Patterico's Pontifications

1/25/2012

Newt Gingrich: The Party’s Over?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 10:53 am



[Posted by Karl]

Jazz Shaw notes that Andrew Sullivan and Dr. James Joyner are getting a bit overwrought over the possibility that Newt Gingrich might become the GOP presidential nominee.  First, Sullivan:

This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason. That party is simply not one that can rally behind a Mitt Romney.

Then Joyner:

If Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination–a notion that seemed absurd to anyone not named Newt Gingrich two weeks ago–the trend will have reached its logical conclusion. And the GOP will be where the Democratic Party was during the period from 1968 to 1988, a niche party out of touch with America and unable to win the presidency in anything but the most exceptional circumstances. Obama-Gingrich would likely be a landslide akin to 1984 and 1988.

Jazz does a nice job of explaining why the fight over the direction of a political party never really ends.  However, what struck me was how superficial the complaints are in the first instance.

Granted, Sullivan’s intellect has been decaying for a long time.  Even so, one would think it might have occurred to him that his basic indictment of the GOP sounds pretty much like every Democratic hack’s indictment of the GOP in every election cycle since the Sixties.  Perhaps Sullivan would argue that every Democratic hack has been correct about the GOP since the Sixties, but even that lazy assumption would be problematic.  In the immediate term, it destroys his argument that the prominence of figures like Palin or Gingrich represent something new for the GOP.  More broadly, the notion that the right has some monopoly on populist anger is absurd, given the portion of the newshole given over to the Occupy movement over the past several months.  Similarly, the notion that liberals are immune from magical thinking is more magical thinking from Sullivan.  Indeed, the notion that Andrew Sullivan, one of the most high-profile and hysterical conspiracy cranks on the Internet, has the gall to throw stones in this context is a laugher.

Joyner, generally a more sane voice than Sullivan, unfortunately lapses into some flawed history.  The Democrats were far from a niche party from 1968-88, having controlled the House of Representatives for that entire period, and the Senate for most of the period.  Granted, the presidency is the big national office.  However, even accepting that premise, I would again note that the GOP during this period was the subject of the same types of critiques being leveled today.  The GOP’s populist streak arguably started with Nixon’s campaign against judicial activism and his reliance on the “silent majority,” which was historically much less silent than the typical academic would have us believe.  And for all of that, the American people — as opposed to political activists — are not as polarized as Joyner fears.

Moreover, it is quite unlikely that nominating Gingrich would result in a loss anywhere near the Dukakis loss in 1988, let alone the Mondale loss in 1984.  Although campaigns and candidate certainly matter, post-WWII elections suggest that the incumbent party will generally lose when the economy is bad and win when it is good.  The performances of the Dems in ’84 and ’88 are easily explained by economic factors.  Currently, the economic climate does not favor Obama’s reelection.  Accordingly, even if you think Gingrich would be a losing candidate, the odds of a blowout seem rather low. 

Of course, this could be the year in which the typical post-WWII model breaks.  Given that the 2008 meltdown was in some ways the worst since the Great Depression, perhaps voters will be more forgiving of Obama’s failed economic policies.  But once we start “This Time Is Different” arguments, they can be invoked on Newt’s behalf as well.

The point here is not to praise Newt or bury him.  Rather, it is to note that if he should somehow become the GOP nominee it would not signal certain disaster in the general election or mark a fundamental shift in the nature of the party. Indeed, it might say nothing more than Republican voters looking at the political environment of 2012 and deciding — rightly or wrongly — that “abrasive loose cannon” is a marginally better brand than “animatronic plutocrat.”

–Karl

124 Responses to “Newt Gingrich: The Party’s Over?”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (f07e38)

  2. Hat tip Monica Crowley:

    ““Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.””

    Alinsky’s dedication to his rules for revolutionaries.

    And you folks thought Lord of the Flies couldn’t be the antiChrist because he’s too stupid.

    Let’s elect a DIABLO and fight fire with fire, YEARRGGHHHH!

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  3. The tent is too small for Joyner, Coulter, Powell, Rove, Krauthammer, Sununu, Christie and TEAs.

    Burn it down.

    Perhaps Ryan, Walker, Johnson, Reince, et al., can raise it in Ripon from the carbon poot print(stolen from commenter at Gateway).

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  4. Or we could introduce Flip Flopney.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  5. Karl,

    Do you agree with Jazz Shaw’s take on Dr. Joyner’s argument that a Gingrich win will result in a purge of moderate House Republicans? Specifically, do you think that would happen and that Joyner believes it would happen?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  6. And “abrasive loose cannon” vs “animatronic plutocrat” is really funny.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  7. The US employment-population ratio is the lowest it has been since 1983, and has not risen off the floor for the last couple of years. The best that Obama can say is that it stopped falling, down 5% from the 2008 peak.

    Than means that about 15 million Americans who were employed in 2008 are not employed today. Obama’s problems start with them.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  8. A Gingrich win might mean a purge of Democrat Senators, more to the point. Think of it as 2008 in reverse.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  9. Great writing, Karl.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  10. Via Dustin from the prior thread:

    http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/01/24/obama-is-toast/?singlepage=true

    This AM on Laura, Kristol, whoring hopelessly in Bethesda for an elite white champion, noted two detractions from the Reagan walkover of Carter malaise in analogy to Ogabe’s predicament with any respiring competitor.

    The Kennedy challenge and the Iran hostage fiasco.

    Without the Black Swan of EU meltdown, SCOAMF will be a tougher incumbent.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  11. DRJ,

    I can’t read Joyner’s mind. I would note that in ’96, Clinton ran against Dole-Gingrich like Newt was on the ticket. He trounced Dole, but the GOP only lost 9 net House seats.

    Glad you liked the kicker. Sometimes, I think I’m being too dry, so I added that to the draft I wrote last night.

    Dustin,

    Thanks.

    Karl (f07e38)

  12. I dare any Democrat to shout from the hilltops …
    FOUR MORE YEARS

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Neo (d1c681)

  13. as our president.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  14. OTOH, the Black Swan is exhausted and needs to settle soon:

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/01/money-supply-figures-suggests-italy.html

    EU now figures their firewall needs amount to 10 TRILLION in ECB digital cash to cover the PIIGS spendthrifts, and French, Hungarians, and other Jeanny-come-latelies.

    UK contracted 0.2% over last quarter, Japan has a current account deficit for the first time since 1980, there’s more but you get the picture.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  15. York’s piece on Gewt Ningrich was excellent.

    JD (48f69a)

  16. I’ll like Gewt much much better when he’s the nominee and I don’t have any choice about it.

    Same with Wall Street Romney.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  17. 15. Come to think of it, even I will like the Greaseball better with Neut as Nominee.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  18. I don’t know what is it that gets some people so overwrought about Newt Gingrich. Whatever it is, it hasn’t made it into the media. If there is soemthing that isn’t known, and they kept it quiet, well, it’s the fault of the people who kept it wuiet – and they’re still not saying.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  19. 17. SF Nan says she’s got that dirt but is willing to risk withholding it for a more delicious moment.

    Marianne Ginther made the same noises, but hasn’t delivered.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  20. “I don’t want a nice man,” said Kenny The Nail Guy, “I want someone to beat Obama. I choose Newt.”

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Neo (d1c681)

  21. Well, a Gingrich-Pelosi sex tape would lose my vote.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  22. Good link, Neo. I think she’s right some Republicans are attracted to Newt’s willingness to fight.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. I’m sure they wouldn’t vote Republican anyways so their analysis is self-serving. Maybe we do need Newt in order to know whether HE CAN WIN rather than take the risk of Romney who could lose. All this goes against the conventional wisdom, which is truly not meaningful. We can’t keep nominating safe McCains/Romneys and keep losing.

    MyOpinion (c1edfb)

  24. an add on to my comment about introducing Flip Flopney.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  25. By the way Palin’s crosshair rhetoric caused Giffords to be shot but Kos and his she is dead to me rhetoric didn’t.

    /Leftys

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  26. Obama-Charlie Rangel doesn’t need to pay 30% in taxes.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  27. I have to add that I thought McCain was a terrible Presidential candidate. Not sure if Romney is better, but he is sure trying hard to be moderate when he should be more conservative. Conservatism sells much better today than a few years ago to everyone, including Democrats and Republicans.

    MyOpinion (c1edfb)

  28. Obama signed the bush tax cuts into law but now wants millionaires[Charlie Rangel and his congressional henchmen not included of course.] to pay 30% in taxes.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  29. Obama is the most leftwing administration, in recent history, makes McGovern seem like a dim chamber of commerce rep. how many times do you
    have to bludgeon your skull, before the premise
    expounded by Jazz Shaw makes sense.

    narciso (87e966)

  30. Recently someone here was telling us that Romney is who the Democrats say they want to run against.

    Big Labor and DNC Target Romney in Florida

    I was and am amazed that any conservative here would take anything the Democrats say at face value.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  31. Bloomberg should raise minimum wage to $125,000

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  32. Gingrich and Romney don’t inspire confidence in me.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  33. Gerald A:

    I was and am amazed that any conservative here would take anything the Democrats say at face value.

    I don’t know what Obama and the Democrats really want, although Donna Brazile claims they want to run against Romney. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin seem to agree with her.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. Abrasive loose cannon lacks Romney’s ability to lull a depressed Dem base into going, head down in resignation, “Okay. I guess that’s no so bad. COuldn’t be worse really”

    Newt, on the other hand, has the mysterious ability to mollify Dems that he will actually play ball with them because he’s a damned hypocrite and a human being, at the same time luring them with a lack of droning. O’s most rabid lovers are all for luap Nor now, anyway.

    SarahW (fe87f7)

  35. Forget what Democrats SAY. Remember instead what Democrats are like – and what they do.

    SarahW (fe87f7)

  36. I don’t know what Obama and the Democrats really want

    Well um doesn’t the fact that the DNC is running anti-Romney ads in FL give you some kind of clue perhaps?

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  37. Well um doesn’t the fact that the DNC is running anti-Romney ads in FL give you some kind of clue perhaps?

    Comment by Gerald A

    I am amazed that any conservative would take anything the democrats say at face value.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  38. “I am amazed that any conservative would take anything the democrats say at face value.”

    Heh! I thought that’s where a bunch of your anti-Romney talking points came from. FDIC bailout-Politico. Jobs growth-Axelrod.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. I am amazed that any conservative would take anything the democrats say at face value.

    What a freaking non sequitur! Unbelievable!

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  40. Gerald A,

    I think Obama and the Democrats want to win in November so they are happy to beat up on any Republican. Nevertheless, Obama’s fairness rhetoric and the anti-Wall Street Occupy Movement suggests to me they anticipate running against Romney. It’s an open question whether they want Romney or view him as the most likely or most formidable GOP candidate. But the point of my last comment is that it’s not just Democrats who think Obama wants to run against Romney. It’s also Republicans.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  41. I think Obama and the Democrats want to win in November so they are happy to beat up on any Republican.

    They’re not beating up on any Republican, they’re beating up on Romney, and only in FL. They’re not running these ads in PA, OH, IA, WI now. Why is that? Doesn’t anyone have the ability to put 2+2 together here?

    it’s not just Democrats who think Obama wants to run against Romney. It’s also Republicans.

    So what?

    Nevertheless, Obama’s fairness rhetoric and the anti-Wall Street Occupy Movement suggests to me they anticipate running against Romney.

    I agree they have anticipated running against Romney. I’m not talking about who they have anticipated running against. I’m talking about who they prefer to run against.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  42. Gerald A,

    You seem very intelligent commenter, and you’ve personalized this debate by saying:

    I was and am amazed that any conservative here would take anything the Democrats say at face value.

    Please explain to me why you are willing to denigrate comments you don’t agree with? For instance, instead of using multiple exclamation points to assert Dustin’s comment was a non sequitur, why not simply respond and convince others that you are right and others are wrong?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. Never mind, Gerald A. In light of your recent comments …

    “Doesn’t anyone have the ability to put 2+2 together here?”
    and
    “Another non sequitur! *** What a joke.”
    and
    “Your statement has no logical connection with what happy feet said. As I expected, your “explanation” doesn’t explain anything. Many of your statements are of the non sequitur variety.”

    I’m not interested in talking to you. You will only insult me and life is too short to waste on that.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. What a freaking non sequitur! Unbelievable!

    Comment by Gerald A

    It was meant to be humorous. I don’t understand your hostility to me, as I’ve been very respectful to you, but then, I was respectful to daley and haiku for quite a while and that didn’t work out either.

    You are saying in one comment that we shouldn’t take what the democrats do at face value, and soon after I noticed you were actually doing exactly that and noted the discrepancy because I don’t think you noticed it.

    Saying Obama wants to run against Romney because he’s campaigning against Romney in Florida is taking things at face value.

    There are a lot of other explanations. For example, just one week ago, 70% of Republicans thought Romney would be the nominee (now it’s 51%). I’m sure Obama’s campaign was predicting Romney would be the nominee too.

    Also, I think Romney is much more appealing to democrats than the other GOP candidates, and if democrats worry they will lose in November, because the economy is so bad, they might prefer Romney be the guy who replaces him. So they might want to use a little game theory.

    Basically, I’m saying you’re correct that we shouldn’t take what the democrat strategists do at face value.

    You’ve repeatedly said I use non-sequiturs when my point escapes you, but I actually have a train of thought relating my premises to my conclusion. You are free to disagree, but you seem to just explode at me.

    I’ve been ignoring trolls recently, and was hoping you would eventually settle down and act more reasonable.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  45. I was respectful to daley and haiku for quite a while and that didn’t work out either.

    Oh, just to be fair to them, I definitely was not respectful to them after they crossed the line.

    But I tried for a while to avoid that.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  46. Daleykos and Colonel Haiku are arrogant deceitful bastards who will trash anyone doing better than Romney.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  47. Note to AS:
    Conservative members of the GOP don’t “hate” elites, but we do think that you’ve lost all relationship to reality.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  48. On paper, their calculations would make sense, in reality as we are seeing Romney has this way of ticking off almost as many factions as McCain,

    narciso (87e966)

  49. Sullivan hates Israel, like his new friends, the Muslim Brotherhood, who would just as surely collapse a wall on top of him, has warm feelings
    against capitalism, is rather blatantly misogynist,
    of a natalist characteristic.

    narciso (87e966)

  50. Sullivan hates Israel, like his new friends, the Muslim Brotherhood, who would just as surely collapse a wall on top of him, has warm feelings
    against capitalism, is rather blatantly misogynist,
    of a natalist characteristic.

    Comment by narciso — 1/25/2012 @ 2:57 pm | (Ignore this user)

    True.

    I’m sure he hates Mitt too. In fact, I’m quite sure that Sullivan would have a host of conclusions to draw about how horrible the GOP is if we were nominating him instead of Newt.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  51. I know what to think of Sullivan as I am sure his sexual practices have caused brain damage. How can anyone put stock in what he says after he question Palin being the mother of her son Trig? But Joyner claims to be a conservative. He is a fool. He was a failure in the military as he only rose to the rank of Captain. As a political scientist (politics cannot be defined as science) he is a fraud. Think not? Visit outside the beltway. A loonie bin for kooks.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (8dcb82)

  52. “…McCain was a terrible Presidential candidate. Not sure if Romney is better…”

    Yes, they are both so soul-stirring.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  53. I have a good idea Maobama why not raise the minimum wage to $250,000.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  54. Well Joyner does happen to mime the conventional wisdom, a little too often,

    narciso (87e966)

  55. Not to get too deep into the weeds here but I am realizing that the modern use of the word “populist” as in “populist anger” or when it is used to describe Newt or Sarah confuses me a bit. I will admit that when I hear the word populist the first thing I think of is William Jennings Bryan (or maybe Occupy Wall Street). Personally I don’t really ever think of Republicans in that context, because I don’t view the kind of smarty pants stuffed shirt “elites” we rail against within the party as the same elites populists have historically hated (like the gilded age millionaires and Goldman Sachs). I wonder are we sure we are all talking about the same thing when we throw the populist word around?

    This is just one discussion of populist/populism I found on the internet:

    A populist is a person who subscribes to the political philosophy of populism, which is in favor of supporting the rights of the masses and giving power to the people in the struggle against the privileged upper class. …..Examining the populist movement in America from its inception to the present day will give a general understanding of a populist’s belief system.

    Although some scholars argue that populism has been a worldwide common political phenomenon dating back to the time of Spartacus, the beginning of the populism in America usually refers to the organization of farmers and laborers who disapproved of the inequalities in America during the “Guilded Age” of the late nineteenth century. From 1865-1901, the United States saw unprecedented economic and industrial growth and an eruption of an elite class of incredibly wealthy leaders of finance and industry. With the belief that the country’s farmers and working class citizens created the nation’s wealth, they collectively joined together to create the People’s Party of the U.S.A., also known as the Populist Party.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-populist.htm

    elissa (e3d8ab)

  56. It’s more a state of mind, than mere economics, involved in the modern right populism, more white
    ethnic than Wasp, although there are some interesting exceptions, Buckley Sr. understood this
    ,although the son clearly does not.

    narciso (87e966)

  57. 20, 22. We learned before the last election Melissa was really good, a DeMint operative.

    Note to self:How come you don’t read her all the time?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  58. 54. I decided Joyner blew when CPAC banned Coulter from the dais and he applauded, what, 4 years ago now?

    Now I know better, they both blow.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  59. 45. Every couple of weeks daley demonstrates he has an IQ and a soul, but like Doh says, a very tight azz most days.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  60. Daleykos clings to the visage of Romney so he lashes out against those who criticize Flopney.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  61. I have a few words for everyone here, especially DohBiden, gary gulrud, daleyrocks, etc.

    Well, the words don’t come from me, but I think they are worth hearing. They are nice words to remember in the context of a heated election campaign that will get even more heated, depend on it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  62. 30. Not a mystery.

    They prepare for last time’s second best ’cause the yokel gets run out the next time.

    He can’t bring up Obamacare.

    He can’t bring up Jeremiah Wright.

    He can’t bring up family values.

    He can’t bring up fellating Wall St.

    He can’t simulate red blooded life forms.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  63. Here’s something from Scott Johnson, as someone said, the “power at Powerline”…

    “Earlier this week we drew attention to AFSCME’s Newtron bomb — AFSCME’s megabucks Florida advertising campaign attacking Mitt Romney in order to give Newt Gingrich a boost in the Florida primary. Hugh Hewitt now draws attention the the Orlando Sentinel story drawing the larger picture: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has an unlikely ally this week in his Florida primary battle against Mitt Romney: the Democratic National Committee.”

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/formerly-known-as-dirty-tricks.php

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  64. And Romney is repeating Cooter’s almost two decade old insinuations, Uncle Jesse was unavailable for comment,

    narciso (87e966)

  65. A “Goldwater Republican”? Reagan was definitely one. Newt Gingrich a “Goldwater Republican”? Not according to Newton Leroy…

    http://youtu.be/hJQsLFhuyOY

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  66. And Romney, denied Reagan, three times in the ’94 debate, and dissed the Contract with America,

    narciso (87e966)

  67. 61. You’re right Brother, like Paul says the good that I would do I don’t, and the naughty stuff I claim to loathe, I well, I sort of like it, alright, I secretly like it a lot.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  68. Haiku – he’s more like the ratbastard Captain Louis Renault.

    This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  69. Here’s another log for the fire:

    Author: Romney Cleared Abortion Stance with Reagan Pollster, Church Before Challenging Kennedy in ‘94

    A new book out about Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics (Lyons 2011), makes a startling revelation: in the 1990s, candidate Mitt Romney relied upon polling by the late Richard Wirthlin, a Mormon pollster and chief strategist to the Reagan campaign, that made clear that no pro-life candidate could win elective office in Massachusetts. The book suggests that Romney tailored his position of government neutrality on abortion around that polling. . .

    Make of it what you will. I report, you decide.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  70. “Newt Gingrich says he’s a student of history, but he must have gone to the same school as Barack Obama if he is reaching the same wrong conclusion about economic freedom. Mitt Romney made his money from putting capital to work to create jobs and economic growth. We should encourage, not criticize, such behavior. Newt Gingrich’s comment that Mitt Romney made money from ‘no work’ is ridiculous and continues his poisonous attack on economic freedom.”

    – Chris Chocola, Club For Growth

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  71. Per Mark Krikorian, Newt Gingrich is clueless on immigration…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289255/gingrich-clueless-immigration-mark-krikorian

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  72. _______________________________________________

    Buckley Sr. understood this, although the son clearly does not.

    The son apparently is rather blase or ignorant about the nature of innate biases, including those that influence people’s politics or ideology, if not his own too. If he weren’t, no way would he have ever assumed that President “Goddamn America” (who he voted for in 2008) was anything but a dyed-in-the-wool, flat-out, 100% leftwinger. Of course, I’m assuming that Buckley Jr (ie, Christopher) isn’t innately full of squish, if not outright liberal sentiment.

    Regardless, he certainly can’t use the excuse that his youthfulness (ie, his chronological age) prevented him from seeing the error of his ways. After all, he was born way back in 1952, so the phrase of “if you’re a conservative at 20 you have no heart….” sure as hell doesn’t apply to him.

    Mark (411533)

  73. Colonel Haiku is unteachable.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  74. well lets be blunt, he cheated on his wife, the daughter of his former boss, and colleague of his father,

    narciso (87e966)

  75. Buckley Jr. is mentally ill.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  76. cheating is fine but maundering on about the sanctity of marriage afterwards is just silly

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  77. No, he’s shameless, not as much as this fellow;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13110163

    narciso (87e966)

  78. “…Romney who pays 35% on his original salary and then 14% on his stock dividend and the moment he croaks they take another 55%… and he gives $7 million to charity. Somehow, he’s the problem and the Times Person of the Year is the guy who takes a dump on the cop car.”

    – Dennis Miller

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  79. philipaklein RT @hcpeterson: “By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American” – Gingrich

    A grand vision from Captain Grandiose.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  80. This is the second WaPo story on Saul Alinsky I’ve seen in the last two days.

    Saul Alinsky would be so disappointed: Obama breaks ‘Rules for Radicals’

    The other said Newt was using “Rules for Radicals.”

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Neo (d1c681)

  81. THat’s been a bug with Newt for a quarter century now, would you rather they continue the ‘mercy killing’ that Obama gave the shuttle, and it’s successor.

    narciso (87e966)

  82. INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN

    “In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

    The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong…

    But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

    But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  83. He can fool some of the people all the time.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  84. __________________________________________

    Moreover, it is quite unlikely that nominating Gingrich would result in a loss anywhere near the Dukakis loss in 1988

    Also, both Gingrich and Romney have a background that is full of squish, whereas Michael Dukakis was pretty much of an unrepentant, hard-core liberal. Walter Mondale perhaps was a Democrat Party’s version of a squish, although his lack of persona was what truly did him in.

    I guess the worst thing for any politician to be stuck with is the ding-dong leftist dogmatism of a Dukakis with all the charisma of a droopy-eyed Mondale.

    The one thing that voters cannot grumble about in November 2012 is that the likely main alternative on the ballot to President “Goddamn America” is a Republican (be it Gingrich or Romney) who’s too conservative. Therefore, if they still end up kissing Barry’s butt, that in effect will illustrate just how leftwing they are, and — as far as I’m concerned — their desire that if Greece (or Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, etc) cannot come to America, then America can come to Greece (or Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, etc).

    Mark (411533)

  85. Saying Obama wants to run against Romney because he’s campaigning against Romney in Florida is taking things at face value.

    I never said anything about taking THINGS at face value. I said taking what Democrats SAY at face value. I simply cannot think of any rational reason why they would be running anti-Romney ads in FL because they want to run against Romney.

    I’ll try to tone down my arguments but it seems some things are just very obvious.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  86. Nobody would be happier than me to be proven wrong about all this either.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  87. Public employee unions and Big Labor, in general, are supporting Newt Gingrich in Florida, while they concurrently attack Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

    WTF?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  88. _______________________________________________

    I guess the reason I can’t get too worked up right now about the Republicans is I am so gap mouthed at what an amazing POS this nation has sitting in the White House. Even if I liked his politics — even if he were of the right — or even if I considered his background and history as, at worst, rather benign (I won’t even say heroic or uplifting), I’d still be astonished at the nature of the person:

    weeklystandard.com via drudgereport:

    [Louisiana governor] Bobby Jindal got the same treatment [as the abrasive one that Arizona’s governor received today] when Obama came to visit Louisiana and the governor met him on the tarmac. Jindal would later recount in his book:

    I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help…. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to [the] Secretary of Agriculture….[which] was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary.

    But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset. There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter.

    “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.”

    ^ When this type of personality is on display for all to see, it’s not only “Faux News,” “Tea-Bagging,” “Limbaugh-spouting rightwingers” who have a valid reason to be disgusted, or certainly underwhelmed, at what landed in the Oval Office in 2009.

    Mark (411533)

  89. 87. I think the last word on Dear Leader was uttered, at Cannes last year, by the immortal, consumate Amerikkkan Peter Fonda, star of Thomas Train: The Magic Mountain(cover of Thomas Mann!):

    “He’s a ‘effin traitor”[edited for propriety].

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  90. On overexposure:

    Rush today pointed out that the AFC championship game drew twice the viewers than SOTU appearing on all major channels.

    On underexposure:

    Prof. Jacobson is reporting Santorum is moving on after a couple days and the next debate to more fertile ground. Had enough sunshine, maybe too many empty chairs.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  91. A Gingrich win might mean a purge of Democrat Senators, more to the point. Think of it as 2008 in reverse.
    Comment by Kevin M — 1/25/2012 @ 11:52 am

    — When would that happen . . . 2014?

    Icy (5ec1bb)

  92. Why is that leftys raise taxes on the rich but Rangel is unaffected?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  93. S.E. Cupp savages William Jefferson Gingrich once more.

    “Throughout his career, Gingrich has proven an untrustworthy conservative. Whether it’s on global warming, health care, gun control, abortion or energy, he’s flirted with a bevy of liberal programs.

    In no measure does Gingrich fit what conservatives want in their candidate.

    Tea Party voters want a small-government, anti-establishment Washington outsider. Gingrich fails on all three counts.

    Establishment Republicans want an electable candidate. Gingrich fails here, as well.

    Social conservatives want a candidate who reflects their family values. Um . . .

    So if Gingrich fails to satisfy any of these impulses, I’m left to assume that conservatives are simply out for a good time. They want to be entertained by a Gingrich-Obama slugfest in the general election debates, and they are willing to sacrifice everything — their credibility, their values and the White House — to sit in the Coliseum and watch a Christian get devoured by lions.

    Shame on us. The future of conservatism and the future of the country are bigger than debate-night hijinks. If we conservatives are willing to forgive Gingrich his transgressions, I’m not sure what separates us from liberals.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/newt-doomed-crusade-article-1.1011138#ixzz1kX8B04jA

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. RGGI, MassCare, carbon capture, yes it couldn’t be helped that he had the likes of Holdren and McCarthy
    to work with, who he ‘inherited’ from the Weld-Cellucci administration, Newt has had notions,
    Mitt has actually implemented these schemes.

    narciso (87e966)

  95. I’ll try to tone down my arguments but it seems some things are just very obvious.

    Comment by Gerald A

    For what it’s worth, I have had to make a conscious effort to tone my own comments down.

    But I was trying to inject humor, rather than get on your case. The reason I’m not getting angry with you is that I identify with your frustration with Republicans who just don’t see it your way. You sound a lot like me during the O’Donnell vs Castle Primary.

    There’s two sides to this argument. You think Newt can’t win, I think Obama can lose to Newt. More Obama losing than Newt winning.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  96. You think Newt can’t win, I think Obama can lose to Newt. More Obama losing than Newt winning.

    This is precisely how I feel, too. Sadly.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  97. Jerry Brown is putting California back on track?

    Good one NBC…..oh wait you were a joke.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  98. you were joking.

    Oh well that works too.

    How come UTF works with Cuomo but not Bloomberg?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  99. “Newt has had notions, Mitt has actually implemented these schemes.”

    narciso – Newt supported the equivalent of a national healthcare mandate as recently as last May. Romney never has. Newt now claims he was wrong, just as he was wrong to do a commercial with Pelosi. Why believe Newt and all the time he claims to be wrong, but doubt Romney over things he has never supported?

    History tells me not to trust Newt. YMMV.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. History tells me not to trust anyone not Romney.

    Eff you.

    Notice how the left accuse others who oppose communism of racism.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  101. History tells you not to trust anyone but Romney Daleykos.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  102. I am getting the feeling that at least one commenter here is being paid by a campaign for each comment. Nothing else quite explains the frequency and lack of utility.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  103. So, his actual policies don’t count, yes Newt has said a fair number of silly things, but he has also
    pushed forward a number of important policies, when
    he was in the majority, and before. His success at
    the latter, is in part wby the Dems went so readily
    after him.

    narciso (87e966)

  104. Me?

    😀 Am I being paid by Gingrich if not that stinks on ice.

    When the left say we are racists we need to remind them that originally LBJ voted the CRA down.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  105. Newt and Big Labor… cats and dogs sleeping together. Who woulda thunk it!

    Colonel haiku (b486eb)

  106. “So, his actual policies don’t count, yes Newt has said a fair number of silly things, but he has also
    pushed forward a number of important policies”

    narciso – I am a big fan of his welfare reform. He has been completely across the map on everything else as Karl has documented so you can pick and choose what you like or don’t like. Which Gingrich will you get this week or which Gingrich will you get next week. It’s a box of chocolates.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  107. Next week you can enjoy a box of chocolates on an AMERICAN moon base!

    Icy (5ec1bb)

  108. Icy – Congressional review of judicial decisions, local review boards making decisions on immigration, unamerican vulture capitalists making too much money, the list goes on and on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. Ideas . . . Newt has a million of ’em.

    Icy (5ec1bb)

  110. Yes the 9th Circuit, needs to be trimmed, I wouldn’t have taken that route, seeing as we don’t give a tinker’s darn about enforcing the law, in either administration, we should give that option a try,

    narciso (87e966)

  111. NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL ‘DECAY’…

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-shields/newt-rewrites-his-reagan-connection.html

    NEWT 1986: ‘The Reagan administration has failed, is failing…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams

    NEWT 1988: ‘If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose’…
    VIDEO…

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/newt-gingrich-in-1988-bush-wont-win-if-he-runs-t

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  112. You gotta love the romneybots projecting.

    Thank god I never liked Daleykos.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  113. ‘the beatings are continuing, I don’t aww

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/univision-grills-romney_618576.html

    narciso (87e966)

  114. So Drudge is going Full Monty on Neuter:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/drudge-versus-history/

    Elliot Abrams, Iran-Contra architect and apologist, pardoned by H.W. and W. advisor in M.E. says Neut routinely dissed Reagan, especially, on foreign policy, Afghanistan in particular.

    Seems Reagan policy wasn’t conservative enough?

    Oh the humanity(head tilt).

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  115. Nothing perfect about Iran-Contra.

    Doesn’t Romney have Illegals working for him.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  116. DohBiden, no, not you.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  117. Only an useful idiot who doesn’t mind being bullied by illegals will vote for Obama.

    Anyone who doesn’t mind Wall Street getting their hands greased will vote Obama.

    Anyone that does not mind hyperinflation will vote Obama again.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  118. Illegals self-deporting?

    Good one Romney does that include the ones working for you?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  119. Andrew Sullivan and Dr. James Joyner

    It’s not just these two. There was a woman yesterday afternoon who was a guest on the (former) Governor David Paterson radio show on WOR 710 AM in New York. I didn’t quite catch her name. She was predicting that while it ius not imposisble for Newt gingrich to win the nomination, he will never bne president – the posisbility is not even worth considering.

    Paterson said there was something similar in 2008 – as you know he supported Hillary because he thought Obama couldn’t win – but somehow he won (for which he didn’t have any explanation)

    Here is a link to podcasts of the show. It requyires special software to hear and may cost money. The show is very good actually. It is broadcast weekdays from 4 to 6 PM.

    http://wor710.com/pages/11661687.php?

    He used to be a guest on WOR with John Gambling while he was Governor. It was hard to see why everybody thought he was so incompetent.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  120. Mark Levin said on his radio show that he was there. Ran the excerpt from 1988 interview. As everyone points out it;s not anti-Reagam

    Also ran Romney 1994 and 2002.

    Said it is unbeleievable to see Romney attacking Gingrich this way.

    Of copurse a little bit of this is the idea he was not taht close to Reagam, but hes not said taht really.

    BTW, in the last debate, Romney did not say what idea of Newt Gngrich’s it was that Ronald Reagan did not find good.

    It was a budget freeze.

    Reagan wrote that it was “tempting” (but would hurt military buildup)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1122 secs.