George Will: Wisdom isn’t exactly Newt Gingrich’s strong suit

posted at 1:25 pm on December 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Remember when conservative columnist George Will called Mitt Romney a “recidivist reviser of his principles”? As it happens, the veteran pundit has nothing nicer to say about Newt Gingrich, whose astounding sudden popularity in the polls recently prompted the candidate himself to say he’ll be the 2012 GOP nominee.

On “The Laura Ingraham Show” today, Will took Gingrich to task for a lack of wisdom — and prophesied a bleak future for the conservative movement if either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich happens to become the GOP nominee (or, worse, according to Will, actually president!). The Daily Caller reports:

“Mr. Gingrich said it’s not enough that he is the smartest guy in the room, he also has to be wise,” Will said. “Now you can associate many things with Mr. Gingrich, but wisdom isn’t one of them. Surely the Republican nominating electorate should understand the fact that people have patterns. Don’t expect the patterns to go away. Expect the patterns to manifest themselves again. If Newt Gingrich has any pattern at all, and he does – it is a pattern of getting himself into trouble because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.”

Will said that he thought Gingrich actually believed it when he said he was going to be the Republican nominee, particularly because the stage in Gingrich’s mind “is lit by the fires of crisis and grandeur.”

“Ask yourself this: Suppose Gingrich or Romney become president and gets re-elected – suppose you had eight years of this,” Will said. “What would the conservative movement be? How would it understand itself after eight years? I think what would have gone away, perhaps forever, is the sense of limited government, the 10th Amendment, Madisonian government of limited, delegated and enumerated powers – the sense conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone. It’s hard to know what would be left.”

See, these comments from one of the columnists who converted my theretofore Democratic mom to conservatism scare me — just as Allahpundit’s recent indictments of Gingrich make me nervous, too. At times like this, I remember just how few election cycles I’ve personally witnessed. I was born at the tail end of Reagan’s presidency and was a little kid when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. The point is, I can study his past patterns — but I didn’t personally observe them. I’m still young enough and naive enough to believe that people’s patterns can and do change — and to think the image Gingrich portrays today is a sincere one. But I also tend to think Romney’s present conservative positions are the product of his own personal growth, rather than the product of his deep-seated and evident desire to be elected to the presidency.

Which is wiser: To believe the best of our candidates and be disappointed or to believe the worst of them and be pleasantly surprised?

In the meantime, if conservatives are so disenchanted with Romney and Gingrich, why aren’t Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann (especially Michele Bachmann!) still in the mix of contenders? Don’t tell me Gingrich is more conservative than Perry, the Texas governor’s crony capitalistic tendencies and squishy immigration positions aside. Gingrich all but lobbied for Freddie Mac. And Gingrich has echoed the very immigration positions that presumably disqualified Perry from conservative consideration. (Then again, if Perry’s really no more conservative than Gingrich, why would nominate a nervous speaker over a confident one?) As for Bachmann, has anyone anywhere ever been able to cast genuine doubt on her conservative bona fides?

At this point, mightn’t it be better to run a conservative with virtually no pretense at electability for the sake of demonstrating genuine commitment to conservative principles? If, as Will says, the election of a Republican sellout in 2012 would mean the death of conservatism, wouldn’t it be better to let the opposition to Obama continue to grow by a second term, until the American people are so thoroughly tired of him that a conservative could easily trounce any Democratic candidate in 2016? And if, as so many have said, Obama is so thoroughly underwater right now that Republicans ought to be able to beat him by nominating a skunk, we really have no excuse for not nominating a conservative.


Related Posts:

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

Total Economic Disaster Looms

As Rush’s website states I think is the MOST important issue our country faces. So if it is then who is the MOST QUALIFIED person that has EXPERIENCE and a RECORD of handling these crises before?

One man: Mitt Romney.

He has done it time and time again. THIS is why we need to elect him as POTUS. To solve this ONE MAIN ISSUE of our country.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

It is when Gingrich Romney is stroking his ego with his pontifications that we get to see exactly how much of a Washington insider he is.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Seriously. The splitting of hairs is tedious.

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Yep. I might flip a coin before I vote the primary (barring some new upheaval between now and then).

There’s no such thing as the perfect candidate. S/he doesn’t exist.

I do wish, though, that I (we) knew who the most independents would vote for. (Neither the polls nor George Will knows, either.)

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I want to hear more about this Romney/Newt debate business. Sirens sound if Romney’s really backing down from that. We need a fighter, and nothing less.

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Here you go.

Kataklysmic on December 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Hes not going to do it because by doing it he would essentially be admitting its a two person race, he doesnt want to do that. The more viable alternatives to him the better for his campaign as it divides the vote. If he agreed to it, he would be an idiot.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Yes, but query why, if he were confident in his message and delivery, he wouldn’t want to seize every opportunity to bring it to the people? Newt ceded nothing by debating Cain alone, in fact it was a win-win for both, as both wanted MORE exposure, more time to discuss, explain, etc. Isn’t Romney’s conclusion that he’s better off passing on a debate with Newt a win for gamesmanship, a loss for the voters, and a red flag regarding his confidence?

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Right. Romney has prevented total economic disaster. …somewhere.

I do however recall a certain GOP congressional majority causing the end of a pretty big recession and a decade of economic prosperity.

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM

<blockquoteKataklysmic on December 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Thanks for the link.

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Will Huntsman is the only true conservative that can win!!!!

trs on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Its just not smart strategy to elevate Gingrich at this point. The Romney camp is putting forth the narrative that Gingrich is just another Perry, Cain ect who will rise and fall. If they agree to debate him and him alone that negates that argument that Gingrich is just a “flash in the pan”.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

That’s stupid. We are in the position we are in today because we keep nominating squishy fish as our candidates. People who competently run on solid principles carry the election every time they are run as the nominee. Unfortunately, we keep getting scared of losing the independents (read “liberals who won’t admit it”) rather than scared of not capturing our own base.

samuelrylander on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

This is NOT STUPID. My point is that SOME of you stayed home in those elections because YOUR candidate did not get chosen in the Primary and you wanted to SEND A MESSAGE to the Republican party. All those that stayed home was CONTINUE the misery of the policies coming from the Democrat Party thus fulfilling your own prophecy by staying home!

like Reagan has said before, some of you would rather jump off the cliff with the flag flying holding to your principles than ANY compromise. I would rather have a half a loaf of bread than none at all.

Vote for the (R) and then you can at least work from there each election. With Obama it is GUARANTEED you will not get ANY OF YOUR AGENDA passed as proof from the last 3 years.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:13 PM

trs on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I know your joking but Im hearing more and more rumblings of this argument from Redstate ect. If Gingrich falls, I think the Huntsman surge is next.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:14 PM

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Bill Gates and the internet boom ended that recession, not Congress or Clinton.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM

People who competently run on solid principles carry the election every time they are run as the nominee.

samuelrylander on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Like it or no, the independents are the difference in every election and they must be considered.

And this issue of “competent” politicians is a figment of imagination. Reading the tripe from many here on Hot Air, Reagan couldn’t get the nomination.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Vote for the (R) and then you can at least work from there each election. With Obama it is GUARANTEED you will not get ANY OF YOUR AGENDA passed as proof from the last 3 years.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Vote for a RINO and watch the Democrats take the White House back in 2016. With Obama it is GUARANTEED not only that the GOP takes the White House back in 2016…but that a real conservative will be “electable”.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Seriously. The splitting of hairs is tedious.

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Exactly how do you figure Romney is a Washington insider? His only political experience is being a one term governor.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Huntsman and Gingrich just agreed to a Lincoln/Douglas debate Dec. 12th. FYI

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Right. Romney has prevented total economic disaster. …somewhere.

I do however recall a certain GOP congressional majority causing the end of a pretty big recession and a decade of economic prosperity.

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM

you are missing the point! Romney saved so many PRIVATE companies with Bain, he SAVED the olympics which were in a huge mess (having lived in SLC at the time I know how jacked up that was), he was ASKED by MA Congress to come back to run for GOV to SAVE it from economic destruction being 3BILLION in the hole and leaving with 2 BILLION in surplus a 5BILLION swing in just 4 YEARS!!!

THIS. is why he is qualified as there is NO OTHER CANDIDATE that has his economic and financial background!

So go ahead and talk about ALL the other issues and candidates you would like in the Primaries but if we are really serious about fixing our number one issue then Romney is the BEST candidate for the job. That’s my point! ;o)

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Vote for a RINO and watch the Democrats take the White House back in 2016. With Obama it is GUARANTEED not only that the GOP takes the White House back in 2016…but that a real conservative will be “electable”.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

The country would be permanently damaged if Obama gets another term. Your desire to watch the country burn is disturbing. And your disdain for future generations laboring under the progressive SCOTUS Obama will achieve is disturbing.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Vote for a RINO and watch the Democrats take the White House back in 2016. With Obama it is GUARANTEED not only that the GOP takes the White House back in 2016…but that a real conservative will be “electable”.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

So, you’re cool with waiting four more years?!? Do we have that much time?

I’ve read your comments for a while, and I respect your opinion. But at some point, something that’s damaged can’t be fixed.

I don’t mean to sound melodramatic, but I really (really) do think that we are pretty close to THE END.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Yeah. What s/he said.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Agreed! debate him once you know it is just mano a mano.

However, the downfall of this MAY be that it weakens the other candidate by showing Obama that candidates weak points in advance of ever having debated Obama allowing Obama months to attack and dredge up false stories that could damage our candidate with several months before the election. Also wasting resources months out countering these false ads that will come by Obama.

I am speaking for Romney OR Gingrich. Gingrich especially from a financial standpoint will not have the funding to attempt to counter say 4-5 months out depleting his and PAC funds.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM

getting himself into trouble because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room

It is truly hard to imagine having a POTUS like that….

(Good thing we’ve had a few years’ practice.)

calbear on December 2, 2011 at 3:30 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yes, all the way around its counter intuitive. Now Gingrich is going to debate Huntsman in a transparent attempt to elevate him so he can hurt Romney in New Hampshire. He’s getting cocky, which is what he usually does right before he self destructs.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM

The country would be permanently damaged if Obama gets another term. Your desire to watch the country burn is disturbing. And your disdain for future generations laboring under the progressive SCOTUS Obama will achieve is disturbing.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Your attitude towards conservatives like Palin has been far more disturbing, so you really have no room to talk.

So, you’re cool with waiting four more years?!? Do we have that much time?

I’ve read your comments for a while, and I respect your opinion. But at some point, something that’s damaged can’t be fixed.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM

I repeat, the Great Depression lasted over a decade, and we had over 25% unemployment. Meanwhile, a Democrat came in and enacted numerous social programs, many of which ended up being complete disasters.

80 years later, here we are.

Too many people here are giving Obama too much credit, and the citizens of the United States too little credit.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM

THIS. is why he is qualified as there is NO OTHER CANDIDATE that has his economic and financial background!

So go ahead and talk about ALL the other issues and candidates you would like in the Primaries but if we are really serious about fixing our number one issue then Romney is the BEST candidate for the job. That’s my point! ;o)

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Then Romney should not be afraid to have a Lincoln/Douglas debate with Newt. Instead, Romney is essentially admitting that he wants to win by gamesmanship, not by winning voters with his articulation of positions on a multitude of issues. Romney has the money and the Republican establishment behind him, so he wants to stay in the background and just let those advantages work for him. It seems as if Romney is acting like the wimp so many think he is.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Yes, all the way around its counter intuitive. Now Gingrich is going to debate Huntsman in a transparent attempt to elevate him so he can hurt Romney in New Hampshire. He’s getting cocky, which is what he usually does right before he self destructs.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Gingrich is doing exactly what Gingrich thinks is best without counsel from his Campaign Team. if you go back in his history (pun intended) you will see the Republican Congress and even his past Campaign Managers say that Gingrich takes little advice from anyone because he THINKS everything he does is the best idea out there. He is flat out arrogant.

Like I said a few days ago, haven’t we already had 4 years too many of a narcissist professor but we may elect another one?

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM

…conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone.

Conservatism is tied to… the police power wielded by congress? Huh?

Akzed on December 2, 2011 at 3:39 PM

What? Not wise? So now that’s the charge he’s has to overcome? The pundits can’t call him dumb, or inexperienced, or even unelectable so now they erect the latest and higher hurdle to jump over?

Hey George, take a look at what’s in the oval office right now.
The country is on fire and you’re worried if it’s wise to wear jeans while trying to save ourselves from the burning building.

Jeesh.

WisRich on December 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Its just not smart strategy to elevate Gingrich at this point. The Romney camp is putting forth the narrative that Gingrich is just another Perry, Cain ect who will rise and fall. If they agree to debate him and him alone that negates that argument that Gingrich is just a “flash in the pan”.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

This is another vote for gamesmanship. What has happened to the supposed desire to identify the best candidate?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus Huntsman…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on December 2, 2011 at 3:42 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Yes, Newt is his best asset and worst enemy. Ask anyone who has worked with the guy and they will tell you the same thing. If it looks like Newt is really going to win this thing, expect Congressman led by Paul Ryan and down the line to come out for Romney. He’s undisciplined and arrogant, which may play in this primary but will be the albatross around his neck in the general. Newt doesnt have advisers because he thinks he is smarter then they are, he thinks he is smarter then everyone and hes wrong. Hubris always has and always will be his Achilles heel.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Gingrich isn’t anymore conservative then Romney, but hes far less electable.
nswider on December 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM

“Electable” is the new cool word, the latest vapidity posing as authority. It’s getting tiresome. It might be bearable if somebody once made an effort to reference their meaning, to offer an “electability” argument based on some fixed standard. But this never happens. Partly because the word is just too deliciously subjective. (“I don’t like ______, so _______ is unelectable.”) And partly because it’s not really possible — there is no fixed standard, not at the levels we’re at now. Anybody who studies politics with any intellectual honesty can only conclude that “electability”, beyond the obvious and self-evident (“Pat Paulsen is unelectable”), is really not objectively quantifiable. The term is only defined at the ballot box. And the definition keeps changing.

The word also exists in a vacuum. No one is electable until they’re elected. Obama wasn’t “electable” in 2007. Reagan wasn’t “electable” in 1979. Dewey was electable, Truman wasn’t. Romney, as it turned out, was actually “unelectable” in 2008. Despite outspending McCain and Huckabee, despite tailoring his message to exactly the audience he is now contempuously shining off, Romney couldn’t get elected. He is now empirically less electable than Gingrich, whose “electability” at least remains an open question. It is Romney not Gingrich now laboring under the burden of unelectability.

Another fallacy is that “baggage” is a co-efficient of electability. It is not. A candidate’s “baggage” matters only to the degree that he allows the baggage to define the race, or to the degree that it does. Obama had more baggage in 2008 than all republicans of the last 100 years combined. Indeed, it was his very “baggage” that made him deeply compelling to the Leftist base. His “baggage” never really mattered to his electability in large part because both McCain and the MSM made sure that it wouldn’t.

At the same time, Gingrich’s or Romney’s baggage will matter to the degree they are capable of challenging and finessing the media and setting the narrative outside the baggage.

Moreover, electability is a process of discovery and time. No “scientific” criteria of electability is ever more important than the political individual acting with the timeframe of the election. We learn someone is electable by, well, learning about them and reacting to them acting. They become electable, or not electable.

So on what basis can one make the argument for electability today? Think about it. Gingrich is unelectable why? He made some decisions you don’t agree with, he got in bed with unsavory people, he changed this or that position, he betrayed conservatism here and there, or he has too much baggage, or… whatever. Are these your reasons or the electorate’s reasons? How do you know? How will you ever be able to? Polls? Is that it?

Or Romney is electable because he has “crossover” appeal or won once in a blue state, or… whatever.

But what will matter in 2012? What will the people decide? Isn’t it possible that all the reasons cited about Gingrich’s unelectability are less important than how they envision Gingrich fighting this candidate Obama in this race in 2012 — and how he actually fights it. That will make him electable. Just as the allegedly “more electable” Romney will be seen in the primaries as unable to represent himself as a vigorous and agile fighter and be seen as “unelectable.”

If one wants to say either candidate is more electable (or one is not electable) the case has to be made how he will run his race, according to what issues and values and strategies, and how specifically he will deal with the opponent’s likely strategies.

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM

I would love to see that debate, but the campaign managers job is to think in terms of gamesmanship, thats their purpose. There is no way a campaign that disciplined will participate in a Redstate debate with Gingrich, no way, its lose lose for them.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Yes, all the way around its counter intuitive. Now Gingrich is going to debate Huntsman in a transparent attempt to elevate him so he can hurt Romney in New Hampshire. He’s getting cocky, which is what he usually does right before he self destructs.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM

This keeps getting better and better: Now you are taking the position that a candidate wanting to explain and debate his positions is a transparent attempt to hurt other candidates. Is Newt’s willingness to debate Romney an effort by Newt to elevate Romney? You are falling for process rather than substance. Romney is playing prevent defense before the first kick-off, and you want to commend him for that.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM

There you go again. My problem with Palin is her electability. If you would get out of the way of your self righteous arrogance, you might just see the world as it really is and cease making ignorant statements.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Gingrich is doing exactly what Gingrich thinks is best without counsel from his Campaign Team. if you go back in his history (pun intended) you will see the Republican Congress and even his past Campaign Managers say that Gingrich takes little advice from anyone because he THINKS everything he does is the best idea out there. He is flat out arrogant.

Like I said a few days ago, haven’t we already had 4 years too many of a narcissist professor but we may elect another one?

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM

The hilarity on this thread is non-stop. Your argument, g2825m, suggests that you should be all-in for Cain because Cain always says that he will surround himself with experts and take their advice.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Gingrich’s debate format is political nonsense. He knows that people are dazzled by his BS but when it comes down to really getting to know what Gingrich is, he can not stand the scrutiny. We will find that out soon enough as his history is vetted on the national stage.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM

I say hes more electable based on polling data, which is the only measure we have until an election actually takes place. Also Romney has an extensive ground operation and network that no other candidate has and hes also the most disciplined. You wont hear Romney say “I wasn’t really a lobbyist because I didn’t have to be. Unlike other celebrities whose speaking fees go down, I was making 60 thousand a speech.” That was his response when confronted with taking millions from Fannie and Freddie, he didnt need to because he was already a wealthy celebrity. Yeah thats going to go over well in the heartland. I could go on , and on, and on about Gingrich and why hes going to lose and go on and on about Romneys advantages in the West, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, but theres really no point.

Everyone here has made up their mind, you see you don’t really want to know why Romney is more electable then Gingrich because you don’t want to vote for Romney so you say we won’t really know until people vote. This is true, but unfortunately we have to make a choice well before 2012, I can’t wait for that election to pick a Republican nominee, thats not how this works. But again, everyone has their own opinion and finds evidence to support their own narrative. I think, strongly, that Romney will have an easier chance of getting elected then the other candidates, ergo hes more electable in my view which is why I argue that point. But it doesn’t matter what I think, it matters what other people go out and do in the primaries.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Yes I do, it would be nice to have a politically astute candidate for a change.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I would love to see that debate, but the campaign managers job is to think in terms of gamesmanship, thats their purpose. There is no way a campaign that disciplined will participate in a Redstate debate with Gingrich, no way, its lose lose for them.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Romney should be pounded for this like Omaha beach before our boys landed. He is in his bunker and his advisors are telling him to stay there. This could be a preview of Obama hiding in his new bunker next fall, avoiding Newt.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:57 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:57 PM

The people who will pound him for it were never going to vote for him in the first place.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

The hilarity on this thread is non-stop. Your argument, g2825m, suggests that you should be all-in for Cain because Cain always says that he will surround himself with experts and take their advice.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What the heck thread are you reading? Gingrich taking NO ADVICE is a far cry from taking SOME advise from ones advisers. Why have them if not to get different views on all issues and take advice when it is the best course of action? Gingrich’s problem is his ego. We already have an arrogant narcissist and we don’t need another.

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The people who will pound him for it were never going to vote for him in the first place.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Do you mean the other 75%?

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The people who will pound him for it were never going to vote for him in the first place.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Really? You don’t think there are Republican primary voters out there who will decide to vote against Romney in part because he is such a wimp that he will not debate Newt? Maybe Romney sees it as you do, and that he would lose more votes by debating Newt than by admitting that he is a games-playing wimp who can’t even vote “present.”

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Too many people here are giving Obama too much credit, and the citizens of the United States too little credit.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Well, there’s good reason, no?
‘The people’ elected Obama, didn’t they?
The media is in his pocket, and will lie for him.
The unions are in his pocket, and will create bogus votes for him.

All due respect, you’re wrong about all this.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

If thats the case when all is said and done then you have nothing to worry about, Romney won’t win. We’ll see if thats really the case if it becomes a Gingrich/Romney race and we’ll see what happens after the first few states.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I see, Will, now, precisely what is your claim to fame and extraordinary insight . . . other than your propensity for hyperactive bloviation.

rplat on December 2, 2011 at 4:06 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 4:03 PM

The candidates agreed to a debate schedule, Romney is respecting that. This one on one Gingrich challenge stuff is all about Gingrich and his ego and Romney is not going to play by Gingrich’s rules. Amateur candidates do that, Romney has played this game before and is not going to elevate Gingrich and help his “Im the only anti-Mitt” strategy.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:07 PM

I repeat, the Great Depression lasted over a decade, and we had over 25% unemployment. Meanwhile, a Democrat came in and enacted numerous social programs, many of which ended up being complete disasters.

Forgot to comment on this.
We didn’t have USD 15,000,000,000,000 in debt at the time. (I don’t think they had the word trillion, then.)

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM

By Gingrich standing with him, it looked brave and made Gingrich the most obvious heir to his conservative supporters.

As an added bonus, Gingrich got to show up Cain while seeming to support him. Cain himself looked dazzled by Gingrich’s rhetorical acrobatics. While Cain struggled along on talking points, Professor Gingrich whizzed through his card catalogue of policy provisions.

It also helped Gingrich by contrasting Cain’s never-ending series of unhappy personal eruptions with Gingrich’s stale-seeming, decade-old personal issues. The implicit message to conservatives was this: If you’re willing to take a chance on a guy still unloading his baggage, how about somebody whose valises the media TSA had already rifled through a decade ago?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/02/newt-needs-cain-to-hang-around/#ixzz1fPhxKZBb

This is why you don’t debate with Gingrich RIGHT NOW because like the article here says and I thought the same thing at the time…Gingrich WAS USING Cain for his own benefit. The “look at me” and how knowledgable I am compared to “this guy.”

Stick to the already scheduled debates and have it out there!

Once it is down to 2 candidates then look at that possibility. Do not let Gingrich use this as some show especially when it is sponsored by a site that HATES Romney in RedState. This is also why Romney did not want to attend the Iowa event sponsored by Van Platts a guy that cannot stand Romney because he backed Branstad.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM

What the heck thread are you reading?

csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I am reading this thread, on which you and others applaud Romney for hiding behind his money and establishment endorsements, rather than interacting with another candidate in a way that would allow voters to view the substance, if any, of his positions.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 2, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Funny. Wisdom isn’t always George Will’s strong suit, either.

maverick muse on December 2, 2011 at 4:13 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM

So, what’s he going to do about Dixie, where no one likes him?

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM

If thats the case when all is said and done then you have nothing to worry about, Romney won’t win. We’ll see if thats really the case if it becomes a Gingrich/Romney race and we’ll see what happens after the first few states.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Right. Only time will tell. I just like that Newt seems willing to sit down anywhere, anytime, with anybody, and discuss anything. I wish they all would. Romney seems least willing of them all, and I wish he weren’t.

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM

sleepingiantsup on December 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I agree with you, that is Gingrich’s primary appeal and this is Romneys main problem.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:16 PM

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Also, account for the devalued dollar given 2011 inflation since the 1930s national debt when $.02 bought a loaf of bread.

maverick muse on December 2, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Everyone here has made up their mind, you see you don’t really want to know why Romney is more electable then Gingrich because you don’t want to vote for Romney so you say we won’t really know until people vote.
nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Incorrect. I’ve never qualified my own sense of Romney’s unelectability without a case and my best estimate of what issues and strengths will matter in 2012 and whyb he’s unequal to them. This argument has been made thoroughly by others here too. In addition, as stated, Romney has also already proved his “unelectability,” that is, in a primary against the candidate Obama defeated in the general.

Further, I have not yet heard a similar argument or projection of how Romney will run and win a race against the institutional Left, i.e., how he is electable. Only that he is “inevitable.” This echoes Romney’s own seeming strategy of avoidance. As David Swindle argued in PJ Media the other day, he’s never heard one either.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/29/six-dead-ideas-walking-in-michael-medveds-romney-zombie-wall-street-journal-oped/?singlepage=true

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM

So, what’s he going to do about Dixie, where no one likes him?

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Mitt Romney (48) Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. John Hoeven (N.D.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.)
Rep. Charles Bass (N.H.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Robert Dold (Ill.)
Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.)
Rep. Michael Grimm (N.Y.)
Rep. Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Renacci (Ohio)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.)
Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)

I count 15 out of 48 endorsements coming from “Dixie” states.

What if he also taps Rubio as a VP? He will do fine in the South. Why? Because they need JOBS and will see Romney as the best candidate to turn the country’s economic woes around. Gingrich does NOT give off this impression…he is a long time LEGISLATOR not an Executive.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Newt Gingrich in 2007 extolled the virtues of Freddie Mac, saying he would be “very cautious” about changing the way the mortgage-finance company’s public- private business plan operated.

In an interview placed on Freddie Mac’s website, the Republican presidential candidate said the U.S. government- sponsored enterprise, or GSE, could serve as a guide for rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf of Mexico, improving health care and funding space exploration. For decades, Freddie Mac collected profits while benefiting from an implicit taxpayer guarantee of its debt,

“I’m convinced that, if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” Gingrich said in the April 24, 2007, web post.

haner on December 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM

haner on December 2, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.

GINGRICH: Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach.

haner on December 2, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I hate George Will. I hate it when people slap me back to reality. I just hate it.

Fourth look at Michelle Bachmann?

JellyToast on December 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:19 PM

So, the other Washingtonians like him. What about the people they’re supposed to be working for?

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Good Solid B-Plus @1:32 PM . . .Amen.

heroyalwhyness on December 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Poor George (in the cutting tone of Ann Richards) he is so far establishment GOP that he can’t stand any who dare challenge the GOP’s hand picked RINO, Oromney. Wasn’t he happy enoough joining with the Palin firing squad? What is good about Obama is that he has forced a lot of previous republicans to see the heart and sould of the establishment GOP party and they have learned that it stinks to high heaven of an entrenched ruling class.

Sorry George-go back to Oxford and learn what the word integrity means.

Thanks for helping to create a third party -for the pretense of opposition has been exposed to be just words -like your pin up boy favorite Mr Pretenciple Mitt Romney.

Don L on December 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Wisdom is not something I would associate Gingrich with.

Newt is also a poor historian if he’s not aware that the railroad land grants also created the biggest bubble of that time and led to the Long Depression. Given our population growth, we would have created those railways without the land grants at a more economically necessary pace anyway.

haner on December 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Newt Gingrich Rose to Wealth Through Congress
By Paul Singer
Roll Call Staff
Dec. 2, 2011, 12:46 p.m.

In 1979, an impoverished Georgia college professor named Newt Gingrich became a Member of Congress and proceeded to make himself a very rich man.

Fifteen years after coming to Congress, Gingrich was earning more than 60 times the income he reported in the year before his swearing-in. After he left the House, Gingrich leveraged his status as a former Speaker and leading Republican thinker to rise to the ranks of the truly wealthy.

The man who entered Congress three decades ago with essentially no personal assets beyond a modest home in Carrollton, Ga., would now rank among the 50 richest Members of Congress if he were to return to the House.

This is what the Democrats will bring up repeatedly on Gingrich. At least Romney made his money the old fashioned way of starting out at nothing and making himself into a success. Even during his time as the Olympics, MA Gov, and his campaign in 2008 he paid himself One Dollar for his annual income.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM

It’s really beginning to look like neither the GOP establishment or the conservatives want to win this election. For all their party unity crap it seems like if Romney is not the nominee the establishment will be too embarrassed by the low-life rubes on the right and will have to sit it out. Same thing applies to many of the Conservatives who are unwilling to suck it up and vote for a moderate again after McCain.

katiejane on December 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM

maverick muse on December 2, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Yeah, I couldn’t see MadCon’s way of thinking at all on this thread. (Probably me.)

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I’ve been following your conversation about Mitt v. Newt debate.
I know that it’ll have to happen eventually (if they’re the last two candidates, that is). But, I can’t help but think this can only be a net-positive for Odumbo.

It might help conservative/republican voters make up their minds, but I think it can only hurt both with independents. (Meanwhile, Obama takes a stroll through the tulips of friendly crowds and fawning media, and will probably completely avoid debating the R nominee.)

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM

see Romney as the best candidate to turn the country’s economic woes around.

Not expecting Olympic savior jobs in America any time soon. So it’s Staples offering employment from the “good job creator” Keynesian candidate who swore American manufacturing is gone and never returning. Prepare to bail-out globalist banking fraud given Mitt who’ll give up the Constitution to the lawyers to forfeit on our behalf with the best of intentions.

maverick muse on December 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Well, there’s good reason, no?
‘The people’ elected Obama, didn’t they?

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM

By that logic, the country is already doomed. If you don’t believe in the citizens, when the citizens are responsible for being the highest power in government, then it’s over already. Romney, Obama, or whoever…doesn’t matter, because you don’t have faith in the people. Make up your mind.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:19 PM

So, the other Washingtonians like him. What about the people they’re supposed to be working for?

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM

haha laughable. All of you anti-Romney guys crack me up. When we point out facts to you, you do not see that you were wrong but rather attack from a different angle never accpeting that your premise was wrong!

If you look closely at that list there are many strong conservatives and Tea Party members on there that are backing Romney in case you didn’t know all of their affiliations/stances.

To this day no one has refuted my posts about where Romney has changed ANY of his conservative and SIGNED into legislation stances since 2005…that was the point Romney was FIRMLY pointing out to Bret Baier the other day.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I look at the polling data, others do also, I look at money and structure. You combat the “institutional left” by appealing to independents and making this election a referendum on President Obama. Romneys team knows this, he has the best team and structure of any of the other candidates which is why he may very well pull an upset in Iowa and end this thing early. Bachmann, Santorum and Paul will do better in Iowa then they are polling nationally and this will help Romney. Again, this entire debate is just academic and we wont know until votes are cast. Im in a position where I have to make an educated guess about who can take Obama out and from the onset I’ve thought Romney has the best shot to do it and I haven’t seen anything inspiring from these other candidates to suggest Im wrong.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Nice avoidance. Explain all of this. And thank you for your service.

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM

‘The People’ didn’t bother finding out ’08 first before going with the media hype.

Given current unemployment above 20% stateside, that was then, this is now. But you’re right that the same “give-me” population wants a free ride right over the cliff.

maverick muse on December 2, 2011 at 4:35 PM

katiejane on December 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I’ve been on the same page as you for this entire cycle.
But, I do have to stop typing “anybody but Obama”, and the like.

Perhaps I should have bumper stickers made: “un-Obama 2012″, “NObama 2012″ or a pic of jughead next to the word ‘Socialism’ with a slash through it. (Don’t know, might get my car vandalized by the 99%.)

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Vote for a RINO and watch the Democrats take the White House back in 2016. With Obama it is GUARANTEED not only that the GOP takes the White House back in 2016…but that a real conservative will be “electable”.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM

If Obama wins in 2012 socialized medicine becomes irreversible, 12,000,000 new citizens voting for you know which party by 2018 at the latest, the military gutted and more than 58% will be on some form of government dole. At that point only a revolution could change anything.

Annar on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

To this day no one has refuted my posts about where Romney has changed ANY of his conservative and SIGNED into legislation stances since 2005…

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

There you go again. Hint: when you have to ignore a politicians’ history before six years ago, you have a bad politician.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Rambler In The Garage

I donated money to the guy when he was looking like a kook a few months ago. MSNBC was sure that half of the Republicans were just out to sell books and not be nominated and Newt was a prime example. I missed the segment when they called him a racist but I’m sure that happened at least once.

Anyway,I can live with Newt as a nominee.

I would slightly prefer Mitt as a nominee since he is a marketable package and has the right people.

But…

What is Mitt doing?

Fighting with Fox?

Has a book out there which is not bad but it is never promoted.

Seems kept from the media like he is way ahead. He has time to win friends and influence people.

Correct me if I am wrong—does he really seem to be trying?

I don’t know how he will make people love him while wrestling Dear Leader.

Call me or Tim Tebow for lovable lessons. I don’t think BHO would help you.

IlikedAUH2O on December 2, 2011 at 4:39 PM

If Obama wins in 2012 socialized medicine becomes irreversible…

Annar on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Again…socialized medicine could be struck down by SCOTUS before the next election is even decided. Even if it isn’t, it could be struck down by a majority in Congress. The defeatism is stifling. How did you survive the last presidential election?

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Nice avoidance. Explain all of this. And thank you for your service.

kingsjester on December 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Kings…thank you…it is late here in Afghanistan!

I did not avoid anything you asked. The people who VOTED in those from the Dixie States are backing Romney thus representing those people who they think deserve the nomination.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

6 years ago is a lot longer then six months ago when Gingrich was busy throwing Paul under the bus. Also while Romney was running advocating conservatism in 2007 Gingrich was taking fannie and freddie money and saying idiotic things like:

In an interview placed on Freddie Mac’s website, the Republican presidential candidate said the U.S. government- sponsored enterprise, or GSE, could serve as a guide for rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf of Mexico, improving health care and funding space exploration. For decades, Freddie Mac collected profits while benefiting from an implicit taxpayer guarantee of its debt,

“I’m convinced that, if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” Gingrich said in the April 24, 2007, web post.

“While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,” he said. It “marries private enterprise to a public purpose.”

At the time of his comments, Freddie Mac and its larger rival Fannie Mae were under fire from Republicans, who said their government charters allowed them to make profits for shareholders while putting taxpayers at risk.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-02/gingrich-said-freddie-mac-could-be-good-model-for-mars-travel.html

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:42 PM

By that logic, the country is already doomed. If you don’t believe in the citizens, when the citizens are responsible for being the highest power in government, then it’s over already. Romney, Obama, or whoever…doesn’t matter, because you don’t have faith in the people. Make up your mind.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

C’mon, man (or woman)!
This is certainly how this country’s government was set up, but do you think ‘the people are the highest power in government’ today?!
My faith has nothing to do with it.
I have to live in the real world.

Nice arguing with you. I’ll leave it alone, now. Thanks for your opinions.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM

6 years ago is a lot longer then six months ago when Gingrich was busy throwing Paul under the bus. Also while Romney was running advocating conservatism in 2007 Gingrich was taking fannie and freddie money and saying idiotic things like:

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Deflection from a Romney supporter. Shocking. And was Romney running as a conservative in 2007 when he appeared on Meet The Press and advocated the return of the Assault Weapons Ban?

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM

This is certainly how this country’s government was set up, but do you think ‘the people are the highest power in government’ today?!
My faith has nothing to do with it.
I have to live in the real world.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM

If, according to you, the system is broken, then electing a Republican will do nothing to help anyone. If the system works, then a Democrat in the White House for a few more years, especially an incompetent boob who has worse numbers than Carter, isn’t going to come remotely close to finishing this country. Hell, if I could be assured that he’d be impeached before he finished his term, I’d vote for him just to watch the fun.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:47 PM

There you go again. Hint: when you have to ignore a politicians’ history before six years ago, you have a bad politician.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Proving my point that Romney has been conservative on ALL those things I listed.

AND Gingrich and others have been ALL over the map in the last 12-18 months. Allah even pointed that out earlier on Gingrich.

Romney has been consistent and MANY of you are drinking the Kool-Aid that he has not…SHOW ME WHERE!

On top of this…Romney six years ago Changed to OUR side on pro-life issues so why are we complaining? He also has ALWAYS been personally against abortion…it was just in 2005 that he publically did not want gov’t to support it anymore.

He backed up pro-life legislation by signing the legislation
He cut taxes
He signed Pro-2nd Amendment legislation (applauded by the MA NRA)
He is for DOMA
He signed anti-illegal immigration legislation
He signed no Tuition breaks for illegals before that was popular
He has always been for building the complete fence
He has always been for illegals to go home and not cut in line for citizenship
He has always been for drilling in ANWR
He is for Cut, Cap, and Balance
and on and on…

These are ALL Romney positions that are conservative and as a Governor he has signed and put his money where his mouth has been!

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:51 PM

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Its not deflection, its what happened. What he said about Assault Weapons ban below.

“I do support the Second Amendment. And I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.

“I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation.

“I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That’s the right that people have.”

Anyway, daughter awake, Rush and everyone else has made the same point, anyone in this field is better then Obama. Thats the bottom line.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Again…socialized medicine could be struck down by SCOTUS before the next election is even decided. Even if it isn’t, it could be struck down by a majority in Congress. The defeatism is stifling. How did you survive the last presidential election?

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM

SCOTUS is a crap shoot. They may strike the mandate while preserving the rest. Whatever remains you’ll never get 67 Senate votes to override an Obama veto. In any case, while tis drags on the private insurance companies will bail necessitating a revival of the ‘government option’ to deliver on all that ‘free health care.’

Staying in good mental and physical condition can allow one to survive poor election results.

Annar on December 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Proving my point that Romney has been conservative on ALL those things I listed.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 4:51 PM

You’re like a used car salesman that points to a vehicle whose tires have fallen off, is making a tremendous racket, and is releasing clouds of exhaust fumes…and says “See? I told you it runs.”

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Its just not smart strategy to elevate Gingrich at this point. The Romney camp is putting forth the narrative that Gingrich is just another Perry, Cain ect who will rise and fall. If they agree to debate him and him alone that negates that argument that Gingrich is just a “flash in the pan”.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Yea, that whole ‘Elevate Newt’ meme would work if he weren’t leading in the polls at this point :-/

preallocated on December 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I think Newt will be challenged enough by his critics that he will do a good job. If elected. George Will is conservative but I don’t consider him a nationalist. And people these days, out in flyover country are very nationalistic, like it or not. Its not the old ethnic nationalism, however. Its a new, inclusive civic nationalism of sorts. Folks have had just about enough of these globalist, transnational progressives within the GOP who’ve made such a mess out of things over the past 2 decades. DD

Darvin Dowdy on December 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM

You combat the “institutional left” by appealing to independents and making this election a referendum on President Obama. Romneys team knows this, he has the best team and structure of any of the other candidates…
nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

And how did “team and structure” help him with Bret Baier?

You may have studied Romney but you haven’t studied the Left. As Romney hasn’t. (Why would he? Nor would it really matter if he did.)

Romney is wholly, demonstrably, incommensurably unequal to the task of taking on the Left. If this isn’t clear by now to the GOP, then it deserves the fate Romney will deliver.

rrpjr on December 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM

in this primary but will be the albatross around his neck in the general. Newt doesnt have advisers because he thinks he is smarter then they are, he thinks he is smarter then everyone and hes wrong. Hubris always has and always will be his Achilles heel.

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Didn’t all those terrific advisers bail on him to work for Perry? That went well.
Maybe Newt is on to something.

katy the mean old lady on December 2, 2011 at 4:57 PM

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Heh. I’d like to see it, too (if I could be assured…).
Yeah, I don’t know what the solution is to the unbounded power of the federal government. I do know that it’s not the way it is supposed to be.
And I agree with you that a republican president won’t solve that problem. I’ve only been talking about the survival of the nation, not Newt or Romney (or Bachman, Cain, Perry, Bob Hinesman, etc.) as a panacea to the country’s problems.

Whew! Too much typing, today.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 4:57 PM

nswider on December 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Try again:

MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…

Mitt Romney stated his position. In 2007. But hey, maybe we can just start telling people to ignore what he said before 2008.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:58 PM

win the senate… its our only hope.

maineconservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Annar on December 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Annar on December 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Lol. Thanks for typing this out for me.
(I’m getting carpal tunnel over here.)

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Deflection from a Romney supporter. Shocking. And was Romney running as a conservative in 2007 when he appeared on Meet The Press and advocated the return of the Assault Weapons Ban?

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM

you are the one deflecting…as you ALWAYS do.

Romney is against weapons of unusal lethality George W Bush was.

Facts here Madison:
CHAPTER 150 OF THE ACTS OF 2004:
An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

(You can read the actual bill on the Massachusetts government website by clicking here: mass.gov – Laws – Chapter 150)

“This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.

Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

FACTS!!! People like to bring up little YouTube clips hoping people do not know the background.

Tired of people misrepresenting Romney’s record!

Show me again where Romney has not been a conservative IN A BLUE STATE since 2005?

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM

maineconservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM

No, no, no. Obi Wan Kenobi is our only hope.

RedCrow on December 2, 2011 at 5:02 PM

You’re like a used car salesman that points to a vehicle whose tires have fallen off, is making a tremendous racket, and is releasing clouds of exhaust fumes…and says “See? I told you it runs.”

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM

AGAIN DID NOT REFUTE ANYTHING I POSTED!!! You can say 2+2 = 5 all you want and it does not make it true.

g2825m on December 2, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3