Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on December 5, 2011 by Allahpundit

“Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP’s newest poll of Iowa Republican caucus voters with 27% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Mitt Romney, 13% for Michele Bachmann, 9% for Rick Perry, 6% for Rick Santorum, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 1% for Gary Johnson…

“Gingrich’s rise to the top is being fueled by strong support from seniors and the Tea Party. With voters over 65 he’s at 37% leading Romney’s 18% and Paul’s 11% by 19 and 26 points respectively. With Tea Party voters Gingrich is at 35% with Bachmann actually coming in at second with 23%, Paul in third at 14%, and Romney all the way back at just 4%…

“Electability is not usually a trait you would associate with Newt Gingrich but 33% of Republicans think he would be the candidate with the best chance to defeat Barack Obama with Mitt Romney at 23% and no one else hitting double digits. 57% of voters say they’re most concerned with a candidate’s stand on the issues to 34% who are most concerned about getting the candidate who can beat Obama. Paul actually leads Gingrich 23-20 with voters who care most about a candidate’s stances. But Gingrich has the overall lead because he’s at 39% with those most concerned about electability to 18% for Romney and only 11% for Paul…

“One reason Gingrich is moving ahead of Romney in Iowa? 42% of voters say they would have major concerns about a candidate who supported an individual mandate for health care to just 34% who say they’d have major concerns about a candidate who cheated on his spouse.”

***

“Democrats who have largely ignored the GOP field of presidential candidates aside from Mitt Romney have turned their fire on Newt Gingrich, the new front-runner for the Republican nomination.

“Vice President Biden took a shot at Gingrich on Sunday, telling Turkey’s prime minister he didn’t want to ‘sound like Newt Gingrich’ by inflating his own self-importance. President Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod went after the former Speaker on Monday, calling him ‘the godfather of gridlock.’…

“Democrats, meanwhile, have suggested Obama would have a much easier time defeating Gingrich than Romney.

“‘He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater,’ Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said last week. Goldwater is credited with reviving Republican conservatism in the 1960s, but lost in a landslide presidential election to Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1964.”

***

“But in the face of Gingrich’s surge in the polls, most [Republican] Gingrich critics [on Capitol Hill] are keeping it to themselves. Part of it is because, recognizing that Gingrich is connecting with the GOP base better than anyone in the field, they have little desire to get cross-wise with their own party. Put more bluntly, there is a dawning realization they might have to make peace with Newt the nominee…

“Even among confirmed Gingrich skeptics, there is also a sort of fellow pol’s respect for how the former speaker, abandoned by his consultants and campaign team, has clawed his way back into contention. This is all bad news for Mitt Romney, who had hoped these anti-character witnesses would take down his latest rival.

“Mixed in with the sound of silence, too, is some powerful wishful thinking: Maybe Newt’s changed. Some of his old colleagues are willing to be convinced that Gingrich is not the same man whose own Republican lieutenants tried to frag him in 1997, little more than two years after he led them to their first House majority in 40 years…

“‘[T]hey were kind of excited [about his comeback],’ said Cole, a Ph.D. historian. ‘But now it’s like Napoleon showing up for the 100 days. We all may follow him into battle again — and you just hope it’s not Waterloo.’”

***

“Picking a candidate in cases like this for me always starts out with the same question: Who’s the most conservative candidate that can be elected?

“I’ve decided that candidate is Newt Gingrich. To begin with, he’s a conservative and Romney’s a right-of-center moderate.

“I also believe Newt’s more electable than Romney. That’s not because he polls better than Romney against Obama right now — although he does according to Rasmussen. It’s because Mitt Romney is a weak, bland, moderate candidate who inspires no passion and who seems to have no core convictions whatsoever. These are features, not bugs to establishment Republicans, but conservatives have fought too long and too hard to keep embracing guys like Romney just because a bunch of Republican careerists in D.C. like him or because it’s “his turn.” Is it too much to ask that the conservatives who provide the vast majority of energy, money, and the ideas in the GOP have one of our own as the nominee?…

“Make no mistake about it, folks, the next year is going to be tough on conservatives. Barack Obama has been one of the worst Presidents in American history, but he’s not just going to roll over and hand the presidency to the GOP. Since he has almost nothing positive to campaign on, he’s going to run an extremely negative campaign and the mainstream media will do everything in its power to help him. The attacks on the GOP nominee are going to come fast and furious for the better part of a year. I’ll support whoever the nominee is, but I would feel good about fighting on Newt Gingrich’s behalf for a year. I could feel good about telling people that Newt Gingrich would be a competent President who would make this a better country. I could feel good about the idea of having Newt Gingrich as our President.”

***

***

Via Mediaite.

***

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

<blockquoteHuntsman showed us the quality of his judgement when he declined to attend Huckabee’s event on Saturday.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:25 AM

But Romney gets a pass for running scared from debating Gingrich?

sleepingiantsup on December 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM

At the end of the day conservatives will have to go with Huntsman or Romney if they truly want to win this race.

I wouldn’t mind having Newt Gingrich as president but his nomination would be an early christmas gift for the Obama Campaign.

Just think about the material the one billion dollar campaign has on Newt Gingrich for ads….

TimeTraveler on December 6, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:20 AM

There are NO good candidates this year. You find proof where I supported Newt. I detest both of them, more so your Romney. I just laugh at the RINO, R-establishment, the media and the lefties’ reactions, and at you.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:25 AM

It was a wonderful forum. Kudos to Mr. Huckabee, whom I couldn’t stand until that event, and especially to the brilliant 3 AGs.

Schadenfreude on December 6, 2011 at 12:33 AM

The least thin-skinned candidate will win against Obama.

The narcissist can only be beaten by someone more impertinent than he is.

Schadenfreude on December 6, 2011 at 12:35 AM

But Romney gets a pass for running scared from debating Gingrich?

sleepingiantsup on December 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Parody for Romney – be entertained by it. It’s prevalent.

Schadenfreude on December 6, 2011 at 12:36 AM

You guys could give Chris Matthews a run for his money. Hume was his usual cogent self. The truth is that the 3 of you squirmed when Hume pointed out that during this campaign the conservative Romney has spent $200,000 on commercial air travel while your undisciplined, extravagant, bloviating, Freddie Mac-supporting hypocrite has travelled by private jet at a cost of $2 million. This makes Mitt 10 times as conservative as Gingrich, which comes as no surprise to those familiar with the records of these two men.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:20 AM

I didn’t know paying money to fly on a private jet was somehow scandalous? Well, if that’s what Romney Inc. wants to run on, I suppose it’s fine with me.

Mitt Romney: Yeah, I own palatial estates, but like Ted Kennedy, I fly commercial (in First Class of course. God forbid if I have to sit next to… one of them.)

I actually don’t hold it against Mitt for owning some pretty nice homes in MA, CA, and NH. I like people who own property, buy expensive jewelry, or keep charter plane companies in business. I guess I’m just more American than you, Basil. :-)

Punchenko on December 6, 2011 at 12:36 AM

At the end of the day conservatives will have to go with Huntsman or Romney if they truly want to win this race.

TimeTraveler on December 6, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I think its becoming clear that a great number of conservatives don’t want to defeat Obama by electing his mirror image. Ron Paul is starting to pull ahead of Romney which is how unappealing Romney is.

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 12:40 AM

You can’t beat the title-holder if you aren’t willing to wade in and throw punches despite the risk. Romney won’t take risks. Gingrich will.

Seth Halpern on December 6, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Open quotes right?…. The most inefficient DMV ever…

JustJP on December 6, 2011 at 12:41 AM

I predict as many as a dozen “bimbo eruptions” for Newt. His old global warming couch love Pelosi just ‘hinted’ as much.

That would be troublesome, but I give Newt brownie points if he banged Pelosi, because it makes me laugh.

Look, any nominee is going to be savagely attacked. Worse than last time, because Obama can’t even run on the “Hope and Change” crap this time. So I know this sounds terrible, but it’s time to play the same game, as disgusting as it is.

We need to start a collection and hire the best private investigator we can to find a woman named Vera Baker, Obama’s very own zipper problem.;

Look her up.

Shotgun Messiah on December 6, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Here is my theory, the candidate who can intelligently articulate ideas while making the media froth at the mouth will win.

Because nothing turns off voters more than hysterical shrieking from the left.

jhffmn on December 6, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Romney will be McCain Part Deux. Nice guy who will tell people Obama’s a swell guy.

Newt will fight.

angryed on December 6, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Newt has degrees in history and having been denied tenure as a professor in a small Georgia college turned to politics. If we need a history lesson, Gingrich is our man, if we want to turn around this government and most particularly the economy then we need the expertise of Romney.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 5, 2011 at 11:38 PM

You pulled this exact quote from Emily Toth? Ms. Mentor’s impeccable advice for women in academia?

Seriously?

Sometimes people get denied tenure because they don’t tow the liberal line. Those committee meetings on tenure read like an Animal Farm montage.

Sorry, again…not voting for Mr. Magic Underwear. Don’t care about his business experience. I can see him getting crushed by this however:

Money Shot

Every Obama Ad will have this in it. The 99% against the 1% and the driveling masses will follow it hook….line….and sinker.

JP1986UM on December 6, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Romney will be McCain Part Deux. Nice guy who will tell people Obama’s a swell guy.

Newt will fight.

angryed on December 6, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Yep. The fact that Mitt declined the invitation to a Lincoln-Douglas debate with Newt tells us all we need to know about who is more prepared to take on Obama in 2012.

Lawdawg86 on December 6, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Every night I get home from work and crank up the old computer and try to catch up with what went on at Hot Air.

Lately all I see is the same old people using the same old crap every night to spam the Newt threads. A lot of these people are supporters of candidates that don’t have a chance of getting the nomination and some whose pick is already dropped out.

If you support R Paul, please, you need to understand that there aren’t enough of radicals like yourselves to make a difference.

If you supported Cain, you’re already a loser and a poor judge of candidate.

Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Johnson. Really?

Perry. I like him but he needs a lot of seasoning. He also has to have his heart in it. I’ll bet he never tries to run for President again.

The only two are Romney and Gingrich. Gingrich better get organized or he’s not going to be the nominee. He missed the deadline here in Missouri but I’m going to write him in.

Voters are tired of amatures and “historic” Presidents. They just want someone who is competent. I believe they are also tired of the nastiness and rumors and inuendo. I think that stuff will backfire and I think that Republicans will win in a landslide, while adding to their majority in the House and become the majority in the Senate.

Do I sound like Manly Rash?

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Newt and his two bestest Conservative buddies team up to advance education in America

http://www.watchmojo.com/tv/Hulu/WWE/50005346/

Igor R. on December 6, 2011 at 1:04 AM

“One reason Gingrich is moving ahead of Romney in Iowa? 42% of voters say they would have major concerns about a candidate who supported an individual mandate for health care to just 34% who say they’d have major concerns about a candidate who cheated on his spouse.”

Hahahaha!!! Romney never supported a federal mandate and Gingrich did. Romney didn’t cheat on his wife and Gingrich cheated twice. Gingrich took cash from Fannie/Freddie and Romney created Staples.

Iowa voters are MORONS.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Newt Gingrich admitted in the Presidential Forum with Mike Huckabee that the architect of the individual mandate was the Heritage Foundation.

Romney isn’t the architect of ObamaCare.
Conservative Samizdat on December 6, 2011 at 12:19 AM

The Volokh link is a very interesting piece of history, but I’ll point out something in that link:

So, for instance, when some Congressional Republicans introduced health reform legislation based upon the Heritage Foundation’s proposal, the Cato Institute published this paper by Tom Miller (now a health care analyst at the American Enterprise Institute) attacking the idea. Working in D.C. at the time (as one of Tom Miller’s colleagues), I recall that many conservatives and libertarians believed those who had embraced the Heritage approach were engaging in preemptive compromise, proposing bad ideas in an effort to forestall worse ones. It was only after conservatives revolted that Republicans in Congress sought to defeat health care reform outright. The Cato Institute, among other groups, has also been extremely critical of RomneyCare (see, e.g., here, here, and here).

So there’s that magic word again: compromise. The sort of compromise that means Republicans selling out the nation and its core values to get along with Democrats. If true, this represents an unfortunate lapse for Heritage, an otherwise great institution.

As for Romney, you are telling me that isn’t his signature on his handiwork in Massachusetts? The idea that ObamaCare isn’t derived from RomneyCare simply is not believable.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Newt will fight.

angryed on December 6, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Gingrich will be fighting to justify his immorality, liberalism and corruption.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:18 AM

The idea that ObamaCare isn’t derived from RomneyCare simply is not believable.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Obamacare is the result of EMTALA. Without it, Obamacare never gets off the ground.

Reagan sign EMTALA into law.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Yes, I know many have defaulted to Newt because the rest of them are not that good…. but, before you sell your Conservative soul, you must read this post on Newt Gingrich, the consumate con man…
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/newt-gingrich-is-more-dangerous-to-america-than-obama-and-i-can-prove-it/

God, if Sarah Palin does not get back in this thing next year, we are screwed.

PhilipJames on December 6, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Obamacare is the result of EMTALA. Without it, Obamacare never gets off the ground.

Reagan sign EMTALA into law.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Sorry, no one but insane Mittbots believe that Reagan was the father of Obamacare rather than Romney and his Romneycare monstrosity.

RomneyCare architect: Of course it’s the same as ObamaCare

I mean you guys claim Romneycare/Obamacare was the fault of Reagan, Heritage, Newt, and who knows what else.
No one is going to buy that garbage.

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 1:34 AM

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 1:34 AM

EMTALA forces hospitals to treat those who cannot pay. States end up paying for those charges. Many states are using different systems to try and reduce the costs to their state. Romney used a constitutional free market based approach to solve the problem Reagan created with EMTALA. Obama used an unconstitutional federal takeover of the private market to create Obamacare.

Only morons refuse to accept that Obamacare is being justified because of the effects EMTALA has on the economy.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Hornet and Wasp were right snappy.

Limerick on December 6, 2011 at 1:47 AM

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Well, hopefully Romney will trot out blaming Reagan for Obamacare in the next debate. He certainly needs help humanizing his image, its a good joke, and the resulting laughter will be entertaining… until they realize he was serious.

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Gingrich will be fighting to justify his immorality, liberalism and corruption.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Not if he’s running against Obama. Americans have always had a tendency to look past past transgressions in favor of forward thinking ideas. If it’s Newt against Obama and you’re not going to vote, or voting for Obama, because he had an affair, which he admitted was a mistake, and married the woman he had an affair with, I hate to break it to you: the country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and Obama passed massive regulation over your life through Obamacare.

Sit at home if you want, but if morality is your concern, I’ll go with the guy who didn’t vote that it was ok to allow a baby to die if an abortion went bad.

cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Obamacare is the result of EMTALA. Without it, Obamacare never gets off the ground.

Reagan sign EMTALA into law.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I get it…

Reagan = Obamacare

Without Reagan, Dems would never dream up something like universal healthcare.

El_Terrible on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Obamacare is the result of EMTALA. Without it, Obamacare never gets off the ground.
Reagan sign EMTALA into law.
csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Good grief. Next you’ll be telling us George Washington caused OWS because he conducted the American Revolution.

EMTALA was passed to rein in corporatists practicing bad medicine in the ER:

From Hardy v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 164 F.3d 789 (2d Cir. 1999):

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. The purpose of EMTALA is to prevent “‘patient dumping,’ the practice of refusing to provide emergency medical treatment to patients unable to pay, or transferring them before emergency conditions [are] stabilized.”

Romney used a constitutional free market based approach to solve the problem Reagan created with EMTALA.
csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 AM

I am King Romney and I order you to buy this product. Ohhh-K.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Romney will need a conservative veep to fire up the base. Perhaps a Rubio or a Jindal.

itsnotaboutme on December 5, 2011 at 11:15 PM

So you agree …we’ve known conservatives and Mitt is NO CONSERVATIVE!!!!

RedLizard64 on December 6, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Do I sound like Manly Rash?

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 1:02 AM

You’re not supposed to mention that name around here. It’s in the unwritten ToS.

Now that you’ve brought it up, however, suffice it to say that He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named turned out not to be a particularly nice person when he started his own blog.

Lurking around the threads and deleting comments he didn’t like personally without so much as a “comment deleted” left to mark the place. Not only is it low class but it makes the threads look like the commenters are having conversations with voices no one else can hear.

But the final straw for me was a private email he sent to me informing me that if I posted on a certain subject again, I would be banned. I went on the blog and postedd that I was quitting and why.

It was gone in less than 10 minutes. So do you still want to ask that question?

platypus on December 6, 2011 at 2:31 AM

The truth is that the 3 of you squirmed when Hume pointed out that during this campaign the conservative Romney has spent $200,000 on commercial air travel while your undisciplined, extravagant, bloviating, Freddie Mac-supporting hypocrite has travelled by private jet at a cost of $2 million. This makes Mitt 10 times as conservative as Gingrich, which comes as no surprise to those familiar with the records of these two men.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:20 AM

No, the significance of Mitt flying around commercial jets versus Newt flying around in lavish jets is that Mitt Romney is determined to use his campaign funds wisely by using it consistently improve, invest and grow his campaign organization.

In contrast, Newt doesn’t have much of a campaign organization in many states and yet he’s blowing all this money on lavish flights.

Mitt will win since he’s playing a smart tactical and technical campaign game against his GOP competitors.

Conservative Samizdat on December 6, 2011 at 3:01 AM

I am King Romney and I order you to buy this product. Ohhh-K.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 2:04 AM

I am King Reagan, I am ordering you to pay for the health care of other people in order to prevent patient dumping.

Which is worse, telling people that they need to buy their own health care or to tell people that they need to pay for the health care of other people?

Conservative Samizdat on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Such hypocrites. If Romney were spending millions to fly around in private jets you all would be screaming it’s Exhibit A as to why he’s not deserving of a single True Conservative (TM) vote.

Of course HA, wallowing in Mitt-hate, ignored the Parade interview which shows Romney to be a smart and thoughtful leader, someone who was raised to understand the value of a dollar and, most of all, a truly decent human being–loyal to “family, faith and country.”

But then he has no “core values,” right? And Newt, who has not only done more flip-flopping than Romney but is also a total slimeball, has? Do you idiots even know what real character and “values” are?

You can disagree with Romney’s politics and refuse to support him without attacking him personally. The vitriol that is coming from some here, especially haters like Pukechenko, is disgusting–and laughable, really, if you’re going to go all in for a weasel like Newt.

I have some reservations about Mitt but have no doubt that he’s a better man than Newt. That matters. Character matters.

No wonder most of the citizens of this country are disgusted with our government. We vote for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Meredith on December 6, 2011 at 4:10 AM

O/T..Intell Alert,Here we go…..!
==================================

Oil firm Halliburton accused of destroying Gulf of Mexico spill ‘evidence’ by BP – BBC
8 Mins.ago

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

Halliburton ‘destroyed’ Gulf of Mexico spill evidence
6 December 2011 Last updated at 01:23 ET
****************************************

Oil giant BP has accused oilfields services firm Halliburton of destroying damaging evidence relating to last year’s oil well blast in the Gulf of Mexico in which 11 people were killed.

At a hearing in a New Orleans’ court, BP said Halliburton had “intentionally” destroyed test results on its cement product used at the Macondo well.

Halliburton denied this, saying the claims were “without merit”.
(More………………)
========================

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16044836

canopfor on December 6, 2011 at 4:44 AM

I am King Reagan, I am ordering you to pay for the health care of other people in order to prevent patient dumping.

Which is worse, telling people that they need to buy their own health care or to tell people that they need to pay for the health care of other people?
Conservative Samizdat on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 AM

This rhetorical sleight-of-hand is unworthy of a conservative. You equate a cost imposed to stop immoral acts by institutions (patient dumping) with providing socialized medicine for all. When doctors were independent actors in medicine, they often cared for people who couldn’t pay with money or pay at all. In fact, they still do. Those were individual choices, though, and not a set policy of a corporate institution.

Some on the right have been struggling with issues of the dark side of the modern corporation, that legal invention of the 19th Century (this is above the pay-grade of liberals). In many ways these things are useful and beneficial, but they encourage some of the disconnects usually associated with big bureaucratic government. That includes moral disconnects.

If Reagan agreed to an imperfect solution to a moral dilemma, it wasn’t to justify ObamneyCare somewhere down the road.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM

Newt has degrees in history and having been denied tenure as a professor in a small Georgia college turned to politics. If we need a history lesson, Gingrich is our man, if we want to turn around this government and most particularly the economy then we need the expertise of Romney.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 5, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Anyone familiar with any higher education institution knows that the liberal arts programs are saturated with liberal, progressive, far left “commie pinkos” (exaggerating but you get the point). Don’t any of you remember the ridiculous TAs who taught the undergrad humanities requirements/electives? You have to look really hard to find a conservative in their midst. The tenure committees do NOT LIKE conservatives and would prefer to extinguish all conservative thought so they can produce nice little lefty mind numbed robots out into the world with a sense of entitlement that will become Obamabot voter types.

So your argument that they did not grant Gingrich tenure is actually a plus for me.

Gingrich manages to annoy all the right people. That is why he is my Plan B for now. My Plan A did not get into the race although she was probably the most vetted candidate in history. Who can survive the release of 24,000 emails without a scandal derived from one of them?

At this point, if Sarah Palin were to reconsider, I wouldn’t be surprised if she would just sweep the polls. Only Sarah and Gingrich would go on offense against Obama and the permanent political class (include the main stream press in that group). Romney seems to hide under his desk.

karenhasfreedom on December 6, 2011 at 6:09 AM

the negative campaigning ensues…

*shaking the head*
and people want us to be civil?? talk to the libs for crying out loud..

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:11 AM

morning joe ripping newt to shreds calling him the most negative campaigning…hello, mcfly???

turn that mirror back to you and the rest of the msdnc crew…

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM

A little OT from Byron York at Townhall:

…at the end of a long day traveling across South Carolina, Gingrich retires to a nearby restaurant and nurses a Guinness as he talks to a few reporters.

OK—I’m sold!

IrishEi on December 6, 2011 at 6:17 AM

How big of a fraud does the TEA party have to be for NEWT *BLEEPING* Gingrich to be their top vote getter?

How in the world can a group of people who want smaller gov’t vote for this guy? What about his record suggests it? I’m ashamed to have once been apart of the group that once supported small-government government candidates.

Notorious GOP on December 6, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Iowa voters are MORONS.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Says the Moron jester…guess Rasmussen and the NATION of voters are “MORONS” also..,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-gingrich-38-romney-17_610850.html

lovingmyUSA on December 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM

OK—I’m sold!

IrishEi on December 6, 2011 at 6:17 AM

heh

count me in

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM

They’re telling us whom they fear.

kingsjester on December 6, 2011 at 6:51 AM

I have some reservations about Mitt but have no doubt that he’s a better man than Newt. That matters. Character matters.

No wonder most of the citizens of this country are disgusted with our government. We vote for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Meredith on December 6, 2011 at 4:10 AM

Hate to alarm you but some of our presidents that had “perfect, lovely families” have been the worst presidents ever (i.e., Carter, Obama) Some of our greatest have had character “flaws”.

It’s almost like the gene that makes you “wander” is the same one that gives you the courage to lead and make big decisions.

I like morality too but America is almost out of steam. Where’s that morality going to get you under the coming “Sharia” law? I think Newt “gets the Islaamic threat” and “gets” our messed up legal system. He has the ideas and the knowledge of government to make necessary changes. I think he’s our best chance of getting us back on the track… flaws and all.

stenwin77 on December 6, 2011 at 6:55 AM

kingsjester on December 6, 2011 at 6:51 AM

yepper….

newt and the rest of the gop elite will never learn, you don’t play nice with these vicious folks…susan collins is repeating the same mistakes with the payroll tax cut bill…

some folks here on HA insist that we should take the high road but sometimes, you have to get down in the dirt to survive…give them a taste of their own medicine…

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – pure evil

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 6, 2011 at 6:59 AM

I think he’s our best chance of getting us back on the track… flaws and all.

stenwin77 on December 6, 2011 at 6:55 AM

and the lsm are stymied, they don’t get it…

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:59 AM

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 6, 2011 at 6:59 AM

Yes indeedy

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 7:00 AM

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 6:58 AM

And some posters around here, of the squish variety, erroneously believe that they’re smarter than Conservatives from the Heartland.

kingsjester on December 6, 2011 at 7:04 AM

kingsjester on December 6, 2011 at 7:04 AM

yup

what a world, what a world…

cmsinaz on December 6, 2011 at 7:09 AM

“President Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod went after praisd the

former Speaker

the current occupier of the WH on Monday, calling him ‘the godfather of gridlock.’ “the gadfly of goofing off.’”

onlineanalyst on December 6, 2011 at 7:24 AM

Cut “former Speaker” from my post. Preview is your friend.

onlineanalyst on December 6, 2011 at 7:25 AM

If the leader of the free is incapable of clear headed critical thought, he is a danger to the free world. Muhammad as the Islamic texts clearly state was a jihadist. He was a mass murderer, a rapist and enslaver. That is what Islam said he was in the Koran, the Sira and Hadiths. As John Quincy Adams stated, “He declared war on mankind for all eternity”. The Founders understood this as did clear headed men such as Winston Churchill. Where have they all gone? All we are left with is a bunch of politically correct muddle minded buffoons. Then of course there is Barack Obama the enemy inside the gates.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 6, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Well, hopefully Romney will trot out blaming Reagan for Obamacare in the next debate. He certainly needs help humanizing his image, its a good joke, and the resulting laughter will be entertaining… until they realize he was serious.

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 1:51 AM

So you think the facts are a bad thing.

Typical.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Americans have always had a tendency to look past past transgressions in favor of forward thinking ideas.

cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

You mean progressive ideas. Great because Gingrich has tons of those. The federal mandate, supporting Fannie/Freddie, AGW, etc.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:38 AM

Without Reagan, Dems would never dream up something like universal healthcare.

El_Terrible on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM

1) Glad to hear someone admit that Obamacare is the dems idea.
2) Never get off the ground doesn’t mean “never dream up”.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:39 AM

I am King Romney and I order you to buy this product. Ohhh-K.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 2:04 AM

“We are the people of MA and we want Masscare. Including the mandates.”

And years later, they still like it.

Try reading instead of parroting talking points that others feed you.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:41 AM

You guys could give Chris Matthews a run for his money. Hume was his usual cogent self. The truth is that the 3 of you squirmed when Hume pointed out that during this campaign the conservative Romney has spent $200,000 on commercial air travel while your undisciplined, extravagant, bloviating, Freddie Mac-supporting hypocrite has travelled by private jet at a cost of $2 million. This makes Mitt 10 times as conservative as Gingrich, which comes as no surprise to those familiar with the records of these two men.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 12:20 AM

But he sat in first class. It was done for ‘looks’. He thought it would make him look conservative and more like the common man. I deplore stuff like that.

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 7:42 AM

lovingmyUSA on December 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM

Awwwww. Wadda madder wittle baby? Did the big bad words make you sad?

ROTFLMMFAO!

Iowa voters don’t like anyone who supported a mandate. So, they support Gingrich.

Gingrich supported a federal mandate and cheated on his wife.

Yeah, Iowa voters are the most informed in the nation. Let me guess…you’re an Iowa voter.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:45 AM

“We are the people of MA and we want Massacre Masscare. Including the mandates.”

FIFY

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 7:45 AM

It was done for ‘looks’.

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Hallelujah!! Another mind reader!

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:46 AM

“We are the people of MA and we want Massacre Masscare. Including the mandates.”

FIFY

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 7:45 AM

Yeah, it sure is looking that way. And with the dems in charge, it certainly will.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Hallelujah!! Another mind reader!

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Not hard to do in this case.

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM

You mean progressive ideas. Great because Gingrich has tons of those. The federal mandate, supporting Fannie/Freddie, AGW, etc.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:38 AM

When I look at you, Newt Gingrich, what I see
Is the ghost of FDR starring back at me
I can see the same alphabet plan man of old
As hopes for America’s salvation grow cold
You may now be the Republican leading star
But, Newt Gingrich, I know who you really are

PercyB on December 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Not hard to do in this case.

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Nice try. Your problem is that you are a bitter former worshiper of a failed candidate and want to take your frustration out on the one candidate that surpassed yours.

In your case, reading your mind is not hard to do.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Oh good, it looks like these threads will be carbon copies of Palin threads. Only shorter, so far. Oh well, either Newt stands up to it or falls in the polls. The way this primary is going it doesn’t pay to become personally invested in anyone.

Cindy Munford on December 6, 2011 at 7:56 AM

It is inarguable (by rational folks) that those anti-Newt democrats would rather face Mittens anytime before Newt.

Newt knows Washington inside out and has as much dirt on those Dems as Pelosi would ever have.

Is Newt perfect? No! But sometimes clean water won’t wash away filthy stains and you have to scour the blazes out of them to restore the beauty.

Don L on December 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Nice try. Your problem is that you are a bitter former worshiper of a failed candidate and want to take your frustration out on the one candidate that surpassed yours.

In your case, reading your mind is not hard to do.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 7:53 AM

It’s not about me or whoever …are you obsessing ..?

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Our US Tax Dollars, Security, “Intelligence” and what’s left of Integrity

Obama’s Christmas Gift to China and Russia

(no skin off Der Weltkaiser’s Nasen)

Has the War with Iran Already Begun?
The evidence of an extensive Western covert program against Tehran, and Iranian retaliation, is now too obvious to ignore

By Michael Hirsch, National Journal, Dec.4

Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.

“It’s safe to say the Israelis are very active,” the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: “Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing—tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community — are all of the things we are actually doing.” Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He added: “I wouldn’t assume that everything we do is coordinated.”

Whether the White House would authorize the targeted killing of Iranian scientists is far from certain. An executive order signed by President Reagan in 1981 prohibits direct or indirect involvement in assassinations. Therein, Mitt Romney sides against Reagan and with Obama.

Drone that crashed in Iran may give away U.S. secrets
The Sentinel drone has cutting-edge stealth and surveillance technology that other nations [Russia and China] could exploit. One of the aircraft crashed in Iran, and a U.S. official says it was on a CIA mission.

Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Germany, points out that Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor was also preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists. Beyond that, says Hibbs, “Some of the concern in the expert community is that in going this route we’re unleashing forces we cannot control.” [It is the view of Mossad's former leaders that war with Iran is NOT to Israel's best interest.]

By accident or not, it’s entirely possible the covert war could escalate into a real one, experts say. “I am less enthusiastic about how effective all this going to be than some people in the administration,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear investigator at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Bunn says he has occasionally discussed the program with the Obama administration officials.

Another U.S. official with access to intelligence said that losing the Sentinel RQ-170 is a major security breach. The official, who was not authorized to publicly speak about the information, wouldn’t say how the drone fell into Iranian hands, but confirmed that the downed drone was largely intact. “It’s bad — they’ll have everything” in terms of the secret technology in the aircraft, the official said. “And the Chinese or the Russians will have it too.”

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:07 AM

The way this primary is going it doesn’t pay to become personally invested in anyone.

Cindy Munford on December 6, 2011 at 7:56 AM

PLATFORM v. Charisma

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:13 AM

This rhetorical sleight-of-hand is unworthy of a conservative. You equate a cost imposed to stop immoral acts by institutions (patient dumping) with providing socialized medicine for all. When doctors were independent actors in medicine, they often cared for people who couldn’t pay with money or pay at all. In fact, they still do. Those were individual choices, though, and not a set policy of a corporate institution.

Some on the right have been struggling with issues of the dark side of the modern corporation, that legal invention of the 19th Century (this is above the pay-grade of liberals). In many ways these things are useful and beneficial, but they encourage some of the disconnects usually associated with big bureaucratic government. That includes moral disconnects.

If Reagan agreed to an imperfect solution to a moral dilemma, it wasn’t to justify ObamneyCare somewhere down the road.

Feedie on December 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM

This shows that it is possible to “steal valor” from citizens of the former Soviet Union, as well as from American veterans.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Newt knows Washington inside out and has as much dirt on those Dems as Pelosi would ever have.

Don L on December 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM

I thought he handled Pelosi quite well yesterday.

lynncgb on December 6, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Teh Quack:

“Call me old school, but I believe in the old warrior’s credo that ‘to the victor go the spoils.’ In other words, we don’t fight a war, hand over the keys to people who hate us, and leave. We win a war, take the oil to repay the financial costs we’ve incurred, and in so doing treat Iraq and everyone else fairly.” “It’s hardly a radical idea,” continues Donald Trump.

An executive order signed by President Reagan in 1981 prohibits direct or indirect involvement in assassinations. Whether the White House in either a Leninist or a neoconservative administration would authorize the targeted killing of Iranian scientists or Heads of State (Libya) is far from uncertain these days.

Donald and Hillary share the same world view based on chaos and treachery so long as they get ahead. Western Globalist Banking is in massive debt, launching compassionate wars to usurp not only the natural resources of “undesirable” populations (people deemed expendable), but usurp the national banks filled with gold and fiscally sound wealthy accounts (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran…), in the interest of being fair to the insulated global elitists — provide bail-out funds for “free” (tax funded by you and me). Unlike Hillary, presumptive deal makers like Donald & Debate Clowns are wannabe members, doing everything possible to buy into membership of the globalist banking/insurance club of fraudulent investments.

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Not if he’s running against Obama. Americans have always had a tendency to look past past transgressions in favor of forward thinking ideas. If it’s Newt against Obama and you’re not going to vote, or voting for Obama, because he had an affair, which he admitted was a mistake, and married the woman he had an affair with, I hate to break it to you: the country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and Obama passed massive regulation over your life through Obamacare.
Sit at home if you want, but if morality is your concern, I’ll go with the guy who didn’t vote that it was ok to allow a baby to die if an abortion went bad.cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

15 billion dollars in debt and you support a man who made millions helping destroy the economy and the housing market with his support for Freddie Mac. Republicans didn’t understand the devastating importance of Fannie/Freddie in the last election and apparently still don’t. Gingrich is not the solution. He’s part of the problem. He’s a bloviating hypocrite.

You support the guy who engaged in extramarital affairs. This is conduct which, in the real world, leads to abortions. Gingrich is a poor standard bearer for the right to life.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM

OT ~ Sort of… I saw a little of this story on The Weather Channel, while checking local temps this morning.

Anyone else notice that The Weather Channel is now reporting actual MSNBC news feeds in the morning? It’s like a slow growing bacteria, infecting everything it touches…

Fallon on December 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM

tinkerthinker on December 6, 2011 at 8:02 AM

I thought only we could obsess.

Cindy Munford on December 6, 2011 at 8:47 AM

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:13 AM

The problem is that I don’t really trust any of their platforms and charisma doesn’t even work into the equation. And I’m not suggesting that many aren’t sincere in what they would like to do but they are only part of the equation in the grand scheme that is the United States.

Cindy Munford on December 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Not if he’s running against Obama. Americans have always had a tendency to look past past transgressions in favor of forward thinking ideas. If it’s Newt against Obama and you’re not going to vote, or voting for Obama, because he had an affair, which he admitted was a mistake, and married the woman he had an affair with, I hate to break it to you: the country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and Obama passed massive regulation over your life through Obamacare.
Sit at home if you want, but if morality is your concern, I’ll go with the guy who didn’t vote that it was ok to allow a baby to die if an abortion went bad.cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

15 billion dollars in debt and you support a man who made millions helping destroy the economy and the housing market with his support for Freddie Mac. Republicans didn’t understand the devastating importance of Fannie/Freddie in the last election and apparently still don’t. Gingrich is not the solution. He’s part of the problem. He’s a bloviating hypocrite.

You support the guy who engaged in extramarital affairs. This is conduct which, in the real world, leads to abortions. Gingrich is a poor standard bearer for the right to life.

It bears repeating. Gingrich is a bloviating hypocrite.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Obama’s administration (through Petraeus leadership) has situated the US/NATO Military in direct aggressive wars against China (Pakistan) and against Russia (Syria en route to Iran).

In the recent US Military raid against the Pakistani private residence that left no witnesses or evidence, the latest stealth helicopter was crashed and left for the Pakistani Military, perhaps as a consolation prize for Pakistan having been domestically attacked.

It seems that free but broken latest stealth technology is Obama’s attempt to stave off interference from harassed sovereigns, from helicopters to the RQ-170 radar evading most “intelligent” sensory processing drone.

Sure, propagandize the massive losses of research, costs and national security here in America as our “worthy” Trojan Horse exploits: If our intelligence can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Lockheed owes the taxpayers the admission of how much it cost in TAX Dollars (we paid, and will forever pay since Pandora’s Box opened) to develop and build the RQ-170 for China and Russia and anyone else now, but certainly nothing exclusively reserved ONLY for the USA.

Obama, you fig leafed SCOAMF, we’ve read your book by Bill Ayers.

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:51 AM

If it’s Newt against Obama and you’re not going to vote, or voting for Obama, because he had an affair…

cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

I’m not opposed to Newt Gingrich as GOP candidate solely because he had an affair, or solely because he did all he could to evade the draft during the Vietnam era, or solely because he lobbied for one of the institutions responsible for the Great Recession and then lied about the nature of his role later, or solely because he shifted positions on his support for drastic governmental action in response to the quasi-religion of man-made global warming/climate change.

It isn’t about what Gingrich has done–which is all documented and proven, by the way. What he’s done speaks to pattern, and what that pattern of behavior shows about character and motivations.

Newt Gingrich is a morally corrupt, ethically challenged, wholly self-centered sleazeball convinced he is a man of destiny. Such men do not make good presidents (See Obama, Barack; Carter, James; and Nixon, Richard.) You think Gingrich will defeat Obama in debate? You’re grossly understimating Obama, who happens to be a strong debater. You think Gingrich can withstand the close scrutiny of an already biased press or the televised circus that’s bound to happen when whole platoons of women whom he used and tossed aside come forward and start detailing the dirty bits? You think his little story about being paid $1.6 million as a ‘history consultant’ will hold up? No conceivable way.

Gingrich is damaged goods–damaged beyond repair or rehabilitation. You succeed in nominating him, we’ll lose the election no matter how bad Obama’s polling numbers are now, or how high unemployment is, or the inflation rate, any of that. We’ll lose and it will be you delusional Newt Gingrich true believers who made it happen.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Newt knows Washington inside out and has as much dirt on those Dems as Pelosi would ever have.

Obama’s path to victory. Democratic Party Washington knows Gingrich inside and out. Among other things they will reveal is his extensive efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac, which will be juxtaposed with sound bites of his criticisms of the organization he had supported.

The words bloviating hypocrite come to mind. No one likes a hypocrite. How many Republicans who worked with Gingrich when he was Speaker support his candidacy?

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 9:04 AM

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:32 AM

What? If you have something to say, say it.

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Have you ever wondered how nasty viruses get implanted in the enemies computers?

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 9:13 AM

grand scheme that is the United States.
Cindy Munford on December 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM

…or the Great Cause that is America, as George Washington referenced throughout his leadership in our Revolution for Sovereign Independence.

As you may recall, I’ve always advocated establishing the platform first, and for that platform to remain true to Constitutional Governance “First Principles”.

Principles and Policies make all the difference between candidates whose baggage always includes records. As Fred Thompson said, it’s only right to first determine all of the long term consequences, all of the possible unintended bad effects, before advocating a policy, whether foreign (war) or domestic (to circumvent/dissolve “problematic” portions of the Constitution without an official amendment).

We’ve witnessed many changes in American life. But the past decade of carnage, initially sold and still sold by both major party leadership as if “humanitarian” to win hearts and minds has produced a most volatile America, intolerant of our own Constitution, determined since “the enemy” refuses to submit, to direct Americans to actually perform a holocaust against entire “backward and unworthy” populations while invading the literal body of each American at home, traveling. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is a lost cause, completely corrupt, whether we stay or leave, the war and fraud our unwanted “gifts” to humanity. And so far as our service men and women in uniform, since GWB and Obama CinC, our troops have been ordered to be all things for all people while being incessantly redeployed. When Bush began the wars, I feared that the most valiant American lives would be taken, and that the espoused goals weren’t realistic. Recall who was then willing to say publicly that we could neither convert nor bribe the Afghan tribes to be “part of the equation in the grand scheme that is the United States.”

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Have you ever wondered…”
Reading is fundamental.
Complete your homework. You’ve obviously not read all of the articles posted @ Drudge this morning (I linked above).

maverick muse on December 6, 2011 at 9:34 AM

For the Romney supporters out there, a clue as to why your boy is stuck at 22-25%. The right is tired of milquetoast, turn the other cheek, go along get along, wimps as POTUS.

Newt likes to fight, he likes to beat the other guy. I know that the chickification of the US has made those into bad qualities, but it is what is needed to keep our Republic from emulating the Titanic.

Nathan_OH on December 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM

“Democrats who have largely ignored the GOP field of presidential candidates aside from Mitt Romney have turned their fire on Newt Gingrich, the new front-runner for the Republican nomination.

The not-Romney of the hour is the Democrat’s worst enemy. How … unexpected.

Freelancer on December 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Newt likes to fight, he likes to beat the other guy. I know that the chickification of the US has made those into bad qualities, but it is what is needed to keep our Republic from emulating the Titanic.

Nathan_OH on December 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM

You say Newt likes to fight? You’re saying he possesses courage? Really? The facts belie that statement. What do you call a guy who does all he can to weasel out of the draft during wartime–not because he has principled objections to the war but because he’s afraid he might get hurt? We call men like that yellow where I come from, and you want this draft-dodging shirker as Commander-in-Chief, making life-and-death decisions affecting the lives of men and women far better and braver than he will ever be. The Republic will be fine without men such as Gingrich leading it, thanks.

Contradictory, much?

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM

You say Newt likes to fight? You’re saying he possesses courage? Really? The facts belie that statement. What do you call a guy who does all he can to weasel out of the draft during wartime–not because he has principled objections to the war but because he’s afraid he might get hurt? We call men like that yellow where I come from, and you want this draft-dodging shirker as Commander-in-Chief, making life-and-death decisions affecting the lives of men and women far better and braver than he will ever be. The Republic will be fine without men such as Gingrich leading it, thanks.

Contradictory, much?

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Compared to Romney, Newt is Winston Churchill. At least Newt didn’t put his son’s shilling for his candidacy on the same level as military service.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I just love this.

“The Tea Party is evil because it is ideologically inflexible.”

“The Tea Party is evil because it is pragmatically considering an electable candidate.”

As a wise man once said, “We wept for you and you did not mourn…”

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Compared to Romney, Newt is Winston Churchill. At least Newt didn’t put his son’s shilling for his candidacy on the same level as military service.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 11:54 AM

That’s untrue, of course. Look it up. Romney drew a high number in the draft in 1970, which means he participated in the draft. He took his chances, unlike Newt; that is, unless you’re claiming Mitt Romney’s father, Governor of Michigan George Romney, used to his influence to jigger the results. That’s some claim.

I notice you didn’t argue the point or counter any claim. Newt remains yellow.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM

“One reason Gingrich is moving ahead of Romney in Iowa? 42% of voters say they would have major concerns about a candidate who supported an individual mandate for health care to just 34% who say they’d have major concerns about a candidate who cheated on his spouse.”

Hahahaha!!! Romney never supported a federal mandate and Gingrich did. Romney didn’t cheat on his wife and Gingrich cheated twice. Gingrich took cash from Fannie/Freddie and Romney created Staples.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Such hypocrites. If Romney were spending millions to fly around in private jets you all would be screaming it’s Exhibit A as to why he’s not deserving of a single True Conservative (TM) vote.

Of course HA, wallowing in Mitt-hate, ignored the Parade interview which shows Romney to be a smart and thoughtful leader, someone who was raised to understand the value of a dollar and, most of all, a truly decent human being–loyal to “family, faith and country.”

But then he has no “core values,” right? And Newt, who has not only done more flip-flopping than Romney but is also a total slimeball, has? Do you idiots even know what real character and “values” are?

You can disagree with Romney’s politics and refuse to support him without attacking him personally. The vitriol that is coming from some here, especially haters like Pukechenko, is disgusting–and laughable, really, if you’re going to go all in for a weasel like Newt.

I have some reservations about Mitt but have no doubt that he’s a better man than Newt. That matters. Character matters.

No wonder most of the citizens of this country are disgusted with our government. We vote for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Meredith on December 6, 2011 at 4:10 AM

Many of you DO need to re-look at Romney’s record and compare it to Gingrich’s.

Romney has not changed ANY of his positions since he last ran whereas Gingrich has changed many just in the last 12 months ALL reported on by many bloggers/editorials at all the conservative sites. Romney has been consistent since his one change on abortion where he aligned his public view with his personal views.

I am disappointed in many of my fellow TP’ers that are going Gingrich’s way as THERE IS NO ONE THAT HAS BEEN IN GOV’T LONGER in this campaign!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 12:22 PM

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Chris Thorne, a Growth Energy spokesman, said Gingrich was not hired again in 2010. The group was organized by ethanol producers from the Midwest in late 2008, Thorne said. Its members sought Gingrich’s counsel when it started because “they were people who were never involved in DC politics before, and they were looking for someone who knew how to get things done.” The organization’s IRS report for 2010 is not yet available. http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/04/26/newt-gingrich-paid-300k-to-praise-ethanol/

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.

Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.

While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)

The Lautenberg Gun Ban is one of the Congressional Republicans’ worst betrayals of gun owners, and those complicit in its passage deserve nothing but contempt from gun owners.

This gun control measure ranks right up there with the Brady Registration Act as the most aggressive gun control in America, denying hundreds of thousands of would-be gun owners the right to self defense.

Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)

As you can see, Newt Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, or small government conservatives. He simply can’t be trusted, and his record reflects his contempt not only for the truth, but his own integrity and the integrity of the very people he’s asking to vote for him to be the most powerful man in the modern world.

This is the same man who railed against the Obama bailouts of Fannie and Freddie Mac while receiving more than $1.5 million from Fannie Mae as a “consultant”(4) while his firm also raised $37 million to pass healthcare insurance mandates.(5) http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/

Just something for you to think about…AND THERE IS SOOOOO MUCH MORE ON HIM!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Look into these Gingrich supporters…
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati

http://gulagbound.com/16723/the-phony-right-wing-who-is-selling-us-down-the-river-part-1-newt-gingrich/

http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/11/newt-worthy-or-not/

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-record-uncomfortable-but-true/

from the above link:
On government-run medicine, Gingrich’s record rivals that of many prominent Democrats. He was an early champion of the individual mandate, more than a decade before Romneycare. He now excuses himself from the criticism Romney recieves, claiming that his endorsement of an individual mandate was an effort “to block Hillarycare“. Let’s state this another way: Gingrich’s response to a massive government healthcare initiative was to offer a slightly less-massive initiative of his own.

Gingrich was also one of the minds behind Medicare Part D. Newt again excuses himself from criticism for this multi-trillion-dollar giveaway, claiming that it helped reduce the cost of government-provided health care
by subsidizing medicines in lieu of more-expensive surgeries, ignoring one of the basic principles of government interference in the market: Subsidizing a product makes it more expensive in the long-run. If the government gives people a dollar to buy an apple, the cost of an apple goes up by a dollar.

Gingrich, in keeping with his long-standing record of favoring greater government intervention in the health care industry, described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as “right-wing social engineering“. Of course, Gingrich changed his tune when he caught flak for saying this, and has spent the last six months crafting an “alternative history” of his 17+ year record of supporting socialized medicine.

Romney is sooooo much more qualified. Romney ACTUALLY has a GREAT record of turning around economies/businesses/govt’s OUR EXACT PROBLEM currently.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Look into these Gingrich supporters…
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-record-uncomfortable-but-true/

from the above link:
On government-run medicine, Gingrich’s record rivals that of many prominent Democrats. He was an early champion of the individual mandate, more than a decade before Romneycare. He now excuses himself from the criticism Romney recieves, claiming that his endorsement of an individual mandate was an effort “to block Hillarycare“. Let’s state this another way: Gingrich’s response to a massive government healthcare initiative was to offer a slightly less-massive initiative of his own.

Gingrich was also one of the minds behind Medicare Part D. Newt again excuses himself from criticism for this multi-trillion-dollar giveaway, claiming that it helped reduce the cost of government-provided health care
by subsidizing medicines in lieu of more-expensive surgeries, ignoring one of the basic principles of government interference in the market: Subsidizing a product makes it more expensive in the long-run. If the government gives people a dollar to buy an apple, the cost of an apple goes up by a dollar.

Gingrich, in keeping with his long-standing record of favoring greater government intervention in the health care industry, described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as “right-wing social engineering“. Of course, Gingrich changed his tune when he caught flak for saying this, and has spent the last six months crafting an “alternative history” of his 17+ year record of supporting socialized medicine.

Romney is sooooo much more qualified. Romney ACTUALLY has a GREAT record of turning around economies/businesses/govt’s OUR EXACT PROBLEM currently.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Or these:

http://gulagbound.com/16723/the-phony-right-wing-who-is-selling-us-down-the-river-part-1-newt-gingrich/

http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/11/newt-worthy-or-not/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html?hpid=topnews

Romney is the candidate that IS MOST QUALIFIED TO LEAD OUR NATION AND BEAT OBAMA yet we entertain Gingrich’s ENORMOUS EGO thinking he is who we need to lead our country!

WE made a HUGE mistake LAST election when we KNEW our country was headed for an economic disaster and DID NOT elect the one man who knows how to fix those situations. Now our country is what ? 8-9 TRILLION MORE in debt and we are asking who is best to lead us out of this ECONOMIC MORASS?

Unbelievable!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Compared to Romney, Newt is Winston Churchill. At least Newt didn’t put his son’s shilling for his candidacy on the same level as military service.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 11:54 AM

That’s untrue, of course. Look it up. Romney drew a high number in the draft in 1970, which means he participated in the draft. He took his chances, unlike Newt; that is, unless you’re claiming Mitt Romney’s father, Governor of Michigan George Romney, used to his influence to jigger the results. That’s some claim.

I notice you didn’t argue the point or counter any claim. Newt remains yellow.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Before you call me a liar, you’d better have your own facts straight:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147321.shtml

Mitt is a moral coward who’s gutlessly hiding in the weeds and letting the LSM do his oh-so-dirty work. Newt may be a mouthy jackanape, but he is the soul of gravitas in comparison to Mittens.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Before you call me a liar, you’d better have your own facts straight:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147321.shtml

Mitt is a moral coward who’s gutlessly hiding in the weeds and letting the LSM do his oh-so-dirty work. Newt may be a mouthy jackanape, but he is the soul of gravitas in comparison to Mittens.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Didn’t call you a liar. If I was going to call you a liar, I’d call you a liar straight-up. I wrote what you said was untrue. Newt Gingrich spent the entire Vietnam Era doing all he could to evade the draft, and no, he wasn’t doing it because he held principled anti-war convictions. He did it because he was a smart guy who didn’t want to risk getting shot at.

Romney took deferrals during the same time period because he was a missionary and then a student. He participated in the draft in 1970, but drew a high number–which means his number didn’t come up and he wasn’t required to enter active service.

The draft was never a problem in my family since all male members of my family have all served since the Civil War. Two of my older cousins volunteered for Vietnam. The draft is a big flaming non-issue where we’re concerned.

And how Newt’s abject cowardice translates to your remark about Newt being the ‘soul of gravitas’, I don’t know. You Gingrich fans seem to pull this stuff from the ether, since the facts don’t support it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

And how Newt’s abject cowardice translates to your remark about Newt being the ‘soul of gravitas’, I don’t know. You Gingrich fans seem to pull this stuff from the ether, since the facts don’t support it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Way to ignore Mitt’s idiocy about his son’s “service. As for Newt, I wouldn’t allow him to run a lemonade stand, let alone the country, but he’s leagues above Mitt. It’s the damnnation of the faintest praise possible.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Way to ignore Mitt’s idiocy about his son’s “service. As for Newt, I wouldn’t allow him to run a lemonade stand, let alone the country, but he’s leagues above Mitt. It’s the damnnation of the faintest praise possible.

ebrown2 on December 6, 2011 at 3:46 PM

I thought you were talking about Mitt and his father, George Romney, not Mitt and his oldest son, who is 41 years old. His son couldn’t evade the draft a la Gingrich since there was no draft to evade.

So how is Mitt’s son lack of military service a black mark against Romney? A high school senior, my son is anxious to enlist upon graduation. I’m proud of him, of course, because it upholds a longstanding family tradition, but wouldn’t hold it against him if he didn’t.

Make sense, please.

troyriser_gopftw on December 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

At the end of the day conservatives will have to go with Huntsman or Romney if they truly want to win this race.

I wouldn’t mind having Newt Gingrich as president but his nomination would be an early christmas gift for the Obama Campaign.

Just think about the material the one billion dollar campaign has on Newt Gingrich for ads….

TimeTraveler on December 6, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Balderdash. This election cycle, anybody could beat Obama. We should nominate the best man (or woman) for the job. Period. My man is Perry. If he wins the nomination, great. If he doesn’t, then I’ll support the nominee as long as it isn’t Romney (or Huntsman, but he doesn’t have a chance at all).

Let’s elect a as-conservative-as-we-can-get governor with a lot of experience from a big state. It works. Reagan, Bush Jr. and Perry all follow this model. (Bush wasn’t as conservative as I would have liked him to be, but he was waaaaaay better than Gore or Kerry would have been.)

Theophile on December 7, 2011 at 4:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2