Brutal new Ron Paul ad: You people can’t seriously be thinking of nominating Gingrich

posted at 6:37 pm on November 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

Ron Paul: Wrong about many things, but not everything.

You’ll be pleased to know that even Mitt Romney is now questioning Newt’s “conservative credentials,” and not implausibly. I don’t mind telling you: My despair over the state of the race is driving me to consider … dark possibilities. Don’t make me do something I don’t want to do.

Update: A thought experiment from Dan Foster: What if Gingrich had spent the past six years running for president and entered the primaries as the “inevitable” nominee, and then Bachmann, Perry, and Cain had all imploded? Would Romney now be surging on the strength of anti-Newt sentiment? If not, why not?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

There are no nice words to describe Ron Paul. There are very few nice words to describe his chauvinistic supporters. I really think, that if push came to shove, I still wouldn’t vote for obama. But if I had to vote for Paul, I just wouldn’t vote for the first time in my long life.

And I guarantee that I have been a Republican, then conservative, longer than you.

Old Country Boy on December 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I’d never vote for Paul. But in this instance, his ad is exactly right.

Gingrich IS an establishment tool. I’d rather have Romney, thank you very much.

Book on December 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Ron Paul: Wrong about many things, but not everything.

Exactly. I really like a lot of things Newt is saying. But I don’t like a lot of the things he’s said in the past. Of course, that’s the problem a lot of folks have with Romney, too.

I guess my question is, are either of them simply maturing in their opinions? Or are they both going with whatever stance wins the most votes this week?

I don’t mind people flipping on an issue- that’s a natural result of learning. I do mind flip-flopping.

hawksruleva on December 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I actually am really tired of hearing what these pols want to do.
How specifically will they get them done against an entrenched political elite?
Yeah, I thought so.
*crickets*
But the speech is cool & people get goosebumps when they hear these people speak.

Badger40 on December 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM

…….I really think, that if push came to shove, I still wouldn’t vote for obama……….

Old Country Boy on December 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Push came to shove? Hell, if gun came to forehead.

How can anyone wrestle with scenarios where they might vote for aggressive socialism?

nico on December 1, 2011 at 2:46 PM

But if I had to vote for Paul, I just wouldn’t vote for the first time in my long life.

Old Country Boy on December 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn’t run third party.

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Newt still believes the Medicare Part D extension was the right thing to do. He’s still supportive of NAFTA. He and his twin brother Bill Clinton can go straight to hell.

Pitchforker on December 1, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Not a fan of Newt, but I’ll never vote for Ron Paul. He would be WORSE than Obama and Carter.

kvader on November 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Huh? Carter created the Department of Education as well as being an all-around globalist stooge. Paul is nothing of the sort. Obama and Carter are statists of the highest order.

Pitchforker on December 1, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Then we should look to our history to find the solution. People for decades argued that states didn’t have the right to allow their citizens to engage in slavery. Ultimately, the solution was a constitutional amendment.

You want the national government to have the authority to define murder statutes for the states, amend the constitution to give them that authority. Because it doesn’t exist right now. And it doesn’t help the cause to pretend that it does.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

No John you apparently missed a big chunk of history from about 1859-1869.

Ultimately what happened was this:

An inexperienced politician (Lincoln) was elected to the highest office in the land. Due to his inexperience and gifts of oratory suffused with his personal feelings on the matter of slavery the Southern states felt that he would UN-Constitutionally usurp their powers to hold other human beings as private property.

Therefore they succeeded from the nation and a bloody costly war was fought which eliminated through force of arms the legal condition of human servitude. After enduring years of hell with the nation ripping itself to shreds, personal tragedies which would drive any man mad, deep depression, as well as horribly incompetent military leadership Lincoln was MUCH more conciliatory at the close of the war, even advancing a proposal to compensate former slaveholders for their now freed slaves.

It wasn’t until AFTER his assassination by the idiotic Southern moron John Wilkes Booth that the Radical Republicans (whose plans Lincoln VEHEMENTLY opposed) were able to put a jack-boot onto the newly conquered Southern States and REQUIRED as a condition of re-admittance (thus restoring voting rights to all who were not former slaves) the adoption of the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments. This was not a voluntary Amendment agreed to by states such as nearly ALL of the others were.

The ultimate solution as you put it was a victory for the North through force of arms that enabled a repressive victorious Federal Government to take revenge upon the losers in the conflict.

Which is how MOST major political, international and economic disputes have been settled throughout recorded history.

SgtSVJones on December 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM

A lot of people take issue with Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy, and I admit to feeling that myself. My husband and I were talking about that today, and when I brought up to my husband Paul’s comments about letting Iran get a nuclear bomb, he pointed out that, honestly, how can we stop it? And what is worse, saying you won’t do anything to prevent it, or saying you will keep Iran from going nuclear and then doing nothing? Which makes you look more impotent? I don’t know. Honestly, looking at the GOP field makes me feel like my choices are: Lucifer, Baal, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, and Legion. Choosing the lesser of evils is still choosing evil.

Special K on December 1, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Honey, we have more dire problems that some impotent, backward nation without ICBM or long range bomber capabilities obtaining a nuclear device. Iran is a distraction and a joke quite frankly. Meanwhile, this country, the United States of America has recently eclipsed the harrowing 100% debt-to-GDP level. 20% of the population receives food stamps. Inflation is rising to precarious heights, if you look at the old CPI methodology.

Pitchforker on December 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Newt has a Lifetime ACU Rating of 94%

Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Ryan Plan

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Do you really want to stand by this irrelevant number?

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/2396-newt-gingrich-the-establishments-conservative

Here are a few of Newt’s many sins in detail that anyone can verify:

NAFTA and GATT — In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU. (See the October 15, 2007 “North American Union” issue of The New American, especially “NAFTA: It’s Not Just About Trade” by Gary Benoit.) The next year he followed suit by supporting the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO.

Gingrich knew GATT sounded the death knell for American sovereignty. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the lame-duck session, he said, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization…. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected…. It is a very big transfer of power.”

Gingrich backed federal education funding from his earliest days in office, though the Constitution gives absolutely no authority over education to any branch of the federal government. He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. In 1996, then-Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour bragged that “education spending went up under the Republican Congress as much as it went up under the Democratic Congress.” That is a bit of an understatement since Gingrich’s Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history.

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous., Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

Newt a conservative? That’s a good one!!

Pitchforker on December 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Gingrich IS an establishment tool. I’d rather have Romney, thank you very much.

Book on December 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM

They’re both Establishment tools, and only one of them has shown any ability whatsoever to concern himself with the problems of everyday Americans in flyover country. Newt’s congress cut the federal budget and enacted welfare reform over Clinton’s objections. I’d rather have Newt, thank you very much.

Paulians, your concerns are noted, but Paul is not a serious candidate. He makes himself look nutty. He’s also older than McCain was last time around, making him the geriatric candidate who will not be able to beat Obama. If you want to persuade me to take another look at Johnson, I’m all ears, but Paul isn’t going to do it.

alwaysfiredup on December 1, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Saying a lobbyist believes what he is paid to lobby for, is like saying all criminal defense attorneys believe their clients are innocent. Their position is irrelevant. So, too, are Newt’s lobbying efforts. He got paid to espouse a particular position. So, what? Don’t think that means he flip flops personally. (He may, but the ad doesn’t say so, nor does his lobbying past prove so.)

This said, Gingrich is a big gov’t conservative. But, that’s still better than Obama. And, better than Mittens – who doesn’t have any positions.

And, wow, can Newt debate!!

This next term is about repealing Obamacare. I believe Newt would. Not so sure about Mittens. It’s also about reestablishing our credibility on foreign policy. Is there anybody who doesn’t think Newt is far and away the smartest guy in the room on foreign policy?

Pablo Snooze on December 1, 2011 at 7:39 PM

I have a feeling Ron Paul is going to have a 3rd Party run if the GOP nominates Gingrich. Judging by that last ad, Paul doesn’t like Newt much.

I’m mentally preparing myself for a 2nd term Obama administration. Ugh.

haner on December 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM

It’s the “I Never Thought I’d” season… Who can say, “I never thought I’d” have to choose between Newt and Romney? Who can also say, “I never thought I’d” be seriously considering Ron Paul?

elfman on December 1, 2011 at 8:48 PM

I am a GOP voter… Ron Paul is for me…. I have never been soo disgusted by the nominees…

charmingtail on December 2, 2011 at 8:04 AM

If Ron Paul didn’t happily reside inside Ahmendijad’s ass, I would consider voting for him.

TexasJew on December 5, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4