.

    narciso (87e966)

  40. Interesting read, narciso… I know Newt is prone to saying things that leave one scratching his/her head, but those were new to me.

    I read the comments and found this one from John1787 of interest:

    “If you’re curious, among Mitt’s successes at Bain Capital are Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy (the mattress company), The Sports Authority, and Brookstone.”

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  41. “The latter made roughly $200 million in something over a decade buying into companies, breaking them up and creating jobs in China.

    Anyone who thinks the past will bite Newt harder than Mitt is dreaming.”

    gary – I’m always amused by the blinding ignorance contained in comments like yours and struggle to decipher your real point.

    Are you saying that making money is bad? Or are say just saying that the way Mitt made his money is bad?

    Breaking up companies? Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you are referring to the common practice of new owners selling divisions of companies they purchase, what is your objection? Companies buy and sell assets all the time. It is not unique to the world of private equity. Do you have an objection in principle to the owner of a business selling an asset to somebody who is willing to pay more than the value the owner places on retaining it?

    creating jobs in China. If American companies find cheaper ways to produce goods and services shouldn’t they take advantage of them wherever they are? If that involves reducing bloated American workforces, like a bloated government bureaucracy, do you object to that? Seriously? There are plenty of American companies in your neck of the woods that have offshored jobs to the far east. If you say we need to protect American jobs at the cost of inefficiency and inability to compete, I say take a look at GM and Chrysler and look at how those companies turned out. Managing companies for profit are skills we should value, not demean.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. “Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline“

    If Krauthammer is making the assessment that Obama’s self-regard is self-disciplined and controlled, I would like to know how he came to that conclusion, because like elissa, I don’t see it.

    His massive self-regard and arrogance are precisely what catapulted him into the POTUS campaign in the first place.

    I think he already felt and believed about himself all that the loyalists and dreamy-eyed do-gooders spoon fed him: great experience, penetrating wisdom, massive knowledge, ability to walk on water, etc.

    During the campaign it was bad enough (think Brandenberg Gate) and I don’t see how it’s lessened in any way – instead, what I see is his tactic for responding to for personal failure as POTUS is to blame the American people.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  43. the best quality Newt brings to the race is that he’s better than Romney

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  44. “instead, what I see is his tactic for responding to for personal failure as POTUS is to blame the American people.”

    Dana – Well, after all, we are fat and lazy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  45. …and some of you are smokers.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  46. it’s time for some of the joke candidates to drop out though

    Perry has to go learn how to make the sentences.

    Cain has to go make nice with both his wife and his chippie.

    Bachmann needs to go back to the narrow all-white rabidly-bigoted political niche she thrives in.

    Santorum… lol.

    And Huntsman has put off the testosterone-replacement therapy his doctors have recommended for far too long, and it’s taking a horrific toll. Go take care of yourself.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  47. The crucial issue, in the term to come, will be our financial situation.

    In his few years Speaker, Newt Gingrich proved himself a budget-balancer, and more or less a responsible steward of the people’s money.

    Mitt Romney helped draft a program that has exploded the budget of Massachusetts.

    Both candidates make me uncomfortable from a certain standpoint, but those three facts taken together tell me everything I need to know.

    Newt ’12.

    Demosthenes (83a043)

  48. “the best quality Newt brings to the race is that he’s better than Romney”

    happyfeet, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Demosthenes (83a043)

  49. Newt’s fundamental difference from Mitt is that Newt has always been a “change agent” and Mitt seems to hue to incremental adjustment and against rocking the status quo.

    During Newt’s 6 years as speaker, as much change happened towards the right as happened in Reagan’s first term. The budget was balanced and welfare was reformed in the face of an opposition President who vetoed any number of even more significant reforms. They seriously tried to get rid of at least 2 Cabinet departments in 1995-6.

    Yes, Newt failed in part, but it was not from lack of trying; the combination of a hostile president and a lying sack of s*it press (and a younger Newt’s overreach) eventually shut it down. It did not help that Dole dragged his feet on every reform, and then ran a horrible campaign whose slogan seemed to be “It’s my turn!” Or maybe “Let’s go back to the 50’s!”

    Mitt is a weathervane. Go along to get along. Status quo all the way. Does anyone really believe that he will rock the boat on crony capitalism (other than change the cronies), or slash government salaries, drop departments or cut back functions? No. Everything will be on the margins.

    Say what you want about Newt — he has enthusiasms that are ill-advised, sure — but he finds his own direction.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  50. I am reminded again just how awful it was to have run Bob Dole in 1996. An uninspiring candidate who was happy to manage the decline (as old men are), rather than a forward looking candidate eager for the 21st century. The contrast with Clinton was clear and the amazing thing was that Dole got as many votes as he did. An AWFUL choice.

    Had the Republicans offered anyone more credible, more interesting, and won that election while Newt controlled Congress, we probably wouldn’t be where we are today. The federal government would have spent $15 trillion less over the next decade and a half, the government would be MUCH smaller, and the long boom might never have ended.

    What might have been. Sigh. Let’s not go with boring again.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  51. I generally agree with Karl that “a Gingrich nomination arguably carries the risk of a Perry or Cain nomination with the casual voter, but with the risk of a not-much-better-than-Romney presidency for the right in terms of likely policy outcomes.” But I agree even more with Beldar 12/2/2011 @ 11:41 pm, which is why I would still vote for Perry over Gingrich. I believe Perry would be more conservative and candid than Gingrich and Romney.

    In addition, I also think Gingrich is better than Romney because Gingrich was generally conservative in his leadership role as Speaker — which, to me, is different than his voting record — and I think how a candidate leads helps us see how he would govern as President. Romney was a very competent leader in business and in Massachusetts, but his leadership in government was ideologically moderate. That’s probably because he had no other choice in Massachusetts but I suspect it’s also because it’s what he believes. (If Romney isn’t a moderate then his leadership decisions show that he puts pragmatism above principles, and that tells us something, too.)

    I admit I’m not an expert on Romney so I’m asking his supporters to educate me: It’s one thing to espouse conservative talking points during a Presidential primary, but when has Romney embraced a principled conservative stand as a government leader?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  52. now National Soros Radio turns their attention to the destruction of Mr. Newt

    There will be more questions about what Gingrich has been doing since he left office in 1999, including his work as a consultant for mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

    Texas Rep. Ron Paul blasted Gingrich for flip-flopping on issues and for what he called “serial hypocrisy.” On CNN Friday, Paul accused Gingrich of being less than forthright in talking about cleaning up Washington. Gingrich earned more than $1.5 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac, which was bailed out by the federal government.

    “So it’s sort of ironic to think that the American people now are seriously considering … that he’s supposed to come in and straighten things out. That sort of is bewildering to me,” Paul said.

    Gingrich also spun some heads recently when he told a Harvard audience that most schools in poor neighborhoods ought to get rid of unionized janitors and pay local students to take care of the schools instead. He suggested that would give poor kids a work ethic. In Iowa this week, Gingrich talked more about the idea.

    “I get these letters written that say janitorial work is really hard and really dangerous and it’s this and that,” he said. “So fine. So what if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom and you pay them?”

    There’s sure to be more scrutiny over this and other policy questions, as well as Gingrich’s personal life, with the Iowa caucuses just one month away.

    they’re gonna have to do better than that

    Obama is a way more bigger fannie freddie whore than Gingrich ever dreamed of being

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  53. This, I think, is what Mitt has to deal with and overcome somehow if he is to be the nominee and then POTUS:

    To many people he comes across as a mixture of Obama’s cool, almost passionless demeanor coupled with the elitist and moneyed life of John Kerry. Obviously, those two men are not good role models or inspirational characters to most right-leaning voters. It may be untrue, unfair and it may be being heavily manipulated by the media, but Mitt’s own interviews and debate performances (mostly competent and impressive as they have been on substance) have done little so far to reverse or soften that image. That said, he is what he is and any desperate attempts to change his image in a fake way could make things worse. He does appear to be a smart man with a personal moral compass who loves his country and those are important qualities in a president that we currently lack in the occupant of the WH.

    For all his faults, Newt has something that voters are noticing and keying in on, I think. He exudes passion. He exudes take-charge leadership. He doesn’t hold back. He explains things. He can electrify a room–as does Chris Christie, Bill Clinton, and did Ronald Reagan just to name a few. Mitt does not electrify a room in much the same way that Bob Dole did not electrify a room.

    America’s voters understand that times change, people change, and external circumstances force change. They know that humans make mistakes and learn from them. At the end of the day I doubt it will come down to flip-flopping, or who had a photo taken with who, or how many wives a candidate has had. It will come down to whom the most people can envision as the leader that will be able to restore America’s confidence and its role in the world.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  54. We need both ideology and leadership ability. Newt may have the former, but I don’t see that he has the latter.

    The last thing we need is a Republican Obama who governs as a congressman.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  55. jbd:

    Karl, it is rapidly coming on time to provide alternatives if you tear down a candidate. Who in the field is satisfactory? All seem to have outstanding defects.

    I disagree. The GOP primaries are the time to talk about the pros and cons of the candidates, and Karl does both quite well.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  56. Excellent comment, elissa — 12/3/2011 @ 11:17 am.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  57. For all his faults, Newt has something that voters are noticing and keying in on, I think. He exudes passion. He exudes take-charge leadership. He doesn’t hold back. He explains things. He can electrify a room–as does Chris Christie, Bill Clinton, and did Ronald Reagan just to name a few. Mitt does not electrify a room in much the same way that Bob Dole did not electrify a room.

    He also does not talk down to the voters he hopes to win over but rather avoids the empty platitudes and typical rhetoric and pablum we are usually fed and instead, talks up to the voters. It seems he give voters the benefit of the doubt that they are already informed, have done their homework, and as a result, have a high expectation of candidates.

    I think this resonates with frustrated voters. This is aside from whether or not he’s a squish, etc.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  58. Sigh we mught have no choice to vote Romney.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  59. I am looking forward to Newt’s first monster truck prayer rally in my neighborhood. Jan Schakowsky will have a conniption.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. The best thing I can say about Mitt is that he is not Barack. With Newt, he is not Barack, or Mitt.

    JD (0388c1)

  61. daley–according to an article I saw recently (written by Joel Pollack) apparently the felonious MR Jan Schakowsky has been spending a lot of time in Washington visiting the White House. A lovely couple they are.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  62. You big silly. Newt can’t lead a monster truck prayer rally cause he wears a scarlet letter of shame.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  63. elissa – Yes, apparently Mr. Creamer was helping the White House with the Astroturding of the OWS protests around the country. Lovely couple.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  64. “You big silly. Newt can’t lead a monster truck prayer rally cause he wears a scarlet letter of shame.”

    Mr. Feets – The Newtster is certainly as much of a mackerel snapper as Granny McRictusbotoxface.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. Comment by daleyrocks — 12/3/2011 @ 8:56 am

    Excellent coment. Shorter version Gilrud thinks turning the USA in to an Argentina is a good thing.

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  66. ____________________________________________

    He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years

    Followed up by his more recent sniping at cultural conservatives.

    Gingrich has no lack of squish, but in that regard he’s all too typical of most humans. Presidential candidates, from right, center (or “center”) and left, reflect a variety of Americans out there — both their flaws and common sense — so I can’t expect or hope for perfection in a non-liberal candidate.

    If I were the supreme authority, I wouldn’t be too comfortable with Gingrich as the Republican facing President “Goddamn America.” But I represent a non-majority of the electorate, so it’s their mindset that will shape the outcome. I just hope they’re sane enough to say “ABO!” (ie, “anyone but Obama”).

    Mark (411533)

  67. The best case for Newt is that this country needs an LBJ of the right to undo the damage the democrats have done over the last 60 or more years. Newt isn’t perfect but he is the closest the conservatives have as a potentially very effective legislative change agent.

    A Gingrich Administration with Romney as Secretary of the Treasury, Bachman as Commissioner of the IRS, Ron Paul as Attorney General, Huntsman as Secretary of State, Perry as Secretary of the Interior (drill baby,drill!) would make for a great Administration. Too bad Cheney is too ill to be Secretary of Defense. Cain and Santorum also would be useful in the new Administration. Question is who would be the right pick for VP?

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  68. I love the liberals and paulnuts who accuse Cain of molesting women without a scintilla of proof.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  69. Happyfeet 56: we expect Obama to be a Fanny whore, we should expect more from our side.

    Is the Gingrich campaign slogan ‘sure, I’m a whore, but not as much as Obama’?

    And btw, selling one’s soul for less money is no more virtuous… just stupid for leaving money on the table.

    steve (254463)

  70. Having not read the entire thread…

    I agree with the ideas that Newt is smart, quick-minded, passionate, and gives the sense that he will “not put up with” the manipulations of opponents.

    I also agree that at times he seems impusive and is most impressed by his own ideas to a fault.

    It may be all misperception that I have attained from MSM manipulation, but it seems to me that Mitt ran for president last time, did not win the nomination, then went into hiding until time to run for president again, while another person who lost last time, Sarah Palin, stayed in the public eye pointing out the problems of the Obama administration.

    We the people do want someone who can stand up and be a champion for common sense things like make a budget you can afford and stick to it, safely drill for oil where you can, don’t throw away military victories, don’t distribute money primarily as political rewards to unions and to companies run by people that contributed to you.

    In one way it should not be very &*&^T(*^*&T^&R&^$!!!!! hard to find a candidate to say that, say it loud enough and firm enough to be heard, clear enough to be understood, from someone baggage-free enough to survive.

    But it seems like it is.

    MD in Philly (83d172)

  71. MD–You raise an interesting point about “where have they been and what have they been doing to advance the cause” over the past 4 years.

    I think we’ve all seen that Sarah was out there more than almost anybody else (and we’ve also noticed the grief and personal price she and her family paid for doing it). Were Newt and Mitt actually semi-MIA, or was the media just following Sarah so much more relentlessly that through that “reporting” we know much more about her speeches, appearances, op-eds and FaceBook postings?

    A great debate question would be for Trump to ask the guys that very thing. “How, as a private citizen do you believe you’ve personally advanced the cause (perhaps under the radar) since the last election?”

    elissa (2b76d3)

  72. Here’s a pretty good Newt as mover and shaker example. (From a Big Journalism article titled “6 ways To Know that Occupy is a Dead Movement Walking):

    “1. MSM Is No Longer Infatuated With Occupy: Other than the big stories surrounding Occupy evictions, the mainstream media’s all but stopped covering the Occupy movement. 12 to 14 hours a day the cable nets are on in my office, and even leftist CNN and far-left MSNBC have ceased trying to use the Occupiers as a way to jump-start Obama-friendly narratives about taxing the rich and how Wall Street is to blame for Obama’s failed economy.

    No more on-the-street profiles of earnest young Occupy faces just looking to make the world a more fair and equal place.

    And I can pinpoint the day this occurred. The day after GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich suggested Occupy take a bath and get a job, both CNN and MSNBC went apoplectic in the hopes this “ugly” statement would backfire on the Speaker. When just the opposite happened, that was pretty much all the proof the left-wing media needed that Occupy was hurting the left, not helping.”

    elissa (2b76d3)

  73. well there is a Reaganesque echo, when the former said two words, the Berkeley protesters weren’t familiar with ;’soap and water’

    narciso (87e966)

  74. Gingrich Administration with Romney as Secretary of the Treasury, Bachman as Commissioner of the IRS, Ron Paul as Attorney General, Huntsman as Secretary of State, Perry as Secretary of the Interior (drill baby,drill!) would make for a great Administration.

    Romney’s talents under a leader with direction would be a great thing for this country.

    Perry, however, is already doing something much more challenging and important, and I’m not sure there is anyone waiting in the wings to govern Texas as well as he does.

    I think if Palin doesn’t aspire to be a Senator (and it appears she doesn’t), then she could be as effective as Perry in this administration.

    Anyway, what I see in Newt is that he’s an effective politician on the national front, unlike my man Perry, unfortunately, and he’s not Mitt Romney.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  75. no one’s gonna pick a going rogue hoochie to serve in their cabinet anytime soon I don’t think

    and I don’t think she’d accept … it’s been years and years since she held a position that involved accountability and I don’t think she’s at all eager for one

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  76. Sigh.

    Well, Feets, it’s a free country. I don’t blame Palin for not wanting to wade back inside, and you’re probably right that she wouldn’t agree to do that.

    I think cuban is on the right track that we need someone with an attitude for energy exploration, and of course I know you agree with that.

    Anyway, that’s all secondary. I think Newt could be a great president, and at worst, would be an average one.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  77. Victor Davis Hanson explains why he finds Gingrich’s Freddie/Fannie sell-out/consultancy troubling:

    “… But I think his biggest problem on this score was his mea culpa that he was not a consultant, but a “historian.” Is that laughable assertion supposed to be “candor”? If so, a historian would quickly have reviewed the record of Freddie and Fannie assets and liabilities, and then in quite dry fashion offered a conclusion that something was beginning to go quite wrong with these sorts of unaccountable, but costly, agencies.

    But more to the point, there are literally hundreds of historians who deal in both economic and financial history and the history of U.S. government/private partnerships. Most such academics would probably have eagerly sought bids for consulting work at $30,000 a month (if it were open for bidding), done it far more cheaply, and stayed out of the politics of the agency’s funding. No one believes, then, that Freddie was looking for, or found, historical expertise.

    Gingrich must know that he was hired, not because he was a better historian than his colleagues in the field, but to ensure bipartisan support from the conservative side for an agency that was starting to ring alarm bells about its very solvency, and indeed ethics. On his end, his stamp of approval would be aimed, in the manner of the later Pelosi global-warming ads, as a refreshing statesman-like embrace of a needed initiative that transcended politics; “home ownership,” after all, was often a conservative talking point about a larger “ownership” society. The lobbying was a win/win deal for both parties — as long as we think away a corrupt and near-insolvent agency paying huge sums to former politicians and political appointees without any banking experience: Review the compensation and quite immoral Fannie careers of those who, like a Franklin Raines ($90 million in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), James A. Johnson ($200 million in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), or Jamie Gorelick ($26 million-plus in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), had no financial expertise, walked away with lots of money, left disasters in their wake, and were never really held to moral or legal account…”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284827/daschleism-victor-davis-hanson

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  78. the current loser in our little white house is leaving lots and lots of low-hanging job fruits for the next president to pick whoever it may be I think

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  79. No need to pick those “low hanging fruits” (I thought Barney was leaving?).
    Just treat most of it as a diseased orchard, and come in with a very large Cat, and scrape it clean.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e457b3)

  80. that’s a good idea too but either way the next president is gonna have a leg up on the “great president” thing

    just stopping half of all the obamawhore raping and pillaging is gonna be an achievement for the history books

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  81. Could we “offshore” the “minion letting” to Havana?
    They are very effective in that area.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e457b3)

  82. @ DRJ (#55 — 12/3/2011 @ 11:10 am): I started to add an addendum about Gov. Perry after my earlier comment. Of the reservations I have about him, none relate to the authenticity or depth of his genuinely conservative instincts. And that’s despite his having been Al Gore’s Texas campaign manager in 1988 when Gov. Perry was still a Democrat and Gore looked, at the time, to be the most conservative Democrat running against the likes of Dukakis. Texas is a genuinely conservative state, and Perry has governed for more than a decade without ever straying from the main channel of his constituency.

    The same could be said of Romney and his much shorter time as governor, in Massachusetts: His constituency there was considerably more liberal than Perry’s, but the fact that Romney mirrored his more liberal constituents’ views then gives me only partial comfort in accepting his claim that he’ll reflect a more conservative national GOP constituency now — including social conservatives and, of course, the Tea Party fiscal conservatives — if only we’ll let him.

    I just can’t explain why Gov. Perry’s campaign has so dramatically underperformed the standards he matched in all of his previous state-wide campaigns in Texas. I do give him credit for trying to make adjustments, and he’s been at his most appealing with his self-depricating attempts to overcome some of his blunders. But the blunders were so conspicuous that they seized the attention of everyone — not just those political junkies (like us) who are closely following politics before the primaries actually start. I can still imagine scenarios, albeit improbable ones, in which Gov. Perry gets the GOP nomination; but most of the realistic scenarios I can imagine for what comes next are pretty bleak. Obama would run against Perry by painting Perry as a particularly stupid example of the generic evil Republican; to overcome that, Perry would need at least as good campaign skills as those demonstrated by the GOP nominees in previous campaigns where that’s been the Dems’ strategy — Ronald Reagan and, yes, George W. Bush. I can’t rule that out, but it’s still not what we’re seeing from Gov. Perry yet.

    Gov. Perry is surely holding his breath, hoping that Newt will make another (unfortunately characteristic) blunder on the scale of his springtime denunciation of the Ryan budget. He’s surely hoping for more cracks in the Romney campaign’s discipline like the recent Bret Baier interview. But Perry would need not only that sort of good fortune, but for his own campaign to be inspired and absolutely flawless from this point forward.

    Beldar (65378a)

  83. if it hadn’t been for Team R’s obscene immigrant fetish Mr. Governor Rick would still be in the game I think

    but he spoke compassionately of the errant mexican folk’s children

    And now he will have to live with the consequences.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  84. Someone’s going to give me flak about my claim just now that “Perry has governed for more than a decade without ever straying from the main channel of his constituency.” What about the HPV vaccination issue? What about the Trans Texas Corridor? What about the in-state tuition for illegal alien children who’ve graduated from Texas high schools?

    Those things may trouble you. They haven’t troubled the main channel of Gov. Perry’s constituency. The vivid proof of that was the ease and certainty with which he beat a very popular, very polished opponent, the senior sitting U.S. Senator from Texas, in the 2010 Texas gubernatorial primary. Sen. Hutchison tried very, very hard to challenge Perry’s conservative bona fides, and the GOP voters (who know them both quite well based on many years’ effective performance in office by both) absolutely refused to buy into that challenge.

    Beldar (65378a)

  85. The Trans Texas Corridor was bold and visionary and it would have vaulted Texas 60 years into the future.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  86. The Trans Texas Corridor was bold and visionary and it would have vaulted me into Rick Perry’s bed.

    FIFY.

    Sorry for the image.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  87. hah that was a funny gay sex joke

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  88. To me the choices boil down to:

    Perry: W redux. Worse communicator and seems stiffer and less likeable than W. A whiff of dumb. Social conservative. Economics middling. Devolve big government to states. Strong defense.

    Newt: Radical governmental downsizing and systemic reform. Personally erratic. Great communicator. Maybe not as smart as he thinks. Socially middling, strong free market, small government, strong defense.

    Mitt: Incremental reform and strong management skills. Available for compromise. Personally boring but a clear communicator. Socially middling, economically middling. Corporate. No big interest in government reform other than make it a bit more efficient. Strong defense. Changeable.

    It’s not what is right or wrong, it’s more what do you want. I want large reductions in the federal government’s size and intrusiveness, without the social conservatism and cronyism of the W years. Ideally a cross between Ron Paul’s domestic policy and Cheney’s foreign policy. So, Gingrich looks like the best of the lot. Wish he was a bit more disciplined, though.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  89. The next president is going to have a VERY busy first day. Oil drilling, fence mending, perp arresting. Lots of stuff to do.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  90. Ron Paul as Attorney General

    How about Fed Chairman?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  91. Karl,

    I have never understood why, after eight inspiring years with Ronald Reagan at the helm, the Republican Party has fielded one Nixonesque presidential candidate after another. Within just the past week, with much credit to Bret Baier, it became painfully obvious that we really don’t know who Mitt Romney is. What we can say, based on the Baier interview, is that Romney is even more Nixonesque than we realized.

    All I can say is that we have been there and done that. Enough is enough.

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    ThOR (94646f)

  92. Beldar,

    I agree with everything you said and I think Perry has underperformed because he put organizing ahead of debate skills. As a rule, campaign organization matters a lot more than debate skills this early in the primary, but this isn’t a normal race for at least 3 reasons. First, Perry entered the race with higher polls so he got more attention from voters than Presidential candidates typically get when they enter the race. Second, Obama’s main (and perhaps only) skill is speaking so voters are more focused on GOP candidates’ speaking skills. Third, voters still have some Bush fatigue and that makes them especially dubious of Texas politicians.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  93. what i see in Neuter is simple: he’s a Beltway RINO, and has no business being the GOP candidate, unless the GOP elite would rather lose the election and keep their personal perks at the expense of the country.

    that certainly is what they did my cramming McLame down our throats.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  94. DRJ, Beldar–

    I can’t seem get past the idea that Perry maybe more got pushed into running–or got guilted into running. What I’m getting at is did he deep down really want to run, and does he really want to be President I wonder? Perry was getting enormous pressure to announce his candidacy just as Chris Christie was also getting around the time he gave the Reagan Library speech.

    It’s common knowledge that Perry is well liked and appreciated by most Texans for the job he is doing as Gov. and he clearly loves his state and doing his job as Gov. He is Texas to the core. To the bone.

    I wonder if to some extent, and perhaps subconsciously, his under performance on the presidential campaign trail is a result of his heart just not being in it.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  95. and if you don’t think so your heartless.

    MSM (ef98f0)

  96. Oooops sockpuppet off.

    By the way isn’t it ironic that leftys complain about corruption in private companies.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  97. A Gingrich Administration with Romney as Secretary of the Treasury, Bachman as Commissioner of the IRS, Ron Paul as Attorney General, Huntsman as Secretary of State, Perry as Secretary of the Interior (drill baby,drill!) would make for a great Administration. Too bad Cheney is too ill to be Secretary of Defense. Cain and Santorum also would be useful in the new Administration. Question is who would be the right pick for VP?

    Not Bolton in State, not Huntsman. Huntsman’s a State insider. Foggy Bottom is a swamp that needs to be drained, and someone needs to go in and bring it to heel. Demand loyalty oaths, and fire anyone who doesn’t accept that they’re there to work for the President and implement his agenda, not to tell him what to do. Tell them all that anyone who’s been promised a Saudi sinecure when they retire should go take it now.

    Alternatively, Bolton for VP.

    Palin should be given Energy, with a mandate to wind up its affairs and shut it down, figuring out what parts of it need to continue and which departments should adopt them. If she can do that in less than four years, find her another cabinet slot.

    Interior should go to Royce Lamberth, for much the same reasons that State should go to Bolton. I’m sure he’d relish a chance to dig through those files from the inside, and find out who’s been resisting his orders all this time.

    FDA and EPA should be interesting appointments; I’m thinking Michael Fumento and Steve Milloy. Jerry Pournelle to run NASA with a special charge to find whatever evidence it takes to fire Hansen. Find some old academic who wants to spend the last few years of his career winding down Education. And maybe McCain if he’s willing to fold Veterans’ Affairs back into Defense.

    Put Bruce Schneier in charge of the TSA. Yeah, I know he’s a lefty. That’s why he should have a boss over him dismantling DHS. Not sure who that should be, though.

    Now, who for AG? Eugene Volokh? Chip Mellor?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  98. I wish we lived in an utopia where everyone worked together to get rid of Obama.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  99. if it hadn’t been for Team R’s obscene immigrant fetish Mr. Governor Rick would still be in the game I think

    but he spoke compassionately of the errant mexican folk’s children

    And now he will have to live with the consequences.

    So they’re turning to Prof Gingrich, who has the exact same “flaw”?! How does that make any sense?

    Yes, you and I don’t see it as a flaw, but we’re talking about those who do.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  100. The Trans Texas Corridor was bold and visionary and it would have vaulted Texas 60 years into the future.

    You’re probably right, but if so it should be built by private enterprise. The government’s role should just be to remove whatever legal barriers stand in the way of someone doing it. Much like the space program; if the government had left it to private enterprise it would have taken 20 years longer to get to the moon, but we’d still be there.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  101. deally a cross between Ron Paul’s domestic policy and Cheney’s foreign policy.

    Yes, please.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  102. Minus the gold fetish, that is.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  103. Now, who for AG? …. Chip Mellor? That’s assuming there’s not a Supreme Court opening. Say, for Ginsberg?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  104. Not Bolton in State, not Huntsman.

    Sorry, that first “Not” was left over from an earlier edit. That should be “Bolton in State, not Huntsman.”

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  105. That’s assuming there’s not a Supreme Court opening. Say, for Ginsberg?

    If you mean Douglas Ginsburg, I’ve longed to see him nominated, just for a year or two. But it would have to be early in a presidential term, so that the president could then nominate his replacement as well. And he’d have to agree to retire in time for that to happen. Alternatively, he could make a good recess appointment. But either way, it would right an old wrong.

    The next real vacancy on the court should go to Kazinsky. For the vacancy after that, has anyone heard anything lately from Janice Brown? She seems to have dropped off the radar after her appointment to the DC circuit.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  106. Kozinski, I mean. Though now I notice that he’s not much younger than Ginsburg, and nor is Brown. Ginsburg was only 41 when Reagan nominated him, and is 65 now. Brown is 62 and Kozinski 61. And Mellor’s nearly 61. Michael McConnell’s 56. Where are the young ones?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  107. conservatives generally embraced Bush as a worthy successor to Reagan’s mantle.

    Beldar:

    I worked on the Bush/Quayle ’88 campaign and I cannot remember ever hearing the words “conservative voter.” Pat Robertson was a primary candidate and there was talk of the religious right and the Moral Majority because of him, but he wasn’t exactly considered close to mainstream. Conservative was still an adjective, not the proper noun it is today. In fact, if you asked someone back then what conservative meant, they’d probably say it described those who wanted to return to the past.

    I like Gingrich and would have no problem voting for him, if it comes down to him. I like Romney more because I think at this time in our country we need a good financial manager to get us back on track. Someone with a proven track record of knowing how to cut out the dead wood and streamline things to run more efficiently.

    I’m all for electing someone who can do what it takes to fix this nation. I think Romney has the skills to do this and will do it.

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  108. Within just the past week, with much credit to Bret Baier, it became painfully obvious that we really don’t know who Mitt Romney is. What we can say, based on the Baier interview, is that Romney is even more Nixonesque than we realized.

    Mitt Romney had good reason to be miffed at Baier, IMO. He had just done a 1 hour televised interview with Hannity two days earlier in which he answered every single question then that Baier repeated. Why give Baier a pass for being so unoriginal and just asking the same ol’ same ol’? Did Baier really think Mitt would give a different answer 2 days later? Couldn’t he come up with some new questions?

    Any candidate would be miffed at having his valuable time wasted in this way. If a candidate is willing to sit down with an interview one on one, don’t they have a right to expect a little respect and not be patronized the way Baier was doing to Romney?

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  109. Why give Baier a pass for being so unoriginal and just asking the same ol’ same ol’?

    That is just about the stupidest defense of Romney’s performance I’ve ever heard of.

    A LOT of people do not watch Hannity. Questions that appear on his show are not banned from the rest of the media. And if Romney was expecting those questions, having been recently asked them, why did he turn into an idiot when he heard them?

    Rick Perry can handle a tough interview because he’s got the facts on his side. Romney can handle a debate with ten competitors because there’s no time for a follow up when he lies, but an interview with follow ups? Romney doesn’t have the facts to handle it. There’s no amount of pizzazz that can compensate for Romney’s record.

    If a candidate is willing to sit down with an interview one on one, don’t they have a right to expect a little respect and not be patronized

    No.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  110. Someone with a proven track record of knowing how to cut out the dead wood and streamline things to run more efficiently.

    Romney doesn’t have that record. Some other guys at Bain have been doing that long before Romney, and long after. Romney brought the investors because of his last name. His leadership simply isn’t needed at Bain, as we see after Romney left and they did quite well.

    Romney’s ability to streamline government doesn’t exist, proven by his failure in MA. Romney tried to give us a slightly less liberal version of everything the democrats wanted in MA. But this opened the door to huge steps to the left, and far more taxation and spending, such as the gun tax and Romneycare. When you give the liberals 75% of what they want, they run right over you.

    Romney is not good at anything but raising money.

    Romneycare alone is predictably bankrupting MA. Why would a ‘streamlining’ politician institute an entitlement program on a financially strapped state with a hugely bloated government? He even signed into law free healthcare for illegals and begged for amnesty.

    Anywhere other than MA, he would have to be a Democrat, which is why Romney, with connections stemming from his family in the Nixon administration, chose to start his career in MA.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  111. Romney doesn’t have that record. Some other guys at Bain have been doing that long before Romney, and long after. Romney brought the investors because of his last name. His leadership simply isn’t needed at Bain, as we see after Romney left and they did quite well.

    You do know, I hope, that Romney was a founder of Bain?

    The rest of what you have to say is just garbage. It is obvious you know nothing about the man at all.

    For instance:

    Conservative, old-fashioned, seemingly guileless, so sunny and self-assured he might be mistaken for naïve. That’s how Romney’s Harvard classmates remember him. And that’s in many ways the Romney of today: the classically handsome guy with the beautiful family and nearly perfect life. Someone who seems to expect everything to go right, and for whom everything usually does. But back at Harvard, Romney had another quality — something that’s rarely used to describe him these days.

    “What impressed me was he had a warmth that just connected to you,” says Mark Mazo, who was in a five-person study group with Romney at Harvard Law.

    Romney is not good at anything but raising money.

    What did distinguish Romney was his participation in that dual-degree program. Out of roughly a combined 1,300 students in his business and law school classes, just 15 graduated from both.

    Together, the two educations gave students a detailed knowledge of the law and the government regulatory system, as well as a deep understanding of how to run a business. And those dual-degree graduates were some of Harvard’s most sought-after recruits. Stewart describes the power of the twin degree this way: “If you came out of that MBA/JD joint program, it’s hard for me to imagine a task that somebody could have could put in front of you that you couldn’t do, other than brain surgery. But running anything — running a company, running the Olympics.”

    Both of which Romney went on to do.

    “A lot of us did the safest thing,” Rasmussen says. “We would go work for the Boston Consulting Group or Morgan Stanley. Those were the big places that hired out of business school. If you wanted just to play it safe and get rich that’s what people did. Or out of law you go to Sullivan & Cromwell in New York or Cravath and things should work out for you. But Mitt was willing to start something on his own.”

    And his colleagues at Bain Capital:

    “I’ve never worked harder in my life,” Rehnert remembered. “I think the first four years at Bain Capital, I took one week of vacation. Not one week per year, one week in a four-year period.”

    On the surface, Romney’s team did what other management consultants did. They’d look at a company, go through its books, find out everything they could about it and its industry. They’d even count cars in the parking lot of competitors to figure out how many people worked there. Rehnert says Romney was ruthlessly data-driven.

    “Dive into the detail,” Rehnert remembered of Romney’s capability, “to the point of building models, reading legal documents, drawing slides, taking notes, and then he could zoom right back up to 50,000 feet and look down and see the big picture.”

    I don’t personally care if you like Romney or not, vote for him or not, but you at least owe him the respect of not trashing him with falsehoods. And you really should look into what those who know him and/or have worked with him or for him think of not only his work ethic, but his incredible abilities in his chosen field.

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  112. A LOT of people do not watch Hannity. Questions that appear on his show are not banned from the rest of the media. And if Romney was expecting those questions, having been recently asked them, why did he turn into an idiot when he heard them?

    As one who did watch both interviews, I, at no time, saw him “turn into an idiot.”

    Hannity is on the same network, run by the same people and probably making use of the same research staff. Hannity’s interview was very detailed and one of the best I’ve seen him do ever. Romney was excellent.

    Baier acted as if he was asking questions never asked before, like he was going to make the headlines on some major breakthrough. The trouble is, all the questions have been asked of Romney ad nauseum. How many ways can he answer the same way, to the same questions?

    Romney was the same as always. It was Baier who went whining about Mitt saying something to him afterwards about the questions being so redundant. Baier wanted to crow and Mitt deflated him apparently by not being all jumping for joy over Baier’s less than brilliant interview.

    As to Massachusetts, Romney was a Republican governor of a state with only 13% registered Republicans. You’ve watched what Pelosi/Reid have been able to do to America because of the dem majority, well it is far worse in MA. Romney vetoed what he could and compromised where he could, but it is hard when the legislature has the oppo votes to even override your veto.

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  113. Bain was a consultancy when Romney arrived. His contribution was to change it to a private investment firm.

    No one is saying a Harvard MBA and Law degree isn’t impressive but non-trad students routinely embarrass their younger peers.

    Our point is Newt can hold forth on conservatism and rally congress, Romney won’t even show for work.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  114. Did Mitt finally figure out what state he lives in?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  115. Wow your finally saying stuff that I agree with.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  116. ___________________________________________

    I want large reductions in the federal government’s size and intrusiveness, without the social conservatism and cronyism of the W years

    Your comment is a good example of why people will go into the voting booth on election day and be surprisingly unpredictable or ideologically tough to pin down. George Bush Jr, certainly by the standards of decades ago, was hardly a staunch social conservative. He certainly was quite squishy when it came to major social issues such as those involving illegal immigration — and based on his buying into at least part of Al Gore-ism — global warming, and drugs for seniors. His tolerance of bloated budgets, and all the do-gooder programs wrapped in them thereof, indicates he apparently wasn’t as miffed by Big-Mommy government as he should have been.

    The very fact Bush believed he had to qualify “conservatism” with the label of “compassionate conservatism” — even after decades of “Great Society” engineering and political correctness run amok — should tell you that if he truly were a cultural rightwinger, than that would have to make Obama an ultra-ultra-liberal and Bill Clinton an ultra-liberal.

    That a concept like same-sex marriage is now the new dividing line between increasingly mainstream liberalism and a form of conservatism increasingly defined (by “sophisticates,” who dominate public discourse) as “rigid, mean and RACIST!!,” is another illustration of how this society, certainly by the standards of decades ago, is becoming socially uber-leftwing.

    That much of modern America no longer is shocked by or even uncomfortable about unmarried women (particularly rather young women) having kids is another sign of how the dividing line between liberal and conservative is starting to topple (or crash) over to the left.

    Mark (411533)

  117. If you mean Douglas Ginsburg, I’ve longed to see him nominated, just for a year or two.

    No, you misread.

    I meant I’d like Chip Mellor to replace one of the current justices, perhaps Ruth Bader Ginsberg (being the next likely out the door). Or maybe Clint Bollick if Mellor is too old (61).

    Kevin M (563f77)

  118. _____________________________________________

    Rick Perry can handle a tough interview because he’s got the facts on his side.

    I don’t personally care if you like Romney or not, vote for him or not

    I can’t relate to anyone who is staunchly either in favor or against the various Republican candidates at this time, with perhaps the exception of Jon Huntsman. I force my personal preferences out of the equation because I’m fully aware that a large majority of the electorate is to the left of my preferences.

    My main concern is booting President “Goddamn America” out of the White House. So whichever candidate is tactically the most likely to do that is fine with me. If that’s Romney, fine. If that’s Perry, fine. If that’s Gingrich, fine. If that’s Cain, fine. If that’s Bachmann, fine. If that’s Santorum, fine.

    Nothing else is as important to me as, again, getting rid of “goddamn America.”

    Mark (411533)

  119. I don’t think the GOP can win based solely on a Beat Obama platform. You don’t fund or win elections with a negative platform.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  120. Amen.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  121. Rick Perry can handle a tough interview because he’s got the facts on his side.

    Rick Perry makes a fine governor of Texas. He is a proven influence peddler, provides access and assistance quid pro quo and can’t think on his feet. He came into the race like a lion and has all but left like a lamb. He has not resonated with the American people and has had to resort to quasi-comedy adds to try to explain away his ineptitude.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  122. DRJ

    Yep, if people focus on jobs, repairing the economy through reduction of regulations and taxes, and slowly start the process of gently reducing spending – the combination of all three of these factors will rapidly grow the econmy across most sectors (which didnt happen under Clinton and led to massive instabilities) and this growth will start a resurgence of industrialization

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  123. Perry Cain and Bachmann are all gonna leave this race in substantially worse shape than they came into it

    Santorum and Huntsman and Romney will have just wasted a lot of time and money

    maybe next time we won’t have so many losers throw their hat in the ring

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  124. I agree with Mr. Mark though this president douchebag we have is noxious and cowardly and useless and we have to make him go away next year cause real people are getting hurt

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  125. Mitt Romney had good reason to be miffed at Baier, IMO. He had just done a 1 hour televised interview with Hannity two days earlier in which he answered every single question then that Baier repeated. Why give Baier a pass for being so unoriginal and just asking the same ol’ same ol’? Did Baier really think Mitt would give a different answer 2 days later? Couldn’t he come up with some new questions?

    Any candidate would be miffed at having his valuable time wasted in this way. If a candidate is willing to sit down with an interview one on one, don’t they have a right to expect a little respect and not be patronized the way Baier was doing to Romney?

    Is this designed to be a defense of a woefully poor interview? Mitt did crappy. Period. That is a great new standard you created there. You can only ask a candidate a similar form of a question one time.

    Epwj – when running for President, does it matter what State you live in? You have tried to claim this as scandalous before, and have repeatedly shown to be full of manure.

    JD (318f81)

  126. Mitt’s creepy smile of hate

    is creepy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  127. Like a clowm’s smile

    JD (318f81)

  128. It may take a generation or two before another Texan can be a viable candidate for POTUS.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  129. “Bain was a consultancy when Romney arrived. His contribution was to change it to a private investment firm.”

    gary – No, Bain Capital was a new firm created to invest money of the employees of Bain in transactions and then they began taking money of outside investors as well. Bain continued as a consulting firm.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  130. daley… you are to be commended for your efforts to lead the mule to water, but never underestimate his stubborn nature.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  131. JD

    Shoud a presidential candidate try to claim residency in a son’s basement closet?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  132. Good Allah. Seek help.

    JD (318f81)

  133. I guess Jd when a guy leaves the state because of the tax environmnet and then makes cold calculated political decisions that he must reappear as a resident in the state he created or helped to create the tax mess that is Mass, then its a wonderment that he hasent been called out o it yet – but is being sued by some members of the party in his home state to get him removed from the tax rolls as he isnt a resident.

    Thats a big deal that will become bigger if by some miracle he gets the nomination

    If you say you’re from a state, live in that state, maybe you should actually sort of live there

    Bush I lost alot of credibility when he really lived in Maine but had a token apartment (Hotel Room) in Texas – it still matters to people

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  134. I must admit Newt has thoroughly suprised me, not with his intellect, but with fearless persistence.

    After the Pelosi frolic and NY-23 I was dead set against. But he has been reliably agressive, not against his counterparts, attendining to his strengths, on the issues and against the MSM and the Dimmis.

    Red meat like “fire Bernanke” and “lock up Dodd and Frank” fire us up but he is reliably prepared with some detail–unlike his competitors.

    And alone on the dais, Gingrich has been able to mover the aparatchiks of his party off the schneid. We all agree Congress is a more intractable problem than simply changing figureheads.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  135. I guess Jd when a guy leaves the state because of the tax environmnet and then makes cold calculated political decisions that he must reappear as a resident in the state he created or helped to create the tax mess that is Mass

    If you are going to lie and try to make up a smear about someone, it would help if you used capital letter where appropriate, punctuation, and write in intelligible Engrish. Aren’t you leaving to Jakarta soon?

    JD (318f81)

  136. 134, 135.

    In 1977, he was hired away by Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston that had been formed a few years earlier by Bill Bain and other former BCG employees.[35][40][41] Bain would later say of the thirty-year-old Romney, “He had the appearance of confidence of a guy who was maybe ten years older.”[42] With Bain & Company, Romney learned the “Bain way”, which consisted of immersing the firm in each client’s business,[35][42] and not simply to issue recommendations, but to stay with the company until they were changed for the better.[40][41][43] With a record of helping clients such as the Monsanto Company, Outboard Marine Corporation, Burlington Industries, and Corning Incorporated, Romney became a vice president of the firm in 1978 and within a few years one of its best consultants.[6][35][38] Romney became a believer in Bain’s methods; he later said, “The idea that consultancies should not measure themselves by the thickness of their reports, or even the elegance of their writing, but rather by whether or not the report was effectively implemented was an inflection point in the history of consulting.”[41]

    Logo of company that Romney co-foundedRomney was restless for a company of his own to run, and in 1983 Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture that would buy into companies,”

    You children, along with Sara, need to provide context along with your horsesh*t.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  137. JD

    Please find Romney’s residence in Mass, then get back to me.

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  138. It does not matter if he resides in Mass, or Utah, or California. Period. Full stop.

    JD (318f81)

  139. Tomasky accuses the GOP of having an ego problem.

    Irony alert.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  140. ________________________________________________

    Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”

    Apparently one can add another example to the mix. The following makes me think of the phrase “lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.”

    radioequalizer.blogspot.com

    Now that he’s once again considered conservative and viable, it’s no surprise to see Newt Gingrich’s establishment/Beltway liberal friends turn against him. The ferocious nature of this sudden shift may be startling to the former House speaker, however.

    In the latest example, Al Sharpton has abruptly decided to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Newt, accusing him of race-baiting and a divisive campaign strategy. Given their strange history of palling around, however, this one may sting a bit.

    From yesterday’s syndicated Keeping It Real With Al Sharpton:

    AL SHARPTON (6:51): Newt Gingrich, at the request of President Obama toured some inner city poor area schools with me and Secretary Duncan. And he knows thses kids have parents that work and that are not making money illegally. For him to say, read his quote so that people will understand that maybe haven’t heard it. Read what he said Smokey.

    SHARPTON: Now He’s (Newt Gingrich) been to South Philly with us, he’s been other places. This is like when we saw the welfare queen imagery used in another Presidential Campaign, or saw the whole question of Willie Horton.

    And this is now where we are getting into this cheap kind of race baiting kind of poor ah ah criminals kind of behavior and we need to call it out. There’s no one better to cal it out than me cause I went on the tour, risked ah people criticize, I’m glad I went now. Cause I can say I know he (Newt Gingrich) knows better. Y’all are playing poverty and race politics.

    ^ So Gingrich can play footsies not just with Nancy Pelosi but also with, and even worse, Al Sharpton too? Not sure if that’s merely a “characterological” problem for Gingrich and not also an ideological one. Or, actually, it may be the worse of both worlds. IOW, Gingrich being an enabler to not just ultra-liberals like Pelosi, but also to super-unethical, ultra-liberal rabblerousers like Sharpton.

    But to all the foolish American voters in 2008 who were aware of Obama’s close affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, yet shrugged it off, Gingrich’s lapse in judgment — and his massaging leftist sentiment — won’t necessarily make him less viable as a competitor to President “Goddamn America.” Not sure if that’s a sad commentary on how dumbed down (or sloppily liberal) a good portion of the electorate has become through the decades.

    Mark (411533)

  141. Newt consorting with a known criminal like Al Sharpton? That is a sad situation.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  142. Newt is sort of a shameless whore but he’s more ideologically consistent than Romney to where Mr. Newt can flounce about with bigots like Sharpton and it doesn’t seem phony it just seems quixotic.

    No way Romney could ever pull something like that off. He’s too insecure in his own beliefs.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  143. “Logo of company that Romney co-foundedRomney was restless for a company of his own to run, and in 1983 Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture that would buy into companies,”

    gary – That new venture was called Bain Capital. Thank you for proving my point, gary. Mitt was brought back to Bain to restructure the consulting firm when it ran into problems in the early 1990s.

    You Romney bashers should learn some basic facts about the man.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  144. Did Mitt finally figure out what state he lives in?
    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2011 @ 6:38 am

    — Perhaps he lives in the state of Confusion.

    Hey . . . neighbors!

    Icy (7e0657)

  145. Sadly most of the squawkers on the right, Beck, Hannity, Huckabee, give Sharpton the time of day, Rush is the exception

    narciso (87e966)

  146. “You children, along with Sara, need to provide context along with your horsesh*t.”

    gary – Doesn’t the above comedy belong on the sockpuppet thread?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. If Sharpton was just a bigot, it could be brushed aside. But he isn’t just a bigot. His activities facilitated race riots and murders of several citizens. What the hell is Gingrich doing palling around with that criminal?

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  148. “then its a wonderment that he hasent been called out o it yet – but is being sued by some members of the party in his home state to get him removed from the tax rolls as he isnt a resident.”

    EPWJ – What are you talking about?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  149. Shoud a presidential candidate try to claim residency in a son’s basement closet?
    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2011 @ 8:38 am

    — Didn’t you once find 2 million Jews living in a basement closet in Iran?

    Icy (7e0657)

  150. well it might be as simple as the president asked. Like it says up there. Even if the president’s a rapey rabidly anti-American whore like Obama, old school people like Newty Newt think they have a duty to answer that sort of call.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  151. The mule stubbornly contends that he has all the answers, and that he and only he possesses the wisdom required to make the correct choice of which candidate to support. And he will promote his choice through post after post of ill-informed chicanery.

    He’s one of those “by-any-means-necessary” sort of mules.

    Colonel Haiku (d838e0)

  152. Didn’t he find Sarah Palins race war machine in a basement closet in the red-light district back in 2009?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  153. There was an interesting column by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html DECEMBER 3, 2011

    The Comeback Kid of 2012

    Having long ago ruled Gingrich out, GOP voters suddenly rule him back in.

    The interesting thing is that Gingrich could appear to a better foil for what Obama’s campaign strategy is shaping up to be. They probably think he’s the perfect foil – a too-good-to-hope-for foil.

    The only thing is, as Peggy Noonan that’s a losing strategy.

    [This week] More to the point, the president’s numbers went downward, not upward. Why? Because the congressional super committee failed to cut $1.2 trillion out of $44 trillion in projected deficits.

    Once again the president thought he was playing a shrewd game: The collapse of the super committee would serve his political purposes. Once again he misjudged.

    What has occurred is an exact repeat of the summer’s debt-ceiling fiasco. Then the president summoned a crisis, thinking people would blame it on the Republicans. Instead they blamed Washington, which is to say him, because he owns Washington. Immediately his numbers fell. As they did again this week.

    The only way to win America right now is to govern selflessly and seriously. His top advisers, those knowing, winking bumpkins, cannot see this. America is in crisis. It knows it’s in crisis. It cannot tolerate the old moves anymore, the “every problem is just an issue to be manipulated for gain.” The president was once seen as an idealist. He was hired to be an idealist! His ignorant shrewdness, his small-time cleverness—it just won’t do. Nobody wants it. It’s why people want to fire him.

    Sammy Finkelman (54094c)

  154. We have learned to utterly dismiss Noonan, Sammy, because of her serial bad judgement, no he was never
    an idealist, he was a lefty wardheeler, too bad she couldn’t see through him.

    narciso (87e966)

  155. Peggy Noonan about Newt Gingrich:

    If you’ve seen this week’s poll numbers from Iowa, Florida and South Carolina you know it doesn’t look like an increase in his support but an eruption. It is as if something that had been kept down had quietly been gathering energy, and suddenly burst through its bonds. The entire Washington journo-political complex has been taken by surprise by something that not only wasn’t predicted but couldn’t have been. Newt had no steady movement in the polls. He was regularly dressed down by the base. His staff had fled en masse when he left the campaign for an Aegean cruise with his wife.

    What happened is a better story than that the establishment didn’t know what the base was thinking. It’s that the base didn’t know what the base was thinking.

    All it knew was that it was only moderately enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. There were a lot of debates—they were history-changing this year, whatever happens. Six, seven or eight million people would watch them and talk about them afterwards, at work or in comment boxes and email groups. And after they said, “Romney held his own,” and, “Perry’s kind of a disappointment,” they’d come to agreement on this: “I really liked what Newt said when he said they shouldn’t bash each other and re-elect Obama.” “I liked when Newt confronted the moderator.” It was always at the end of the conversation that this got said. Because the base knew Mr. Gingrich couldn’t win, so why waste the breath or bandwidth?

    “He’s incredibly lucky,” said a friend of his. “Bachmann, Cain, Perry went away. But Newt didn’t go away.” The friend said part of the reason for his rise is that “he’s been there forever. He’s spoken at every GOP dinner. People say, ‘I liked him back in ’83!’ It all accrued.” He compared Mr. Gingrich to IBM: “He had more equity than we gave him credit for.”

    Mitt Romney is obviously taking it seriously. He’s lost some of his equanimity. I knew he thought he was in trouble when he didn’t look at his competitors in the last debate like they were lovely little frolicking gerbils.

    Even Mr. Gingrich’s biggest supporters begin conversations about him with, “Believe me, I know the downside, I understand the criticism.” They stress his strong points: experience, accomplishment, intelligence. But they are to a man surprised by his new appeal—they didn’t really know he had any—and they’re surprised by his resurrection. They are impressed by his brains, and always have been, and impressed by his will. They also fear he will blow it, that he’ll prove unsteady, impulsive.

    He is grandiose—he compares himself to Lincoln, Henry Clay, Churchill: “I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.” There are always two choices to make in modern, media-driven politics: claim you are like Lincoln, or be like Lincoln. Claim you are something and repeat it so people will think of it when they see you, or actually be that something and hope someone will notice.

    Mr. Gingrich tends to choose the first path. John Gaddis, in his biography of George Kennan, quotes him saying of himself: “I have the habit of seeing two opposing sides of a question, both of them wrong, and then overstating myself.” This sounds like Newt, though one writes it reluctantly, as he might hear about it and start saying “I am George Kennan.”

    He often seems to be playing a part in a historical novel he’s dictating in his mind—Newt the underdog, Newt the visionary. He has a compulsion to be interesting, which accounts for some of his overheated language—things are always decayed, corrupt, sick, catastrophically tragic.

    He also often sounds like a cable TV political analyst, which he’s been for the past decade. He appraises his own candidacy instead of just being the candidate. The race used to be between “Mitt and Not Mitt,” but now it is between “Newt and Not Newt,” he says. He is “the only one who can win.” This week in South Carolina: “I’m the one candidate who can bring together national-security conservatives and economic conservatives and social conservatives.”

    Candidates should let other people say that; serious candidates should let voters say it to exit pollsters. He shouldn’t be making the grubby bottom-line calculations, he should be making an elegant case for his leadership.

    His biggest problem? The millions he has made lobbying—sorry, teaching history—as a former Speaker, Capitol Hill insider and member of the permanent political class. Some of his paychecks came from the very agencies (such as Freddie Mac) that succeeded for 20 years in operating without proper oversight due to the influence and protection of Capitol Hill insiders and members of the permanent political class. That is the great scandal of our time, and it helped tank our economy. He has been part of it.

    Second, what is known as the baggage problem. Its impact on voters is harder to predict, in part because many of them have lived through and fully experienced the past 40 years in America. Bill Clinton, if he ran for president tomorrow, would probably win in a landslide, and he has enough baggage to break the trolley carts of 10 Amtrak porters. Mr. Gingrich’s people believe it won’t harm him because it’s all old news, he’s addressed it.

    On this, Mr. Gingrich may be helped by the current air of crisis, which itself may account for why he’s burst through now: People feel America’s problems are so huge, so scarifying and urgent, that personal judgments feel like an indulgence. “Can he help turn things around? Then hire him. Obama is a devoted husband and incompetent. Let it go!”

    Sammy Finkelman (54094c)

  156. The think I like about Gingrich is he loves America. He loves the idea of America. He’s passionate about America and he thinks of America in terms of destiny and duty.

    Romney just loves himself … he thinks he would look spiffy in the Oval Office and that when he’s president he can implement metrics that will show he’s a top-notch executive. Yes he really is that dorky I think.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  157. Referring to Eric.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  158. when a guy leaves the state because of the tax environmnet and then makes cold calculated political decisions that he must reappear as a resident in the state he created or helped to create the tax mess that is Mass, then its a wonderment that he hasent been called out o it yet – but is being sued by some members of the party in his home state to get him removed from the tax rolls as he isnt a resident
    — Anyone that thinks it was Romney that created “the tax mess that is Mass” simply hasent got a clue.

    Thats a big deal that will become bigger if by some miracle he gets the nomination
    — Democrats are going to make it a big deal, are they?

    If you say you’re from a state, live in that state, maybe you should actually sort of live there
    — If you’re gonna pick nits, start with the ones under your scalp.

    Bush I lost alot of credibility when he really lived in Maine but had a token apartment (Hotel Room) in Texas – it still matters to people
    — Yeah, it’s only the state where he had lived for most of his life, raised his children, made his fortune . . . I’m sure it still matters a-whole-lot to people.

    Icy (7e0657)

  159. Victor Davis Hanson

    Gingrich must know that he was hired, not because he was a better historian than his colleagues in the field,

    That’s so bad, it has to be a lie he told to himself.

    but to ensure bipartisan support from the conservative side for an agency that was starting to ring alarm bells about its very solvency, and indeed ethics. On his end, his stamp of approval would be aimed, in the manner of the later Pelosi global-warming ads, as a refreshing statesman-like embrace of a needed initiative that transcended politics; “home ownership,” after all, was often a conservative talking point about a larger “ownership” society. The lobbying

    Strictly speaking, it wasn’t lobbying. His contract said he would not do any lobbying. But lobbying only means speaking to members of Congress about legislation. He was more public relations or a salesman.

    Gingrich was hired twice by Freddie Mac. the first time was from 1999 to 2002. At that time the bog thing he did was help devise a program for expanding home ownership to lower income people that would find favor with Republicans and Democrats. Now at that time what Freddie Mac was doing was not unsound. The houses were not overpriced.

    The second time was from 2006 to 2008. Newt Gingrich did not do all that they wanted. That seems to be correct.
    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34603

    He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

    This must be where Gingrich claims he told them their business plan was unsound. Now what the basis for it was and what exactly he told them, we don’t know, he claims he told them they were lending money to people with too poor credit or something, but they didn’t listen to him. Well, of course. They weren’t interested in his advice, they were interested in his public support. But to get his support, it wasn’t enough to just pay him. They must have sent him material about how sound their business was, and he told them, no, it’s not, and that’s where it ended.

    What he did produce for them was a general defense of GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) with nothing specific about Freddie Mac. And he probably couldn’t see anything wrong with what was there.

    It’s so vague I can’t even understand what he’s saying.

    was a win/win deal for both parties — as long as we think away a corrupt and near-insolvent agency paying huge sums to former politicians and political appointees without any banking experience: Review the compensation and quite immoral Fannie careers of those who, like a Franklin Raines ($90 million in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), James A. Johnson ($200 million in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), or Jamie Gorelick ($26 million-plus in aggregate Fannie income and bonuses), had no financial expertise, walked away with lots of money, left disasters in their wake, and were never really held to moral or legal account…”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284827/daschleism-victor-davis-hanson

    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 12/3/2011 @ 3:28 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (54094c)

  160. ==We have learned to utterly dismiss Noonan==

    I totally understand where this sentiment comes from but I think it is somewhat overstated. I, at least, continue to find that most of Ms. Noonan’s recent writing is thought provoking and reflective of average Americans’ POV when it comes to living their daily lives and their deep love of America. She has come very close to apologizing for being snookered by Obama in 2008. And even then I think she was picking up on and sorta responding to the hope and newness of ideas that (unfortunately) many wholly decent people thought they heard in his rhetoric back then, before his actions proved what many of us already knew–that he was all fake.

    Several people I know and care about went off the reservation for Barry in 2008, too. They are now chastened, firmly back in the fold now, and I am happy to welcome them back from the dark side with thankfulness and open arms. I guess I have done that with Peggy too. On her side also is the fact that besides Ronnie himself and Nancy, I think Peggy Noonan has done more than almost anyone in America to burnish Reagan’s reputation and keep it alive. That is gold as far as I’m concerned.

    elissa (2b76d3)

  161. _________________________________________________

    was a win/win deal for both parties

    The epitome of “limousine liberalism”—and one doesn’t have to be wealthy — or, for that matter, a straightline liberal or registered Democrat — to be guilty of that form of two-faced, phony, disingenuous, greedy behavior.

    Or I guess a more applicable title for a conservative being two-faced or going against his or her publicly stated ideas would be “preacher populism” (ie, Elmer Gantry-ism) or “Castro conservatism”? (as in Fidel or that gay district in San Francisco). No less than Ronald Reagan went against rightist principles (and common sense) when he secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran.

    Mark (411533)

  162. At 141
    not simply to issue recommendations, but to stay with the company until they were changed for the better.[40][41][43] With a record of helping clients such as the Monsanto Company, Outboard Marine Corporation, Burlington Industries, and Corning Incorporated, Romney became a vice president of the firm in 1978 and within a few years one of its best consultants.[6][35][38] Romney became a believer in Bain’s methods; he later said, “The idea that consultancies should not measure themselves by the thickness of their reports, or even the elegance of their writing, but rather by whether or not the report was effectively implemented was an inflection point in the history of consulting.”[41]

    From my nearly universal experience with consultants who come in, look around for a few minutes, then give cliche’ solutions for problems that aren’t the issue, anyone who was a consultant who digs in up to their elbows until positive change happens has my support, at least as far as that goes.

    But I’m still unclear as to who is arguing what and what is the bottom line I am to believe.

    MD in Philly (83d172)

  163. Gingrich is a lot like Noonan and much of the punditocracy: they like to swing for the fences. Sometimes they strike out; sometimes they connect, but they are always looking to park the ball in the bleachers. Mitt does little more than protect the plate as he looks for a walk, a passed ball or, at best, an infield hit. The Romney/Gingrich debate is all about how you like to see the game played (and the sort of person you are – cautious, or not).

    How many among us would have any interest in reading a weekly oped column by Mitt (or listening to his weekly radio address, for that matter)?

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    ThOR (94646f)

  164. “But I’m still unclear as to who is arguing what and what is the bottom line I am to believe.”

    MD – Ask gulrud. He believes Bain stopped being a consulting firm and Romney transitioned it into a principal investing firm for some reason. I’m not sure whether he is actually making an argument. With him it’s tough to tell.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  165. you know the LA Times just did a big thing on this yes?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  166. here it is

    A closer look at Mitt Romney’s job creation record

    The Republican presidential contender says he learned about expanding employment during his time heading a private equity firm. But under his leadership, Bain Capital often maximized profits in part by firing workers.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  167. Romney is not good at anything but raising money.

    Romneycare alone is predictably bankrupting MA.

    Don’t those two sentences contradict each other?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  168. The Republican presidential contender says he learned about expanding employment during his time heading a private equity firm. But under his leadership, Bain Capital often maximized profits in part by firing workers.

    Which shows that the writer is an economic illiterate. There’s no point in hiring useless workers just so they can receive a pay cheque! That’s not what “expanding employment” is about. If it were all about giving people cheques, we could do that directly and not bother with making them show up somewhere and expend energy on activities that don’t produce enough to justify them. It would be cheaper, and they could use the time to do something actually useful, like sleep or watch TV or waste time on the internet. If expanding employment is a good thing, then it must be about expanding useful employment, in other words expanding production so that there’s useful work to be done, and thus a demand for people to do it.

    Really, some people seem to write as if work and production were goods in themselves, rather than the price we pay to enable us to consume and enjoy ourselves. People need to remember that the only purpose of production is consumption.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  169. you know the LA Times just did a big thing on this yes?

    And that would be significant because???

    Colonel Haiku (29bee7)

  170. How many among us would have any interest in reading a weekly oped column by Mitt (or listening to his weekly radio address, for that matter)?

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    I trust there’d be more than would not be troubled by Gingrich’s embrace of cap and trade, Al Sharpton, Nancy Peloski, etc…

    Colonel Haiku (29bee7)

  171. the last Team R nominee was a cowardly global warming pansy too

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  172. So does anyone really know where Romney Lives?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  173. Does it matter even one iota to anyone not named epwj?

    JD (0388c1)

  174. So does anyone really know where Romney Lives?
    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2011 @ 1:01 pm

    — In a certain commentator’s maggot-infested brain.

    Icy (7e0657)

  175. Where was Bill and Hillary’s legal residence from when they moved into the White House until they bought the house in Chappaqua? In what state did they vote, and what state’s drivers licenses did they hold? The answer is Arkansas, even though they did not own or rent any property there. Arkansas was their legal home state so long as they regarded it so, and intended eventually to return there. Only once they formed a fixed intention to move to NY did AR stop being their residence. This is not rocket science, it’s basic stuff that everybody but EPWJ understands.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  176. What about soldiers stationed overseas, who last lived in MA and have not established a home in any other state. How are they different from Romney?

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  177. We all know where Murkowski lives.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  178. Well, Rick Santorum’s legal residence while he was Senator of PA was judged not to be PA.

    Since for a majority of the year he was hanging out in Washington DC, he had a residence in the vicinity. Enjoying being with his family, they lived there too. Since it was not a PA address, it was judged they could not use a PA based cyber school like any other resident of PA.

    So, does anybody really know where Mitt Romney lives?
    Does anyone really care? (about Mitt)
    I can’t imagine why
    he’s got plenty of money to fly…

    Sergeant Songwriting Revenger (A sockpuppet) (83d172)

  179. “it was judged” by whom, exactly? To the best of my recollection it wasn’t judged by anyone. Some Democrats complained, and rather than make an issue of it Santorum chose to pay the few bucks; it was a tiny sum and not worth fighting over.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  180. Icy

    Do you know where Romney lives?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  181. Icy – do you live in Jakarta?

    JD (318f81)

  182. And do you get your hair cut at the Four Seasons?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  183. I heard Romney lives in Canada, and is actually a Kenyan interloper by birth.

    JD (318f81)

  184. who else is from Canada is David Frum and Nina Dobrev

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  185. 170. “But I’m still unclear as to who is arguing what and what is the bottom line I am to believe.”

    Actually its rather simple when one applies oneself.

    Mitt made 90% of his fortune and spent the bulk of his career as a venture capitalist. We’re not begruding him his millions we just find the argument that POTUS needs his expertise at enriching himself, friends and co-investors specious but vacuous.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  186. I heard Romney lives in Canada, and is actually a Kenyan interloper by birth.

    Not really, but his father was a Mexican interloper by birth.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  187. Icy – do you live in Jakarta?
    Comment by JD — 12/4/2011 @ 6:58 pm

    — Yes, and I’m close-watching a certain American like Kman on a Worthing.

    Icy (7e0657)

  188. Icy
    Do you know where Romney lives?

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/4/2011 @ 6:37 pm

    — Romney lives in a very special land where flip-flops are cool, tough questions are never asked, and everybody’s hair is perfect.

    Icy (7e0657)

  189. Well, gary, you present one view of Romney, others present alternatives. I’m not a business-wise person. i don’t know enough about business to know if something in a business journal is legit or giving me BS, just as I know most people who are not doctors generally have little grasp of medical issues, even their own.
    For that matter, if Romney as a venture capitalist made money for himself and his clients he would still be much better than what we have now- (a “venturous non-capitalist who gives taxpayer money to friends running failing businesses).
    And I am not anti-Romney, but I do wish there was someone who comes out as a serious alternative.

    186.“it was judged” by whom, exactly
    I thought it had actually been ruled on by the PA Dept of Education, and he chose not to fight it because of the hassle. I could be wrong. (Happened a couple weeks ago…once)

    MD in Philly (83d172)

  190. republicans see in newt that he’s like romney, but not mormon. doesn’t get any simpler than that.

    joseph smith (5807dc)

  191. That is a lie, and you are a liar.

    JD (0388c1)

  192. Interesting…

    “Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said he would have trouble supporting Newt Gingrich as the Republican Presidential nominee based upon his experience as a member of the House while Gingrich was Speaker:

    WALLACE: Let me, Senator Coburn, switch topic. I want to ask you about one last political issue. You served with Newt Gingrich in the House and you say that he was brilliant. But earlier this year, you were asked about whether or not he could be a good president and you raised questions about that.

    COBURN: We need somebody whose eye is critical but is not harsh in their — in their manner. And I don’t mean to say he’s necessarily harsh. But I’m looking for a leader that can bring us together.

    WALLACE: As Speaker Gingrich takes the lead in the Republican race, do you still have those questions about his fitness to be president?

    COBURN: Chris, there is a lot of candidates out there. I’m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich, having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership.

    WALLACE: Why is that?

    COBURN: Because I found it lacking often times.

    WALLACE: I don’t want to pull teeth, but if you could just explain why. I think it’s an important thing. People want to know what you think.

    COBURN: Well, I — you know, the thing is, there’s all types of leaders. Leaders that instill confidence. Leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk. Leaders that have one standard for the people that they are leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking and I’m not going to go into greater detail in that. And I think if you were poll the gang — the group of people that came in Congress in 1994, in which he did a wonderful job in organizing that, he’s brilliant, he has a lot of positives. But I still — it would be — I will have difficulty supporting him as president of the United States.

    WALLACE: We’re going to have to leave it there. Senator Coburn.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284859/coburns-comments-gingrich-jonathan-h-adler

    Colonel Haiku (831076)

  193. ” I do wish there was someone who comes out as a serious alternative”

    Fortunately the “serious” bar is set for small school participation.

    The train has departed the platform and we will make do come what may.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  194. 199. There’s only one endorsement that will make any difference to me.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  195. She seems to be leaning toward Santorum, among the dwarves.

    narciso (87e966)

  196. 172. For the Times, a carefully researched piece.

    Out of 10 purchases averaging $53 million, four ended after Bain’s involvement, in bankruptcy.

    But Bain made money of 3 of the ill-fated four.

    Domino’s Pizza was purchased for $188 Million. Guess that’s what Cain and Romney had in common.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  197. Animal rights activists move to stop bear hunts but meanwhile they refuse to criticize those who wear leather.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  198. There are a lot of black bears in america.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  199. Rush Limbaugh is talking about how Democrats – and republicans – are all claiming that Newt Gingrich would be the best thing to happen to President Obama – and he doesn’t think so.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  200. Guy Molinari, the Staten Island who, like Tim Coburn and Vin Weber, was a member of Congress when Gingrich was Speaker, also doesn’t like Newt Gingrich. He says that Gingrich promised him some committee membership and didn’t deliver, and if he doesn’t keep his word, how could foreign countries trust him?

    Rush Limbaugh thinks this is because all the consultants consider Newt Gingrich as an arch-conservative, a categhory they do not put Mitt Romney in. They also think Obama can’t lose – $1 billion dollars war chest – but without Gingrich at the top of the ticket, they could win the Senate.

    With him, because of him, they even think they could lose the House. Certainly some members who would lose would otherwise win. Barney Frank said that!

    To the extent this is real, this has to do with demagoguing about budget cuts, which worked very well for Bill Clinton in 1995/96. i.e. If Dole lost, how could Gingrich win?? This is exactly Barack Obama’s campaign strategy.

    But as Peggy Noonan said, this may not work so well, and it isn’t working so well right now this year..it’s too obvious. All that has to happen is for the Obama narrative to be disputed.

    Rush Limbaugh says neither party establishment is with his audience.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  201. Joseph Smith is a turd.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  202. Comment by Sergeant Songwriting Revenger (A sockpuppet) — 12/4/2011 @ 5:16 pm

    Well, Rick Santorum’s legal residence while he was Senator of PA was judged not to be PA.

    Usually it is unchallenmged legal fiction that amember of Congress lives in his state. Maybe that doesn’t apply to his childrem and the point here is the children were not actually in Pennsylvania any more.

    This is from the Wikipedia article on Santorum. It shows some signs of being still in the process of being edited:

    At a meeting in November 2004, the Penn Hills School District announced that it did not believe Santorum met the qualifications for residency status because he and his family spent most of the year in Virginia. They demanded repayment of tuition costs totaling $67,000.

    When news reports showed Sen. Santorum was renting his Penn Hills home, Santorum withdrew his five children from the cyber education program that Penn Hills School District paid for. That saved Penn Hills taxpayers about $38,000 a year.[118] Although Santorum said he would make other arrangements for his children’s education, he insisted that he did not owe the school board any back tuition. Once the controversy surfaced, the children were withdrawn from the cyber school and were then home-schooled.[119]

    On July 8, 2005, a Pennsylvania state hearing officer had ruled that the Penn Hills School District had not filed objections to Santorum’s residency in a timely manner and dismissed the complaint. Santorum hailed the ruling as a victory against what he termed “baseless and politically motivated charges”. Santorum told reporters that “[n]o one’s children—and especially not small, school-age children—should be used as pawns in the ‘politics of personal destruction.'”[120] In the 2006 senate campaign, Santorum ran television commercials with Santorum’s son saying “My dad’s opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more.”[121]

    In September 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Education agreed to pay the district $55,000 to settle the dispute over money withheld from the district to pay for the children of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum to attend a cyber charter school.

    The matter rose again in May 2006. Santorum has said that his family stays during holidays and at times on weekends at the Penn Hills house. But the Progress reported in May that the house appeared unoccupied, and Casey’s campaign noted that in a press release. Santorum then accused Casey’s campaign of supporting trespassing on his property, saying of Casey “Now that he is a nominee, it is time for him to start acting like a candidate instead of a thug.” Casey, in a statement, called the charges “false and malicious.” His campaign, in a news release, described Santorum’s actions as “weirdness”.[122]

    In September 2006, Santorum formally asked that the county remove the homestead tax exemption from his Penn Hills residence. He said that he had made similar requests to county officials in conversations in 2005 and earlier in 2006, but to no avail. In his letter, Santorum insisted that he was entitled to the exemption, which is worth about $70 annually, but chose not to take advantage of it because of the political dispute.[123]

    While homeowners in the county are eligible for a tax savings averaging $70 a year on their primary residences, the county council president noted that Santorum had “said during a televised debate that he spends about 30 days in his Penn Hills house each year.”.[124]

    Allegheny County Election Office records indicate that, while a registered voter in the county, Santorum had since 1995 voted absentee.[125]

    The only way for Santorum to not pay for his children’s private education was to enroll them in the Penn Hills School District. Virginia state law requires local school districts to pay for private school tuition fee only when a student has disabilities and enrolls in a school that can satisfy his or her needs, according to Charles Pyle, Virginia Department of Education spokesman. Otherwise, children in Virginia must attend their local public schools.[125]

    Santorum’s supporters have said that the controversy is politically motivated because the school board is controlled by Democrats (Erin Vecchio, the school board member who first publicly raised the issue, is the chair of the local Democratic Party). They also have said that since Santorum votes in Penn Hills and pays property and school taxes there, he is entitled to the same privileges as any other Penn Hills resident and should not be deprived of these privileges as a result of his service in the U.S. Senate.[126]

    Non-residency issues have raised questions of hypocrisy, in that Santorum had previously castigated Representative Doug Walgren for moving away from his district.[127]

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  203. According to his Twitter feed, Newt has accepted the invite to the Newsmax / Trump debate. While they don’t have a chance to win, kudos to Paul and Huntsman for declining to participate.

    https://twitter.com/#!/Newt2012HQ/status/143041326684975104

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  204. Comment by narciso — 12/4/2011 @ 9:36 am

    We have learned to utterly dismiss Noonan, Sammy, because of her serial bad judgement, no he was never an idealist, he was a lefty wardheeler, too bad she couldn’t see through him.

    I am sure what she thought but of course this happens when someone doesn’t know enough about somneone. What she said in this column is:

    The president was once seen as an idealist. He was hired to be an idealist!

    She’s talking about other voters really (maybe herself, too I don’t know. For these purposes it doesn’t matter whether they were right or wrong.
    What she is saying is, he can’t act this way and retain the votes of ..college educated moderates?

    Well, some of his 2008 voters, she thinks. (And this is not a strategy to gain votes)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  205. The dems accuse Republicans and Israelis of hating America which is extremely rich.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  206. Well she wasn’t paying enough attention, much as with Katherine Parker, weathervanes have more fixed
    position than Noonan, one week she showers the Tea Party for having courage, next she pines over the sham deal, Newt has made his mistakes, but his ultimate intention was not to wreck the system,

    narciso (87e966)

  207. Newt has trouble discerning what is tacky.

    Hence Callista.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  208. Didn’t end the italics at the end of teh quote again!

    Peggy Noonan:

    The president was once seen as an idealist. He was hired to be an idealist!

    She’s talking about other voters really (maybe herself, too I don’t know.) For these purposes it doesn’t matter whether they were right or wrong, whether they had any business seeing him as an idealist or not. Some people did (she says) And it is true he talked about not dividing peole into blue states and red states etc. This actually probably was not such abig factor in the 2008 election, and to the extent it was, it affected the Democratic primary campaign more than the general election.

    What she is saying is, he can’t act this way and retain the votes of ..college educated moderates?
    Whoever. Well, some of his 2008 voters, she thinks.

    What anybody can say is that this sort of thing turns people off even if you didn’t originally think of him as a super-idealist. I think the lines she wrote before that are more important

    (Maybe not true, too? Maybe the idea of a crisis is irrelevant. Maybe she feels this is aspecial crisis but the general public has the same attitude toward posturing, crisis or not, and maybe this is not more of a crisis than 2008)

    And this is not a strategy to gain votes, just not lose them.

    Anyway she wrote:

    The only way to win America right now is to govern selflessly and seriously. His top advisers, those knowing, winking bumpkins, cannot see this. America is in crisis. It knows it’s in crisis. It cannot tolerate the old moves anymore, the “every problem is just an issue to be manipulated for gain.”

    I think his posturing, if it continues, will be shown up as phony – if somebody is willing to make thqt point, and explain it. And that does lose. In 1948, Harry S Truman challenged the Republican Congress to pass their campaign platform, and they didn’t. he showed them up as phony.

    This doesn’t look like it could be duplicated this year, as they are not likely to put something in a platform the nominee signs onto that they have no intention of actually doing.

    Unless of course, it’s Romney. Then, that’s possible, althoughh unlikely.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  209. This doesn’t look like it could be duplicated this year, as they are not likely to put something in a platform the nominee signs onto that they have no intention of actually doing.

    Oh yeah?

    BBA

    Spartacvs (c389d4)

  210. If it comes down to Newt, he has experience running on a platform that he intends to, and did, deliver;
    anyone remember the Contract With America?

    AD-RtR/OS! (4308e6)

  211. Spartac aren’t you supposed to go watch the History Channel about how the repubs have been the party of queers since 1897?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  212. Did someone just fart?

    Icy (9fa38d)

  213. Spurty – I am pleased Obama will be running on a platform of higher unemployment, higher gas prices, higher taxes and higher deficits.

    Four More Years! Winning!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  214. Four More Years! Winning! WTF!

    FTFY!

    AD-RtR/OS! (4308e6)

  215. Interesting take from Yuval Levin…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285083/choice-two-temperaments-yuval-levin

    Colonel Haiku (b19539)

  216. I think Gingrich has the intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment that many Republican voters are looking for — he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive

    this is key… Romney has the same intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment as the produce manager at Ralph’s

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  217. he’s very helpful if you ask him – my friend J a lot relies on him and his prodigious store of fruit and vegetable lore for to make wise produce purchases but me I’m just sort of a grab and go kinda guy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  218. Crappyfeet I’m sure if you close your eyes click your heels together 3 times and say there is no place like home that I could make sense of your post.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  219. ok try now

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  220. Hey, Doh, why don’t you go over to the Newt thread and give the new guy venihainuib some advice at his website? He looks like he’s anxious for some intellectual stimulation.

    elissa (9d9d19)

  221. I’m here.

    By the way why do the newt haters bring up something 30 years ago?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3576 secs.