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

Newt has a 94% Lifetime ACU Rating.

What do you suppose Romney’s would be?

Paul’s is in Liberal RINO land in the 70′s

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

It’s apparent Ron Paul has never heard of Barack Hussein Obowma…

… by the way, a shout out to all the new posters. I guess I missed ‘Open Registration’.

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I trust Gingrich

portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

You and his first two wives….

FloatingRock on November 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Ouch

haner on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Paul cannot weaken a strong candidate by using the candidate’s own words. Have you considered that Newt is probably a fatally flawed candidate. He is the Christine O’Donnell of this race.

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 7:14 PM

More like the Barney Frank. Could win a local race, but never a national.

O’Donnell was nothing more than a punchline. Newt’s a serious candidate, a good speaker, and an experienced politician, but as you said, fatally flawed.

Splashman on November 30, 2011 at 7:21 PM

You can add paid lobbyist to the list too…and these people actually have a tape of him lobbying…lol.

“We urge you look to look at a Travelocity model of buying drugs with real-time information, building with what you’ve already done with My Florida Rx,” Gingrich told a packed audience in the Florida House chamber. “And we’ve worked with MedImpact to design a model that we think will take 40 percent out of the cost of buying drugs.”

Later, Gingrich said he would “commend” the lawmakers (and adds that he directly asked then-House Speaker Allan Bense) to consider a diabetes project another client, Novo Nordisk, and was doing with Georgia.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/audio-gingrich-pitched-consulting-clients-florida-lawmakers#comments

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 7:21 PM

swamp_yankee on November 30, 2011 at 7:19 PM

You are claiming that Romney didn’t back cap and trade like Newt did.

Well Romney was going full steam ahead with a regional cap and trade as a governor and still goes about about global warming today.

Newt sat on a couch and got cooties with Pelosi.

Romney was far worse.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Newt Gingrich is the Christine O’Donnell of this race. I am out. Hope the so-called true conservatives have fun with their ostrich strategy. I just need some of what they are smoking.

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Jennifer Rubin also went after Newt this morning as well:

sheryl on November 30, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Jennifer Rubin is not a shill for Romney. Nope. Not at all.

portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM

I don’t mind telling you: My despair over the state of the race is driving me to consider … dark possibilities.

I don’t get the anti-Newt strain in you, Allah.

Want to know why he resonates?

Because for decades, conservatism has been represented by either people that couldn’t explain it (W, Palin) or people who were contemptuous of it (H.W., Dole, McCain).

How many times did you scream at McCain to “SAY SOMETHING” during the debates?

Now here comes Newt. And here is a man, who, for all his faults, was with the Reagan revolution, balanced the budget, got a liberal democrat president to reform welfare AND to lower tax rates (in the 2nd term no less for the tax deals), and gosh darn it, Newt EXPLAINS things clearly.

I’m tired of waiting to cringe in a debate. You asked why Perry has no traction? ‘Cause Perry comes across as an idiot.

Now here’s Newt. He’s had a billion ideas. Why not. But when push came to shove, he CHOSE to do CONSERVATIVE things in the midst of a liberal democratic president. Romney on the other hand, chose to enact Obamacare 1.0. (Paul, all the while, was stocking up on duct tape and copies of the ‘turner diaries’)

Newt is no saint but gosh he is someone to be EXCITED to hear. I haven’t watched hannity in ages, and I’m watching tonight — one hour of NEWT!

highway64 on November 30, 2011 at 6:45 PM
I chose to ignore your ignorant swipe at Palin and read the
rest of your post which makes some sense.

Amjean on November 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Yep. The bitter worshipers of failed candidates (Palin, T-Paw, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain) who have jumped on the Gingrich bandwagon should pay attention to the arguments made in this ad. Gingrich may be the next candidate whose bubble bursts.

csdeven on November 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Until we all get behind Mitt, this torture will continue…

d1carter on November 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Oh NOES! SO BRUTAL! DID I MENTION IT WAS BRUTAL
Newt made a dumb mistake with Nancy, has a shady past and actually likes money- how come I was never informed about this!
The devastating thing about this is that we’re running against a man so pure and moderate that there is no possible way we can win.
Nice to see AP getting his talking points off of Twitter.

jjshaka on November 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM

I trust Gingrich

portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

You and his first two wives….

FloatingRock on November 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

hahaha +1

ReformedAndDangerous on November 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Yep. The bitter worshipers of failed candidates (Palin, T-Paw, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain) who have jumped on the Gingrich bandwagon should pay attention to the arguments made in this ad. Gingrich may be the next candidate whose bubble bursts.

I only fear that the bubble might burst after we nominate Newt.

I can just see those Dem attack ads now, and you know what most are truthful too.

haner on November 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Newt is the last lily pad after Cain and Perry’s disastrous campaigns. Nobody liked him 6 months ago but the only alternative is Romney. There’s absolutely no denying what’s in that ad. In other words, we got ourselves yet another bad batch of candidates.

I can only hope Newt’s judgement will somehow get somewhat less idiotic than it’s been the past few years.

Dongemaharu on November 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM

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

A remarkable criticism from a very non-serious candidate. Gingrich may not be the most appealing, but at least he wouldn’t strip our defenses to nothing on a ridiculous isolationist policy.

I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM

I can only hope Newt’s judgement will somehow get somewhat less idiotic than it’s been the past few years.

Dongemaharu on November 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM

In other words, you are hoping he becomes a flip-flopper…but yet, you hate Romney cus he is a flip flopper.

I am getting it now. I am still waiting for the recommendation on what you people are smoking.

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Don’t make me do something I don’t want to do.

WHAT!?!?!?! You’re gonna write HER in? NFW!!!

ProudPalinFan on November 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Imperfect FEARLESS Consistent Conservative

Newt is NOT it.

FIGHT for a Conservative, not a fraud.

PappyD61 on November 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

My head has been spinning for two weeks trying to figure out how Gingrich ended up as a viable candidate…and today my head nearly exploded with the release of the FL polls. Can you wake me up when this joke is done being told? It is a tad embarrassing to be in the party that thinks nominating Trump, then Bachman, then Perry, then Cain, and now Gingrich is the best way to promote conservatism and defeat Obama. If we nominate Gringrich and lose to Obama, we will have earned what we get during the next four years.

brilrodion on November 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

ProudPalinFan on November 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

That seems to be the only reasonable option, doesn’t it?

promachus on November 30, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Brutal and I love it. So GOP voters…now what? Go with Romney? The John Kerry of the right? An empty suit who has flip flopped more often than Daytona during spring break? Even if he did win what would we gain? What would change?

Obama will stay in office and it’s because the GOP has failed to provide even one serious candidate for the presidency aside from Ron Paul who won’t get the votes to oust Obama either because he’s not a traditional Republican (note I didn’t say conservative).

I kind of have to wonder if this was the GOP’s plan all along. If they just threw a bunch of people they knew couldn’t possibly beat Obama out there because they know what’s coming in the next four years with the economy and they don’t want someone from their party to be held responsible for it.

Benaiah on November 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

As much as I dislike Obama I don’t know if I can pull the level for Paul. I may have to sit out before voting for that character.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

A remarkable criticism from a very non-serious candidate. Gingrich may not be the most appealing, but at least he wouldn’t strip our defenses to nothing on a ridiculous isolationist policy.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM

You don’t know that. You can’t know anything for sure about Gingrich. He talks a good game, but history proves that nothing he believes is set in stone. Just like Romney, he’d sell his mother for spare parts if it became politically expedient to do so.

If you want to vote for a chameleon, hey, feel free. But don’t pretend you know what he’d do as president.

Splashman on November 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Ron Paul cannot win the GOP nomination and he knows it. He’s only out to weaken every other GOP candidate. It’s disgusting.

Scrappy on November 30, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Your evidence of this is…???

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM

If you haven’t picked up on the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance during the last dozen or so times he ran for president, then there’s not much sense in trying to point it out again.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

As much as I dislike Obama I don’t know if I can pull the level for Paul. I may have to sit out before voting for that character.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Heh. But those people that sat at home because they didn’t want to vote for McCain… EEVIILLL!!1one!won!!

ReformedAndDangerous on November 30, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM

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

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Brutal and I love it. So GOP voters…now what? Go with Romney? The John Kerry of the right? An empty suit who has flip flopped more often than Daytona during spring break? Even if he did win what would we gain? What would change?

Benaiah on November 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Is Gingrich the only Not-Romney in the field? Or that’s what you’ve been manipulated into believing?

Better look carefully.

TheRightMan on November 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

You don’t know that. You can’t know anything for sure about Gingrich. He talks a good game, but history proves that nothing he believes is set in stone. Just like Romney, he’d sell his mother for spare parts if it became politically expedient to do so.

If you want to vote for a chameleon, hey, feel free. But don’t pretend you know what he’d do as president.

Splashman on November 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM

No one can ever say for certain about a politician. But if Obama, as far left as he is, refused to strip our defenses completely, then I seriously doubt Gingrich would do it. Paul, on the other hand, either would really do it, or has been lying about his principles all these years.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Until we all get behind Mitt, this torture will continue…

d1carter on November 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Torture away! I’m not lining up behind scumbag Romney and his shameless quest for the presidency.

Punchenko on November 30, 2011 at 7:51 PM

And then there is Rick Santorum…ignored as usual. Huntsman over Santorum…*sigh*

The complaints from ‘conservatives’ all seem to be, “He comes across so angry and mean during the debates!!!”

Or from the social libs, “He’s a theocrat!!!” only because he would like to reinstate the laws that stood in this land up until as recently as about 40 years ago, some even later.

Yep…he’s a crazy man!/

We are so doomed.

pannw on November 30, 2011 at 7:52 PM

So Ron Paul runs 2 minute attack ads.. against fellow GOP nominees?
That’s an interesting strategy, I didn’t think I could respect Ron Paul less, because frankly I am Israeli and I hate his guts just like he hates me + my country, but watching him and his supporters play ‘It’s my ball, or no one but Obama’s ball’ I have to say, I do.

saus on November 30, 2011 at 7:53 PM

If Newt gets the nomination it won’t be from a lack of attacks. From all sides.

Cindy Munford on November 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM

saus on November 30, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Why do you say he hates you?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

A remarkable criticism from a very non-serious candidate. Gingrich may not be the most appealing, but at least he wouldn’t strip our defenses to nothing on a ridiculous isolationist policy.

I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM

You’re much mistaken. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense. Indeed, he has written that providing for the national defense is the first duty of the Federal government. He merely points out, correctly, that our troops should be protecting THIS country, not Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, and other sundry locales around the globe.

He recognizes that the number one threat to our national security is not a foreign army, but our national debt. We are becoming beholden to the whims of China and our creditor states, and should they plunge us into a bond crisis, we will be unable to support anything but the most token military – not an outcome I want to see happen. And since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a plan to balance the budget, the suicidal option is supporting anyone else.

Ron Paul has a plan to balance the budget in 3 years. Newt Gingrich called a plan to balance it by 2060 “right-wing social engineering”. Now, you tell me who supports ridiculous policies.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Why do you say he hates you?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Saus is Jewish I believe.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Newt has a 94% Lifetime ACU Rating.

What do you suppose Romney’s would be?

Paul’s is in Liberal RINO land in the 70′s

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

As with the other article, I’m interested to see your definition of “liberal.” As stated there, ratings such as this are sometimes based on whether you tow the party line (a vote against a big republican budget equalling a “liberal” vote in their estimations), or sometimes overly simplified views (a vote against a federal law on an issue like gay marriage, even if its done because he believes this is an issue in the jurisdiction of states, is still considered more liberal). I would like to see how you personally define it in this case as you are using the label quite often.

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

On what basis would that mean he is hated by Paul exactly?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:04 PM

If you haven’t picked up on the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance during the last dozen or so times he ran for president, then there’s not much sense in trying to point it out again.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Rather odd trying to take someone seriously speaking of “the fact”, when they can’t tell the difference between a “dozen”, and three.

But by all means. Go with the King of Flip or the waterboy to the Varsity Squad at Lobbying U.

I’m sure you’ll be quite happy with your choice.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Why would Palin, Paul, Mitchells, Jindal, etc. even consider running for the nomination? one thing is to have to deal with the relentless character assassination from the left media, but when the libtards have this much help from conservatives it is indeed an uphill battle. Together, the MSM and us, are awesome, we can destroy any Republican candidate in a couple of weeks.

neuquenguy on November 30, 2011 at 8:06 PM

saus on November 30, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I am getting so tired of this smear. You show me one – ONE! – thing that Ron Paul has ever said or written against Jewish people. You won’t be able to, of course. The man isn’t an anti-Semite!

And if you claim he hates Israel, why has he spent his entire career in politics defending Israeli sovereignty? From condemning Obama for trying to make Israel return to its 1967 borders (“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.”), all the way back to 1981 when he was one of the few Republicans in Congress to buck the Reagan administration and GOP leadership when he refused to support a resolution condemning Israel for bombing Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant, he’s been consistent on this. Most politicians wanted to support our then-”buddies” in Iraq, but Ron has supported Israeli sovereignty for his entire career.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM

I’m with Ace: “I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever … Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik ‘We brought 9/11 ourselves’ pacifist Chomnskyite crank.”

Ace just posted a lengthy article about this ad and the parts that are unfair, including saying he remembers Newt was not pro-TARP (which sorta irritated Ace because at the time he was). It’s worth reading the whole long thing. He ends up with “I really don’t think it is useful or true to debate these guys in terms of ‘The True Conservative I Can Get Behind.’ None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.”

eucher on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Why do you say he hates you?
Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Everyone knows Ron Paul hates Israel, it’s not a secret, there’s a 30 year voting record that shows Ron Paul rather vote with Hamas + even Hezbollah than vote something positive for Israel. It’s very cute that his supporters and his campaign in the last few months wants to play pretend as if he has no problem with Israel because he’s drowning foreign policy wise.. but frankly that’s all it is, cute. Ron Paul supports the Palestinians, even Terrorists over Israel – and has voted that way.

I’m not talking about foreign aid votes, I am talking about simple votes of support like refusing to condemn Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that wants to murder all Israelis, while they were rocketing Israeli civilians. Same goes for Hamas. That’s why so many stormfront and neo nazis love and vote Ron Paul. He’s a dreamboat candidate for them.

saus on November 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Ron Paul voted against Paul Ryan’s landmark reform budget. He joined such conservative stalwarts as Snowe and Collins.

amerpundit on November 30, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Paul voted against it because it doesn’t balance the budget until 2060. Waiting that long will be far too late to stave off fiscal collapse.

Paul has a plan to balance the budget in 3 years, and has pledged as president to veto any budget resolution that doesn’t balance by the end of his first term in office.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM

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

Not much more can be added to that.
Which is why you get paid the big bucks, AllahPundit. :)

itsnotaboutme on November 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM

It looks like someone slipped grampa his meds… a decent ad from the Ronulans. Too bad his foreign policy is SOS. And that he won’t take his meds…

ajacksonian on November 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Ace just posted a lengthy article about this ad and the parts that are unfair, including saying he remembers Newt was not pro-TARP

eucher on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Gingrich on TARP:
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/28/gingrich-gets-back-on-the-couch-with-pelosi/

You were saying?

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Heh. But those people that sat at home because they didn’t want to vote for McCain… EEVIILLL!!1one!won!!

ReformedAndDangerous on November 30, 2011 at 7:46 PM

My problem is that I don’t consider Paul that much better than Obama overall.

1. He is much worse and too naive on foreign policy. Even Obama knows we must kill the enemy in a war, Paul thinks it is an illegal assassination!!

2. Paul is so naive on foreign policy that he thinks if we listen to Al Qaeda and leave whatever country they tell us to leave( regardless of the real government) then they will leave us alone.

3. Even on abortion, at least Obama claims he is not sure it is a human life, however Paul says it is a human life, but yet it should be left up to the state if they want to kill the innocent! What kind of goobley gook position is that? Is all other types of murder to be left up to individual states? I guess according to Paul slavery should be left up to the states? Oh, and while I’m on that his whole rationale for the racist newsletter carrying his name never made any sense to me.

So yes, I’m afraid if I show up to vote with Paul and Obama on the ticket I may actually vote for Obama.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Everyone knows Ron Paul hates Israel, it’s not a secret, there’s a 30 year voting record that shows Ron Paul rather vote with Hamas + even Hezbollah than vote something positive for Israel.
saus on November 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM

When Reagan and congress wanted to condemn Israel for bombing the Osirak nuclear facility, Paul was one of the few to go against this (was was noted above) and refuse, saying Israel was sovereign and it wasnt something we should interfere with.

He doesn’t believe the US should have an interventionist foreign policy – this is the explanation for this vote as well as his vote against other laws that condemned other events.

You might disagree with this position on foreign policy, and its safe to assume you do – but to accuse him of hating Jews because of this is the equivalent of Perry accusing conservatives of being heartless for opposing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Just because you don’t believe it is a role of government to do something, doesn’t mean you hate the would-be-beneficiaries.

Like I said, probably you disagree and would want the government to be more interventionist than him. That’s a whole other debate – but just because he has a different view than you about the role of government, doesn’t mean he hates you..

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:20 PM

When another candidate can articulate an opposite vision of Obama that doesn’t involve allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, I’ll listen. Until then, it’s Newt.

As for

You were saying?

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:15 PM

If you’re going to say that someone reluctantly voting for TARP because they were in the minority at the time is somehow a disqualification, you’re going to be cutting out a ton of conservatives, including Sarah Palin.

TARP was needed because liquidity was needed, liquidity was needed because otherwise credit would have dried up, credit is the engine of capitalism. Read some economics. The problem with TARP was that it was abused by Obama and Pelosi and Paulson forced every bank to take it.

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 8:21 PM

eucher on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Also, Ace completely distorts Ron Paul’s position. He doesn’t think “we brought 9/11 on ourselves”, he thinks that our military presence on the Arabia peninsula and civilian deaths in Iraq due to our bombing and sanction regime during the ’90s provided a recruiting tool for radical jihadis to gin up hatred against the US and convince young idiots to kill themselves to hurt us. That’s the same conclusion that the 9/11 Commission Report reached, or were the 9/11 commission “reactionary cranks” as well?

Also, Ron Paul isn’t a pacifist. He voted for the AUMF to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden after 9/11. His objection is that we decided to stay and go into the nation-building business, which isn’t a proper role for our armed forces.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I see Newt as a philosopher. I see Mitt as an executive. We are not currently in a position to elect ANOTHER philosopher to the office of President.

NOTE: Ron Paul will never get my vote. He’s a buffoon. Mitt is the only real choice left to me at this point.

crosspatch on November 30, 2011 at 8:22 PM

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.

Before I hovered my mouse over the highlighted link on “dark possibilities,” I thought for a moment, Allahpundit, that you were actually considering joining the Reconsider movement for the Arctic Fox, Sarah Palin. C’mon now, you know you want to. Come on over…we have cookies. Grizzly shaped cookies.

BTW, check out this brutal assessment of Gingrich: http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/11/resist-we-much-%E2%80%A6-mr-gingrich-for-he%E2%80%99s-character-assassination-for-conservatism.html

And in the interest of fairness, there’s a rebuttal: http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/11/counterpoint-this-conservatives-case-for-newt-gingrich.html

theotherone on November 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM

TARP was needed because liquidity was needed, liquidity was needed because otherwise credit would have dried up, credit is the engine of capitalism. Read some economics. The problem with TARP was that it was abused by Obama and Pelosi and Paulson forced every bank to take it.

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Defend the TARP bailouts if you like, but you’re no conservative if you do.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Good lord. You’re a colossal idiot. Could you miss the point any more to suit your prepared talking snark? I think not. Newt is the only alternative to Romney. The only thing I can do is hope he gets more consistent. I think he has more of a chance at that than Romney.

Dongemaharu on November 30, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Saus is Jewish I believe.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

So was Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul liked him just fine.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Newt is not the establishment Republican in the race. That’s why.

mike_NC9 on November 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM

So was Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul liked him just fine.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Not all Jews support Israel, if they did they wouldn’t vote Democrat.

darwin-t on November 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Rothbard was an Atheist, with a godless worldview.

and an absolute Nutcase which Goldwater and Buckley rightly blackballed out of the GOP

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:32 PM

I notice that nobody is refuting anything in the ad. Nominating Newt will mean the end of the TEA Party. At best, he’s GW Bush II. At worst, he’s Obama lite.

Not a small government bone in their body. Newt supports a federal health care program, carbon credits, federal involvement in the schools, TARP….and the spending goes up and up.

But hey, as long as we’re spending billions to bomb the crap out of third world countries, nothing else matters I guess.

I mean hey – you guys have done a bang-up job running the the country so far. Bankrupted us, tanked the stock market, lost our health freedom, …no reason to change anything though. By all means, let’s rally behind an 80′s retread that brings nothing but more of the same dysfunctional government crap we already have.

Brilliant plan.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Clearly Allahpundit is freaked out and shilling for Romney now because Newt is dominating in polls. Such a hack his post isn’t even objective and stooping so low as to plug a hypocritical Ron Paul ad calling Newt a hypocrite.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Newt 94% ACU Rating

Tells you all you need to know.

Ideological Perfection in our System of Governement and actual Governing is not Possible. Our system was not and is not setup for it.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM

How does the ACU determine their ratings?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

And he doesn’t wear wandering fake eyebrows.

mike_NC9 on November 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:20 PM

You and John Galt here can play pretend as much as you want. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for wiping Israel off the map, 99% of the US congress voted to condemn it, stand with the US ally Israel. You know how voted against? Only two people – Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich. This is just one of many many such votes, where Ron Paul is alone, along with total cuckoos like Cynthia Mckinney that nutjob who sailed on the Hamas Flotilla, voting against Israel.

Ron Paul votes anti Israel, Ron Paul is anti Israel. The rest is a smoke job. You pull up one vote from 1981, do you kiow why that is the Paul campaign talking point on Israel? Because for the last 30 years every single time he could vote against Israel, he did. Sorry. Not 1st time he runs for President, none of this is news. Ron Paul votes with Hamas + Hezbollah, and Iran.. Not Israel.

saus on November 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 8:20 PM

You seem to be mistaken about what Ron Paul believes. Let me correct you.

1. He is much worse and too naive on foreign policy. Even Obama knows we must kill the enemy in a war, Paul thinks it is an illegal assassination!!

Completely incorrect. Ron Paul voted for the AUMF to kill bin Laden, and also favors the use of letters of marque and reprisal as a Constitutional tool to put out hits on foreign terrorists. He only objects to assassinating American citizens who are not engaged in armed assault upon the nation, or who have not been stripped of citizenship or convicted of treason. In other words, he believes in obeying the 4th Amendment, as anyone who respects the rule of law must.

2. Paul is so naive on foreign policy that he thinks if we listen to Al Qaeda and leave whatever country they tell us to leave( regardless of the real government) then they will leave us alone.

Again, you’re mistaken. He thinks that our presence in the Middle East, and especially the civilian deaths that have resulted from our interventions there throughout the ’90s and ’00s, provide a recruiting tool for radical jihadis, so that they can convince young fools to blow themselves up. The 9/11 Commission Report came to the same conclusion, as did the longitudinal research on suicide terrorism by Prof. Robert Pape. Having a realistic view of the costs and benefits of decision making, and thinking about unintended consequences of government action is supposed to be what a conservative does.

3. Even on abortion, at least Obama claims he is not sure it is a human life, however Paul says it is a human life, but yet it should be left up to the state if they want to kill the innocent! What kind of goobley gook position is that? Is all other types of murder to be left up to individual states?

This one is a doozy. First of all, murder is left up to the states: murder is a state crime, and the only Federal statues on murder respect the murder of Federal officials.

But more importantly, you seem to be unaware that Ron Paul would support a Human Life Amendment.

By working to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate about abortion to the states, Ron Paul’s proposed approach will allow many states with pro-life majorities to restrict or ban abortion altogether right away. His legislation to remove the power to regulate abortion from the Federal government and return it to the states could pass right away with simple majorities in Congress, not the more burdensome 2/3 majority requirement for a Constitutional amendment. While not a final solution to the tragedy of mass abortion, such an approach will allow us to start saving hundreds of thousands of lives right away, and will provide concrete examples that, in the modern age, women’s safety and reproductive health can be protected and unwanted children can be adopted and cared for without the need to resort to abortion. This will do massive amounts of good and will save potentially millions of lives that might be lost waiting for the ‘all or nothing’ approach misguidedly pursued by many pro-life organizations to succeed; it is a sad truth that the Human Life Amendment has been perpetually 10 years off for 30 years now. A Constitutional amendment defining human life should still be pursued, and would be supported by Ron Paul, but in the meantime by turning to federalism, pro-lifers under a Paul administration could do more good in 3 months than in all the past 30 years.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM

How does the ACU determine their ratings?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Look at big votes each Congressional Year and how they voted. The Most conservatives are in the 90-100 range. The most liberal in the 0 range.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Newt 94% ACU Rating

Tells you all you need to know.

Ideological Perfection in our System of Governement and actual Governing is not Possible. Our system was not and is not setup for it.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM

“ACU scores” are crap.

You are denying what everybody sees with their eyes. This ad shows several flip-flops.

tetriskid on November 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

When I learned that Gingrich took over $1.6 million for promoting the socialist housing scheme that nearly destroyed the banking industry I assumed his campaign was finished. The word hypocrite immediately came to mind. To make matters worse he insulted out intelligence by claiming he was paid as an historian rather than as a lobbyist.

Obviously, I overestimated the intelligence of Republicans and particularly my fellow Palinistas. Gingrich is the opposite of Palin. She established her reputation in Alaska by taking on corrupt Republicans. If she doesn’t oppose Gingrich she has lost her way and is not the politician I came to respect and love.

Paul’s ad is not brutal. It is brutally honest. The notion that Gingrich can wipe the floor with Obama because he makes great debating points before a friendly audience is a fantasy.

No one is a vulnerable to attack in a debate as a hypocrite. By taking money from Freddie Mac, Gingrich proved that he’s a hypocrite. And a stupid boob who doesn’t get why Obama is such a threat to our way of life.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM

You are denying what everybody sees with their eyes. This ad shows several flip-flops.

tetriskid on November 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

It’s no good arguing with jp. I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either creepily obsessed with Ron Paul or on someone’s payroll. I like to think he has a framed picture of Ron Paul with a little bronze plaque reading “Nemesis” on it, that he stares at intently between waiting for someone to mention Ron Paul on the Internet.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

saus on November 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM

When Obama called for Israel to return to the 1967 lines, Paul again was critical of this and opposed it on the grounds that Israel is a sovereign nation, and we should respect this. You could argue, we should be intervening in these areas, condemning and telling other nations how to run themselves. It’s certainly a popular viewpoint. But again, just because someone does not believe it is the proper role of government, does not mean they hate the would-be-benficiaries, or support the would-be-non-beneficiaries.

He’s had a consistent position on it – maybe right maybe wrong from your point of view, but its consistent for both sides of the issue.

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I trust Gingrich to govern more conservatively than Romney.

It’s that simple.

portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

And boy oh boy when you open that box you bought, man-o-man, what a surprise.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Well again we are at square one: what is the definition of liberal? If there is a federal law banning gay marriage, is it automatically a more “liberal” vote if you oppose it… even if you oppose it on the ground of states rights? Is voting against a republican budget automatically a more liberal vote, even if you oppose it because it overspends? Ratings and labels can be murky, so I hope you can shed light on this and explain a bit further.

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Romney lost last night on Special Report. Sorry. :-(

Punchenko on November 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

The ONLY people who think that are you Nancy Boys.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Why do you think their trying to draft her in Iowa. I have been thinking this since Cain started to implode. She’s our only hope.

wi farmgirl on November 30, 2011 at 8:46 PM

How does the ACU determine their ratings?

Rangeley on November 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Look at big votes each Congressional Year and how they voted. The Most conservatives are in the 90-100 range. The most liberal in the 0 range.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Well, then, Gingrich’s “rating” does not make much sense with his voting record. That means, how he voted for what, which is on record.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:47 PM

If the paulbots want to reelect Barack Obama, well — that’s their right.

unclesmrgol on November 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Just to clear the air:

The Battle of Herr Doktor was fought in these pages years ago.

He lost.

Ply your acolytic fervor somewhere else.

catmman on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Newt has a 94% Lifetime ACU Rating.

What do you suppose Romney’s would be?

Paul’s is in Liberal RINO land in the 70′s

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Two things:

The ACU is a far-too-often quoted BS organization. I’ve seen their ratings cited to defend just about every centrist RINO you can imagine.

And you can say many things, but you cannot possibly imply that either Romney or Gingrich is more conservative than Ron Paul. I despise his foreign policy attitude, but the dude has the strongest ideas about limited government that you’ll find.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

And Ron Paul is right to address the confounding duplicity — contradiction of terms, irrational application of words to whom, etc. — of the “Conservatives rallying for Gingrich” aspect of today’s stats.

But Paul is wrong on so many other things.

Suggesting a third party run is irrational, also.

It’s a tie who is being more irrational there.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:50 PM

“I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM”

Ok. I’d vote for Obama before I would vote for Gingrich. Looks like Obama wins…

I don’t understand how people are against Ron Paul when he holds all his policies against the constitution. I must not be a “Republican” anymore since I disagree with occupying other countries. That kind of reminds me of the OWS, now we have OOC “Occupy Other Countries”. I feel so safe doing that.

livermush on November 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Newt has a 94% Lifetime ACU Rating.

What do you suppose Romney’s would be?

Paul’s is in Liberal RINO land in the 70′s

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Two things:

The ACU is a far-too-often quoted BS organization. I’ve seen their ratings cited to defend just about every centrist RINO you can imagine.

And you can say many things, but you cannot possibly imply that either Romney or Gingrich is more conservative than Ron Paul. I despise his foreign policy attitude, but the dude has the strongest ideas about limited government that you’ll find.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

I can now rest, a big thing has occurred: I now agree with MadisonConservative on that ^^.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM

I trust Gingrich to govern more conservatively than Romney. It’s that simple. portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Would you have trusted him not to take money for promoting the interests of Freddie Mac? And then lying about it.

The socialized housing scheme known as Fannie/Freddie is seminal. If you didn’t oppose their business plan you are not a conservative. If you supported F/F (and were paid to support their agenda while pretending to be a conservative) then you are a hypocrite and the pretend conservatives who support you are dummies.

Good grief. What is your trust based on?

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 8:53 PM

ACU is a notoriously big government organization anyways. Freedom Index is better, but other organizations have scored Paul best as well.

According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.

Out of all 3320 politicians since 1937, Ron Paul was scored as the most conservative politician.

Link to rating system

Spathi on November 30, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Newt has a 94% Lifetime ACU Rating.

What do you suppose Romney’s would be?

Paul’s is in Liberal RINO land in the 70′s

jp on November 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

you keep trotting this out there as if being an establishment Republican is a good thing.

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM

catmman on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Yup and the Russians were nice guys in WWII.

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 8:56 PM

You could make an ad like that about anybody, and worse ones about Romney and Paul. But what the anti-Gingrich campaign doesn’t fully realize is how much people have factored in Gingrich’s past.

rrpjr on November 30, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Have many people simply missed the last three or four weeks of Newt Gingrich? Not heard his scathing condemnations of the GOP, Republicans a/k/a his “opponents”? His contempt for the media has now spread to contempt for us voters, if his dramatically changed demeanor is an indication of what he’s about.

One cannot have watched and listened to him lately and not seen this turn-face of his personality. Worse, his scathing reprimands have now spread to voters.

Either that first Newt was the right and “new” one or the latest Newt is such. So, which is it? Renewed, different now, changed, what? Who I see recently is the same guy who was in Congress a while ago.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Rather odd trying to take someone seriously speaking of “the fact”, when they can’t tell the difference between a “dozen”, and three.

But by all means. Go with the King of Flip or the waterboy to the Varsity Squad at Lobbying U.

I’m sure you’ll be quite happy with your choice.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 8:05 PM

That’s quite all right. I never take Ron Paul — or anyone who pushes him — seriously, either.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Yup and the Russians were nice guys in WWII.

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 8:56 PM

And Herr Doktor isn’t a hypocritical Washington insider.

catmman on November 30, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Notice how Allah hasn’t posted the Rasmussen poll showing Newt beating Obama.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Ron Paul is an awful representative, why would he be a good president?

batterup on November 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM

“I’d vote for Obama before Ron Paul. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but suicide is just not something I look for in a commander-in-chief.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM”

Obama made Conservatism cool these last few years. SO why doesn’t the right think that electing Perry/Cain/Gingrich/Romney will do the same to the left? Hell, it just happened a few years before Obama was elected.

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Some reading:

Conservatives Should Think Twice About Newt” – editorial in the Washington Examiner

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I only fear that the bubble might burst after we nominate Newt.

I can just see those Dem attack ads now, and you know what most are truthful too.

haner on November 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I fear Obama, the DNC and the media have dossiers on every GOP hopeful and that Newt’s is by far the thickest.

Other candidaqgtes have baggage; Newt has steamer trunks.

bw222 on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity has nothing to do with the very valid points he makes against Gingrich and the people here who resort to attacking Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions to defend Gingrich are engaging in a typical liberal strategy: change the subject.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity has nothing to do with the very valid points he makes against Gingrich and the people here who resort to attacking Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions to defend Gingrich are engaging in a typical liberal strategy: change the subject.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

So our current foreign policy has done. . . . what exactly?

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 9:03 PM

And you can say many things, but you cannot possibly imply that either Romney or Gingrich is more conservative than Ron Paul. I despise his foreign policy attitude, but the dude has the strongest ideas about limited government that you’ll find.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

RuPaul is NOT a Conservative. ON most Social and Foreign Policy he is to the Far Left. ON Macro-Econ policy he is an Anarchist in the mold of his Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy. ONly on Macro-Economics is he conservative.

Newt has a much more Conservative record and actually understands and can articulate Conservative philosophy.

What he’s done the last 10yrs is play the game to appeal to Moderates in a General Election so he could actually get elected.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Gahh, Gingrich is on Hannity reiterating that he thinks he’s “clearly” “the most Conservative among the candidates” and refers listeners to his “ACU rating.”

See how these memes snowball? It’s amnesty but it’s not amnesty but it’s amnesty but it isn’t…

I’d think far more of this man if he’d just say, “I was wrong, I didn’t fully understand the definition of the word” and “I apologize for blasting my ‘opponents’”…

Something along those lines, speak truth instead of repeating memes because that’s what ‘energizes’ some people.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 9:05 PM

What he’s done the last 10yrs is play the game to appeal to Moderates in a General Election so he could actually get elected.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Last 10 years?

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

If you didn’t oppose their business plan you are not a conservative.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 8:53 PM

If I see another moronic purity test, I’m gonna scream.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4