Quotes of the day

posted at 10:55 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

“At the end of Gingrich’s first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos — in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans’ legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed ’12:00′ — had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt…

“It’s true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that’s a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.

“Gingrich has spent his years since then having an affair, divorcing his second wife and making money by being the consummate Washington insider — trading on access, taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and palling around with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton…

“Newt Gingrich is the ‘anti-Establishment’ candidate only if ‘the Establishment’ is defined as ‘anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday.’”

***

“Even as he surges ahead in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is struggling to get out from under a mountain of debt from luxury jets and other pricey expenses racked up in the early weeks of his campaign.

“Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records…

“Gingrich’s financial health could prove crucial in the coming weeks as he attempts to hold on to his sudden lead over Romney and other Republican candidates in many state and national polls. Romney reported raising $32 million through September — more than 10 times the amount Gingrich reported — allowing him to easily fund major advertisements and organizing efforts for early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

***

“Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn’t matter.”

***

“‘I think Romney is going to win,’ a top Romney adviser said. ‘I can’t tell you exactly when he’s going to win or how he’s going to win.’

“Romney campaign has ‘a pretty good oppo package’ on Gingrich and is prepared to go nuclear, said a top GOP consultant familiar with the campaign.

“Many who know him best remain skeptical that Gingrich will have the discipline to avoid self-immolation.

“‘He’s a little bit like charcoal briquettes in the backyard,’ said Rich Galen, who was an aide to Gingrich on and off between 1982 and 1998. ‘When you first light them, there’s a lot of smoke and fire and a lot of stuff going on. But you can’t cook a steak on that.’”

***

“Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he said the profiteers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be criminally investigated even though he was one of the profiteers — and that he, again, apparently has been prevaricating about what he did for Freddie. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been wrong on a health-care mandate, wrong on ethanol for all the years he’s been paid to be wrong on ethanol, wrong on entitlements and on Paul Ryan’s budget, wrong on amnesty for illegal immigrants, wrong as wrong could be on ethical issues and behavior aplenty, wrong on the TARP bailouts, wrong on liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, wrong in the past on the Fairness Doctrine, wrong on leadership, weak at actual negotiating (actually, ‘melting’) against Bill Clinton, weak at actually running a government, and about as personally trustworthy as Joe Isuzu: He’s gonna pummel Obama, yesiree, and then all will be well!…

“The important thing is this: Even if Gingrich’s debating invincibility weren’t an utter myth, the notion that debates next fall will be tremendously important is a myth, and a much bigger one. The deal is this: General-election presidential debates rarely make a big difference. What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama’s $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters’ sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona’s long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months).”

***

“But when you’ve cheated on your first wife with your second and you’ve cheated on your second wife with your third, and your policy positions in the past decade have been all over the place, how do I first know you won’t cheat on me politically and how do I reconcile my desire for a President my kids can respect with your life?

“I feel guilty for feeling this way, but I just don’t know that I can support him in the primary. Over Romney? Sure. Newt won’t be nearly as devastating down ballot as Romney if things go wrong for the GOP. But over Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry in alphabetical order?…

“But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I’d never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either. He and Perry also are very real and sincere family men. Jon Huntsman clearly adores his family and I have concluded, despite my own misgivings about him, that he would govern more consistently to the right of Mitt Romney than even his campaign team would have us believe.”

***

“Gingrich has 30 years of history with most Washington pols, much of it bad blood – remember the attempted coup? Still, few are likely to go so overtly at Gingrich as Coburn. Instead, they’ll take the tried and true Washington path: anonymously leak every damaging and embarrassing story the Speaker has ever been even remotely involved in (see Politico story above). The question is this: Given his momentum with primary voters, will anything stick at this point? ‘A tough effort to push Romney through could backfire,’ says Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. ‘The ‘establishment’ — it has been co-opted by the insurgent forces it tried to co-opt in 2010 — may fall back on plan B: try to keep anyone from winning enough delegates to claim a majority and take it to the convention to get [former Florida Governor] Jeb Bush or [former Indiana Governor] Mitch Daniels.’”

***

***

“He spent [1998] pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight. . . . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.

“That’s how it would go this time round. We’d wind up with a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Alvin Tofler who canoodled on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi demanding Big Government climate-change conventional-wisdom punitive liberalism just as the rest of the planet was finally getting off the bandwagon . . . but the media would still insist on dusting off their 1994 ‘The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas’ graphics.”

Via the Daily Caller.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

West.. Stache.. write in?

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:30 PM

If you actually read what West has been doing/saying the past few months, I’m sure he would also fail your rigorous purity test.

So it’s down to Palin (who isn’t running) and Bolton (who isn’t running). Or you can write-in Zombie Coolidge.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Punchenko on December 7, 2011 at 11:28 PM

I dont think thats even possible and no it never “sat well with him” which is why he pleaded with the woman in his ward not to do it. He thought he was doing what was right, realized it wasnt and corrected. Turning people into cartoon characters may make them easier for people to understand, but its no where near accurate. But, it doesnt matter, the hatred for Romney has never been rational anyway.

nswider on December 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I never got that vibe from DeMint, care to provide some examples?
vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Look how he acted this last large election cycle, you may have been a tad younger though. I pointed it out many times on HotAir about how DeMint was acting and Boehner crying (gag)…. you can go recheck the threads if you would like.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM

He is dumping slime on Romney. Because he’s spinning conspiracy theories that Romney’s support is somehow coming only from Democrats and liberal Republicans, and steering his audience away by effusively praising whoever Not Romney happens to be, no matter how damaged they are. (For a prime example, see Herman Cain.)

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Cain wasn’t damaged when he became the front-runner. It was the following few weeks that broke him (multiple gaffes, the insane legacy of Mark Block, and of course the women).

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM

As much as endorsements don’t move me, neither does this piling on. If anything it makes me less likely to listen.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Not a Ronulan, sorry. And I don’t have much patience for them either, I use all my Ronulan patience on my roommate. As far as budget balancing goes, only the guy first on the list has balanced four consecutive federal budgets!

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

If you actually read what West has been doing/saying the past few months, I’m sure he would also fail your rigorous purity test.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM

That’s right! I thought Allen West was an incorrigible RINO traitor who deserved to be primaried five times over for the unpardonable sin of supporting the best deficit-reduction deal that had any chance of passing the Senate.

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Romney has always been personally pro life. A childhood friend of his died in a botched abortion in the early 60′s, from that point on he made the decision that he shouldnt impose his personal beliefs on others. So even though he didnt agree with the choice of abortion, he felt it wasnt his place to push his beliefs on others. That changed with the stem cell debate and he was being pressured in Mass to legalize embryonic stem cell research. At that point he realized that the govt did have a role in protecting life, it was kind of an Epiphany for him and he became publicly pro life from that point on. Sometimes we make mistakes, he should have always been publicly on the side of life, he learned and grew. Thats what happens in life sometimes. The real story on Romney, for anyone bothering to actually look into who he is besides the HotAir caricatures, is very interesting and complex.

nswider on December 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

What? Watch this and say you think that’s really true.

He was even against 24 hour waiting period where a woman could get counselling. Please.

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Newt may learn something new every day, but its always in the same direction: More government is good, more big government is better. Point out a new crisis to Newt and he’s ready with a new government department by the next day. Would anyone beat against Newt coming up with a federal Department for European Debt Re-structuring by January?

Fred 2 on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

West.. Stache.. write in?

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I wish. I don’t know enough about Bolton, but at this point a plunge into the darkness is looking better and better.

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Also, I’m afraid your list needs work. The only candidate with a plan to balance the budget and a pledge to veto any budget resolution that doesn’t balance by the end of his first term does not belong second-to-last.

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Any Candidate who would surrender the rest of the world to Russia, China and the Islamist does not even deserve to be on the list.

astonerii on December 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM

As much as endorsements don’t move me, neither does this piling on. If anything it makes me less likely to listen.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Especially when you consider who the sources are. Talk about the establishment.

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM

You probably don’t realize that most abortions are caused by extramarital sex. You and your candidate aren’t pro life.

Basilsbest on December 7, 2011 at 11:32 PM

No, most abortions are caused by a consequence-free culture that doesn’t value life. Oh, and a lack of personal responsibility that your candidate funded as Governor:

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/mitt-romney-supported-sta_n_1086345.html

Here is Romney’s Planned Parenthood questionnaire:

http://yfrog.com/z/oc6u1p

Romney is a lying scumbag who doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House.

Punchenko on December 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM

I hear this argument a lot. It goes something like, “What, Gingrich is bad? You’re right, we should just re-elect Obama.”

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM

We have what we have…candidates that is.

Obama made it clear what his vision is. I do not support this.
Derail the Obama train.
Then clean up the mess.
This will not happen in one election cycle.

Electrongod on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Cain wasn’t damaged when he became the front-runner. It was the following few weeks that broke him (multiple gaffes, the insane legacy of Mark Block, and of course the women).

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Well, up until the Libya answer, he was the front-runner. And he was, at the time, crumbling under the fusillade of harassment allegations, the veracity of which becoming more and more believable in hindsight. And Rush was out there defending him with every fiber of his being. Because he was Not Romney.

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I wish. I don’t know enough about Bolton, but at this point a plunge into the darkness is looking better and better.

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Let me tell you this: The Middle East quakes in fear of the Stache. And I wish I was joking. He has this “glare/stare” that will look right through you and knows when you are lying.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

What? Watch this and say you think that’s really true.

He was even against 24 hour waiting period where a woman could get counselling. Please.

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

A tale of two conversions.

According to Ron Scott, author of a new Romney biography, Romney says he changed his mind after a meeting with Harvard University’s Douglas Melton and being “put off by the cavalier way the medical researcher talked about disposing of excess frozen embryos.”

Or…

Romney’s change of heart appears to have sprung from an in depth conversation he had with William Hulbert, a professor of bio-medical ethics at Standford University Medical School.

Harvard University’s Douglas Melton?

Standford University’s William Hulbert?

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Newt Gingrich isn’t a good candidate, but what other realistic choice do we have that is better?

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Well, gee, how about the only candidate who has specifically committed to balance the budget and end the debt crisis? That’s Ron Paul.

Worried about electability? He runs second-best in the field behind Romney in head-to-head polls against Obama, and on a state level, he’s the best against Obama in Iowa (ties him while Mitt trails by 7) and second best in NH.

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I love Mark Steyn but at this point I’m glad he doesn’t get to vote.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Look how he acted this last large election cycle, you may have been a tad younger though. I pointed it out many times on HotAir about how DeMint was acting and Boehner crying (gag)…. you can go recheck the threads if you would like.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I voted last year, assuming thats the large election cycle you are referring to. So you’re just referring to his support for primary candidates who lost in the general, like Angle, Buck, and O’Donnell?

Lots of people fell for those, but I didn’t really see any evidence that he backed away from them after they failed. Besides, if it weren’t for DeMint, we likely wouldn’t have Rubio or Mike Lee! Surely that good outweighs the bad?

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Like he “thrived” on personal attacks when he was stepping down as speaker?

Ruiner on December 7, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Uh, he stepped down because the alternative would have been to be thrown out. He couldn’t win so he got noble.

Here, we have the donkey party getting to use the media to interfere with what should be a GOP private family feud. So Newt is doing what he has to do because he’s been around long enough to know all the playbooks.

And he’s learned from his past experiences, unlike some of the frozen souls around here who never change or grow.

Just look at the diehard palinistas who keep lighting candles and putting them in the upstairs window. As a former palinista, I know full well what political true love feels like and I’m also smart enough to recognize when she just isn’t interested in me (or others).

Newt is getting strong tea party support which is not from people who get fooled easily. They obviously see something in him.

platypus on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

What? Watch this and say you think that’s really true.

He was even against 24 hour waiting period where a woman could get counselling. Please.

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Maybe Romney was pro-life back before his political ambitions, when he was still human and not a chameleon. I find it hard to believe he has any actual convictions left. Makes it much harder to flip-flop later.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Romney more impressive than Gingrich in speeches to Republican Jews.

Basilsbest on December 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

A man can be Jew or Christian, or he can be an Obama supporter, but he can’t legally be Jew or Christian, and be an Obama supporter … … except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Judaism and Christianity proclaim the survival of Israel and the meaning of that has no longer been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite … the Jew and the Christian must fight all who would commit or enable another genocide or enslavement of the Jews. That is the spirit and the law of Judaism and Christianity. Well, Obama has his beliefs and actions and it is a perfectly definite set, there is no vaguenesses about it. He commands that the Jew bow to the Muslim at every turn they do him hurt or threaten him and his children with death. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of Obama is the spirit of the evil shadowed specter of the Beast of Austria insidiously billowing in and building and building to ever more horrific heights. The moment there is a question about a boundary line or a building or some Muslim somewhere complaining about any matter, see Obama rise, and see him spit at the Jew from the corner of his twisted mouth. The spirit of Obama being in its nature narcissistic and selfish — it is in the man’s line, it comes natural to him — he can live up to all of Jeremiah Wright’s teachings to the letter; but the spirit of Judaism and Christianity is entirely impossible to him.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Let me tell you this: The Middle East quakes in fear of the Stache. And I wish I was joking. He has this “glare/stare” that will look right through you and knows when you are lying.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Oh, man. Most conservative politicians I can listen to for thirty, forty minutes at the very most before I get bored. Colonel Mustard? I can listen to him for hours and hours and still have a thousand questions to ask. The man’s an absolute genius.

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Worried about electability?

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Sanity actually is my first concern, and the blame America first instinct he has.

I love his fiscal policies but there’s more to the job than just that.

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Lots of people fell for those, but I didn’t really see any evidence that he backed away from them after they failed. Besides, if it weren’t for DeMint, we likely wouldn’t have Rubio or Mike Lee! Surely that good outweighs the bad?

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Kiddo, don’t trust DeMint. Trust me… he has a way of making himself look like a freaking rose concerning anything he touches, even if it is a steaming pile of moose nuggets!

As for politicians endorsing other politicians… notice that it is back firing in both politicians faces.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:43 PM

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

It has always been the first one, not the second.

nswider on December 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Well, up until the Libya answer, he was the front-runner. And he was, at the time, crumbling under the fusillade of harassment allegations, the veracity of which becoming more and more believable in hindsight. And Rush was out there defending him with every fiber of his being. Because he was Not Romney.

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I would hope Rush would also defend Romney with every fiber of his being against things that seemed at the time to be politically motivated smears. Really, it’s still only the Ginger allegation that seems wholly believable, and I think that’s the one that forced Cain’s hand.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:11 PM

To be sure, I don’t listen to either.

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Newt is getting strong tea party support which is not from people who get fooled easily. They obviously see something in him.

platypus on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Platy, no from the Vets. The Tea Party Military Vets are backing away or not talking about Newt. They need too, IMHO.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:45 PM

O/T
===

@NBCNewYork
UPDATE: NY Senate passes new tax bill, Assembly expected to approve overnight. http://t.co/VFRrwkpT
11 Mins.ago
===========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I love Mark Steyn but at this point I’m glad he doesn’t get to vote.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Also the fact that his pessimism has almost reached the point of fatalism.

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:48 PM

God bless…from the…

hillsoftx on December 7, 2011 at 11:16 PM

God bless you too. Viva Tejas!

Welcome to the circus :)

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Harvard University’s Douglas Melton?

Standford University’s William Hulbert?

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Quick! How do you spell disingenuous again?

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Newt may learn something new every day, but its always in the same direction: More government is good, more big government is better. Point out a new crisis to Newt and he’s ready with a new government department by the next day. Would anyone beat against Newt coming up with a federal Department for European Debt Re-structuring by January?

Fred 2 on December 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Newt is a dangerous man. His instincts are to get the government to solve a government-created problem and then use pseudo-constitutional and historical fact-dropping to justify his position. It’s hard to believe how often he is described as being to the right of Romney. How do you even compare them?

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Kiddo, don’t trust DeMint. Trust me… he has a way of making himself look like a freaking rose concerning anything he touches, even if it is a steaming pile of moose nuggets!

As for politicians endorsing other politicians… notice that it is back firing in both politicians faces.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:43 PM

DeMint’s book is what made me a Social Conservative, finally providing me the logic behind the arguments. I’ll always hold a special place for him because of that.

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

canopfor on December 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Maybe the rich will move shop to Idaho.
We need some job creation here….

Electrongod on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

I love Mark Steyn but at this point I’m glad he doesn’t get to vote.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Steyn can vote. He has dual citizenship.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Things will very ugly for Newt.

‘Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite’, claims ex-staffer who had affair with thrice-married GOP candidate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071215/Newt-Gingrich-sex-addict-hypocrite-say-experts-ex-staffer-Anne-Manning.html#ixzz1fupXg1Ij

Zcat on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

nswider on December 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

So he was against it before he was for it and then he was against it again? Or he was always against it but pretended he was for it for political expediency?

batterup on December 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Newt Gingrich isn’t a good candidate, but what other realistic choice do we have that is better?

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Perry and Bachmann are solid conservatives and are at least as competitive as Newt in the general election. Romney, while more moderate than all but Huntsman in the field, has a solid national organization and polls better than Obama in key swing states.

You Newt supporters out there are deluding yourselves if you think independents won’t be saturated with every foible, contradiction, outright lie, pay for play payoff, and personal indiscretion Gingrich has committed. Get it through your heads: he is un-electable. Obama could drown a tubful of kittens on live national television and still beat Gingrich.

Further, the argument simply cannot be made that Gingrich is the conservative alternative to Romney. Gingrich’s record, encompassing all of his actions and public statements, does not support such a claim.

You want Newt because he can talk a good game. Good grief. Look at the man’s life, personal and professional. He would be a disaster as the GOP nominee. This ‘anyone but Romney’ wave is irrational. Romney is a flawed candidate, to be sure, but doesn’t merit the vitriol I’ve been seeing on these forums.

troyriser_gopftw on December 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I would hope Rush would also defend Romney with every fiber of his being against things that seemed at the time to be politically motivated smears. Really, it’s still only the Ginger allegation that seems wholly believable, and I think that’s the one that forced Cain’s hand.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Rush is playing a dangerous game. His idea is that “the establishment” wants Romney because somehow he is more conducive to the controlling the Senate and getting the juicy assignments. This is a strange theory that may or may not be correct, but he is purposefully, in my opinion, glossing over Newt’s shortcomings. Sometimes he catches himself mentioning one casually, but then goes on as if Newt is a true conservative. It’s hard to take Rush seriously on this score.

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM

DeMint’s book is what made me a Social Conservative, finally providing me the logic behind the arguments. I’ll always hold a special place for him because of that.

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

just wait. When you hit fiscal conservative, then we will talk.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Zcat on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

LMFAO! Cain vindicated!! LMFAO!

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Romney is a lying scumbag who doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House.

Punchenko on December 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM

And you’re supporting Newt in his stead? lol?

Ruiner on December 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Newt is a dangerous man. His instincts are to get the government to solve a government-created problem and then use pseudo-constitutional and historical fact-dropping to justify his position.

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

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 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Quick! How do you spell disingenuous again?

cynccook on December 7, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Do you doubt his sincerity?

I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam

I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:56 PM

the blame America first instinct he has.

I love his fiscal policies but there’s more to the job than just that.

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Paul doesn’t “blame America” – and I’m curious where you get that idea.

Paul points out, correctly, that our military presence in the Middle East provides a propaganda and recruiting tool to radical jihadists. He further suggests that we would be safer if, rather than fighting international terrorism using nation-building and open-ended occupations, we used targeted killings via the Constitutional tool of letters of marque and reprisal. It is his opinion, and I agree, that with such an approach we would be both safer and more effective in defeating jihadists. Does any of that mean that he blames America for terror attacks? Of course not.

Here’s an analogy that may help make this clear: if a person is mugged, it is never his fault – it is the fault the thug who commits the despicable act. However, a sensible parent will advise his son or daughter not to walk alone through the bad part of town at night, because it will hugely increase their chances of being robbed. If they ignore that advice, stroll alone through the bad part of town at night, and are mugged, it is not their fault – the responsibility falls on the criminal. However, they were certainly not exercising good judgment, and made robbing them easy. So if a father tells his daughter to avoid the bad part of town at night, is he somehow justifying what the robbers do? No; he’s merely helping his daughter to make it difficult for anyone to harm her.

Ron Paul’s statements about terrorism are exactly analogous. By suggesting that our foreign policy of the past 20 years has been ineffective and suggesting a better approach, he’s showing critical thinking and a willingness to learn from experience: an important trait for a Commander in Chief.

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Romney is a Globalist. He only cares about Globalist interest. Newt is about America. I will go with Newt despite all his faults.

Serendipity3 on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

PercyB on December 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Beautiful *tears up*

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

You want Newt because he can talk a good game. Good grief. Look at the man’s life, personal and professional. He would be a disaster as the GOP nominee. This ‘anyone but Romney’ wave is irrational. Romney is a flawed candidate, to be sure, but doesn’t merit the vitriol I’ve been seeing on these forums.

troyriser_gopftw on December 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM

With Newt, how do you ever know what he is going to say the next day? He has no solid conservative core, so anything is fair game. The guy had proposed changing the earth’s climate with mirrors. It’s not the scientific merits of the proposal that should scare people, but that a “Conservative” would think that this the right thing for the American federal government to be doing.

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Things will very ugly for Newt.

‘Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite’, claims ex-staffer who had affair with thrice-married GOP candidate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071215/Newt-Gingrich-sex-addict-hypocrite-say-experts-ex-staffer-Anne-Manning.html#ixzz1fupXg1Ij

Zcat on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

1977? LOL going to get ugly…

astonerii on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Did HA have a post today commemorating the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor…or did I just miss it?

d1carter on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Paul doesn’t “blame America” – and I’m curious where you get that idea.

Ron Paul is an Islamic but kisser. He’s a loon who should be locked up in a mental ward.

Serendipity3 on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM

I think I heard him just yesterday, still defending the choice of Angle and O’Donnell as good Senate candidates, and insisting that they would have won if “the establishment” had kicked in or something.

Honestly, it’s times like these that I wish he would just go ahead and endorse someone, instead of playing this nasty fence-sitting game which basically gives him carte blanche to call everyone a RINO traitor.

KingGold on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

What about that International Socialist Romney? Is he a Conservative?

Serendipity3 on December 7, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

You do not know what Newt will say, but if it is something he has talked about before, he will have moved further to the right on it since the last time he talked about it. I am willing to buy that. It is much better than I am proud of Romneycare and I still support it.

astonerii on December 7, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Newt is getting strong tea party support which is not from people who get fooled easily. They obviously see something in him.

platypus on December 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM

From a lot of people who have very short memories who would rather win the battle of one or two debates, instead of winning the war.

JPeterman on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I am not going to read the comments as I know the what the usual suspects are going to say. I will say that I am puzzeled as to why Allahpundit feels it’s necessary to provide such a slanted QOTD. Is he saying that there are no Ginrich suppoters that can provide balance?

If, AP, you have a favorite candidate, you should disclose this lest one thinks you have a hidden agenda.

Vince on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

just wait. When you hit fiscal conservative, then we will talk.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM

I was already a fiscal conservative, and still am. =). But before I read his book, I leaned libertarian. I have no such leaning now.

vegconservative on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

From the American Spectator article:

The key question is, will strong debate performances make a decisive difference in next fall’s campaign?

Easy answer: No.

Sorry Mr. Hillyer, but I beg to differ.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Ron Paul’s going to balance that budget, no matter how many soldiers he’s got to fire to pull it off.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Do you doubt his sincerity?

“I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam”

“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.“

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:56 PM

I guess it’s more like he has a very deep, sensitive and conflicted soul, full of wordless wistfulness….or something.

cynccook on December 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Sorry about the typos.

Vince on December 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Rush is playing a dangerous game. … Sometimes he catches himself mentioning one casually, but then goes on as if Newt is a true conservative. It’s hard to take Rush seriously on this score.

Igor R. on December 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Oh, every Judas once loved a Jesus
But finally treason will seize us
Familiar faces change
Even smiles grow strange
And some have so many faces
Their real self erases
Enticing spinfull lies
Flicker through their eyes
Soon Limbaugh may feel the terror draw ever nearer
The more he stares in the mirror

PercyB on December 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Paul doesn’t “blame America” – and I’m curious where you get that idea.

Paul points out, correctly, that our military presence in the Middle East provides a propaganda and recruiting tool to radical jihadists.

Inkblots on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Do I have to say anything?

Tell me something?

What did little Denmark do?

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Serendipity3 on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

I note that your rebuttal is long on schoolyard insults and short on arguments or, you know, facts. Or can I convince you not to vote for Gingrich by calling him a meanie-head?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 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 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I also see Woodrow Wilson and of course his (Knute’s) idol Teddy Roosevelt. He will leave his legacy for sure, for all of us to weep: some new Fed, some “scientific” monstrocity, some trust busting, whatever his brain comes up with in the middle of the night. Just listen to his man. Why is a Federal candidate talking about whether kids should be working at schools? He has no idea about the restraint that the Constitution expects from the US President.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM

You might be right but I don’t think so. He is always talking about being a green card holder.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Sorry Mr. Hillyer, but I beg to differ.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

RR had a once-in-a-century talent for communication. He never attacked the debate moderators, he defused them with wit. To make the assumption that Newt could work the same magic as Reagan in the debates is probably way premature.

And the way I see it, Newt’s only real advantage right now is that he performs well in debates.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:04 AM

canopfor on December 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM
Maybe the rich will move shop to Idaho.
We need some job creation here….

Electrongod on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Electrongod:No doubt I’m sure,hey,aren’t you getting a pile of snow?!:)

canopfor on December 8, 2011 at 12:04 AM

So it’s down to Palin (who isn’t running) and Bolton (who isn’t running). Or you can write-in Zombie Coolidge.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Zombie Coolidge! :D

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:05 AM

d1carter on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

HA had one.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Ron Paul’s going to balance that budget, no matter how many soldiers he’s got to fire to pull it off.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

And are career generals at the Mega Mosque of Dhimmitude, formally known as the Pentagon, will win those Afghan sharia hearts-and-minds no mater how many lifes and limbs of American Soldiers and American Marines it takes.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM

I also see Woodrow Wilson and of course his (Knute’s) idol Teddy Roosevelt.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Keep the gloves up. Not even a modern-day Democrat deserves to be compared to our second-worst president, an out-and-proud racist, segregationist, and cusp-of-national-socialist, Woodrow Wilson.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Romney is a Globalist. He only cares about Globalist interest. Newt is about America. I will go with Newt despite all his faults.

Serendipity3 on December 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Newt, who self-admittedly started his political life as Rockefeller Republican is NOT a Globalist??? You think he wants to legalize the illegals because of his love for America? You think when he was for cap and trade he was doing to help America?

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Gingrich is just an awful candidate and he is no conservative. If the GOP gived this lowlife the nomination, they have lost their collective mind. Then again, Romney is even worse.

Norwegian on December 8, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Ron Paul’s going to balance that budget, no matter how many soldiers he’s got to fire to pull it off.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Ron Paul has written that national defense is the first duty of the Federal government. He’s not going to preferentially target defense spending, and won’t touch vital defense spending.

But he’s correct that the deficit is the number one threat to our national security. As things now stand, the only army in the world that can defeat the US Armed Forces is our bond holders. Our military can overwhelm any other force in the world, but a bond strike could render us unable to fight and win a war in a single trading day. So, in pledging to balance the budget in 3 years, he’s actually the only one who has promised to keep our military an effective fighting force, come what may.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Well, this is getting more tedious by the day, so I’m out. Night all.

cynccook on December 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Thanks. I just found it in the vault. I’ve been away for a while and just catching up.

d1carter on December 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM

DeMint’s book is what made me a Social Conservative, finally providing me the logic behind the arguments. I’ll always hold a special place for him because of that.

vegconservative on December 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM

I never read his book. I’m impressed by his openness. He’s willing to sort of give everyone his ear, but makes the right decisions at the end of the day. We could use more Senators like him.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Perry and Bachmann are solid conservatives and are at least as competitive as Newt in the general election.

Perry and Bachmann both have problems as does Santorum. I don’t think they can win but would be fine with it if they did.

Romney, while more moderate than all but Huntsman in the field, has a solid national organization and polls better than Obama in key swing states.

Obama has a better organization and more money. If I don’t care about principles then he’s probably the one to support.

Romney won’t fight and Newt will. If I am to compromise then I would rather do it with a man than a boy. We tried the reach around with McCain and it failed until a fighter by the name of Palin showed up and we had a brief chance before John McCain went crazy.

You Newt supporters out there are deluding yourselves if you think independents won’t be saturated with every foible, contradiction, outright lie, pay for play payoff, and personal indiscretion Gingrich has committed. Get it through your heads: he is un-electable. Obama could drown a tubful of kittens on live national television and still beat Gingrich.

And you really think that Romney won’t be smeared with 12 year old girl brides, bizarre Mormon cults, blacks excluded from the LDS church?

This ‘anyone but Romney’ wave is irrational. Romney is a flawed candidate, to be sure, but doesn’t merit the vitriol I’ve been seeing on these forums.

troyriser_gopftw on December 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Romney is the anointed one and we take umbrage at that. He isn’t a conservative and that isn’t a small point. He is a total fake to the point that we can start to question if he is a real boy or not.

Romney is everything that is wrong with the GOP.

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:10 AM

O/T,there will be Blood,er,sorry,Peace that is!(sarc)
=====================================================

Boeing union workers approve contract extension; say they’ll drop national labor complaint – @KING5Seattle
5 Mins.ago

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

Boeing union workers approve contract extension
Dec 7 2011-Updated today at 8:58 PM
*************************************

SEATTLE — Unionized workers at Boeing approved a four-year contract extension guaranteeing

a new, peaceful era in their relations with the company.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Machinists union announced last week that it reached a tentative deal following secret talks initiated by the company.

As part of the pact, the Machinists say they’ll drop their National Labor Relations Board complaint over Boeing’s decision to open a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

The pact also guarantees a long stretch of elusive labor peace.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(more………..)
==================

http://www.king5.com/news/business/Boeing-union-workers-casting-their-votes-on-contract-extension-135164113.html

canopfor on December 8, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Keep the gloves up. Not even a modern-day Democrat deserves to be compared to our second-worst president, an out-and-proud racist, segregationist, and cusp-of-national-socialist, Woodrow Wilson.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM

To me all Progressives, and Wilson was undoubtedly one, are the same. They believe that the Constitution has outlived it’s usefulness and needs to be adapted for the times. “Frugal Progressive” fits Newt even better than Frugal Socialist. Left to his own devices he will get the government involved in whatever strikes his fancy. I don’t know if he is racist, probably not, but racist-inspired creations like the Planned Parenthood have a way of becoming mainstream Progressive dreams without any overt racism.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Well, this is getting more tedious by the day, so I’m out. Night all.

cynccook on December 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM

cynccook:Nite,and I’m out too,just remember,only another year
of Vetting to go!!!(sarc):)

canopfor on December 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM

RR had a once-in-a-century talent for communication. He never attacked the debate moderators, he defused them with wit. To make the assumption that Newt could work the same magic as Reagan in the debates is probably way premature.

And the way I see it, Newt’s only real advantage right now is that he performs well in debates.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:04 AM

From the American Spectator article:

The key question is, will strong debate performances make a decisive difference in next fall’s campaign?

Easy answer: No.

Sorry Mr. Hillyer, but I beg to differ.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Funny, I didn’t see Speaker Gingrich’s name mentioned in that comment at all.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Platy, no from the Vets. The Tea Party Military Vets are backing away or not talking about Newt. They need too, IMHO.

upinak on December 7, 2011 at 11:45 PM

You are correct as far as positive support goes but I think most of them are personally terrified of Jugears winning a second term.

As a coordinator of a tea party here in Wa state, I am pushing the Senate as our most important target. Now the tea parties have no leaders but a coordinator gets to put things to the group and that is a strong endorsement of whatever is put out there.

So if I’m right, you’ll likely see not much change from what you say regardless of whether the original cause was a not-Newt attitude.

If we can get a 60 vote (not just seats) majority in the Senate, it truly will not matter who is in the WH. I can tell you this much, most of the tea parties who are under the Tea Party Patriots umbrella are already working on strategies and playbooks to hold their feet to the fire. It is the singular most important concern after the shock and disappointment from the 2010 freshmen getting limp-spined so quickly.

2010 was just a warmup. The tea parties realize this is do-or-die time, and the vets you describe realize it too.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Otay,I’m out,and again,

Welcome All Newbies,Goodnight everyone———————–:)

canopfor on December 8, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Newt, who self-admittedly started his political life as Rockefeller Republican is NOT a Globalist??? You think he wants to legalize the illegals because of his love for America? You think when he was for cap and trade he was doing to help America?

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM

If the illegals were North European you wouldn’t be saying anything. So spare me your fake outrage. Nativists like you will be extinct soon. So I look at you as a museum relic. You’re Dinosaur and you don’t even know your extinct.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Standford University’s William Hulbert?

sharrukin on December 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Where is Standford University?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

I note that your rebuttal is long on schoolyard insults and short on arguments or, you know, facts. Or can I convince you not to vote for Gingrich by calling him a meanie-head?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM

When Newt was Speaker from 95-99, It was the most Fiscally Conservative since the 1920′s. Romney as Governor of Massachusetts was to the left of Dukakis.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Where is Standford University?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Seriously? We’re calling out typos now? I reelly am gowing two bedd.

cynccook on December 8, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Where is Standford University?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Right beside Stanford University where this miracle Road To Damascus moment took place. /

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

If the illegals were North European you wouldn’t be saying anything. So spare me your fake outrage. Nativists like you will be extinct soon. So I look at you as a museum relic. You’re Dinosaur and you don’t even know your extinct.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:16 AM

The ugly face of an illegal lover: if you want to support the Constitution you are a racist. We must accept whatever Latin America throws our way or else we are racist. Meanwhile Mexico will terrorize any immigrant from it’s south, but that OK, you see they can’t be racists, they are brown themselves.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Newt’s core base. Those who hate the Constitution and have their own version of the globalist dream. Viva La Raza!

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Do I have to say anything?

Tell me something?

What did little Denmark do?

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Again, Rep. Paul never claimed that ALL terrorists are motivated by our military interventions in the Middle East. There will always be a core of radical jihadis who wish to destroy the West.

However, it is also indisputable that this radical core – people like bin Laden – have been able to very successfully use our presence there as a propaganda and recruiting tool to convince young idiots to strap on suicide vests. This is an objective fact: the 9/11 Commission Report concludes as much.

So Ron Paul suggests that we could dramatically reduce the resources and manpower available to radical jihadists by removing our troops from the Middle East, and could more effectively take out that core group with targeted killings via Constitutional letters of reprisal. This strategy would be both more effective than our current strategy of “nation-building”, and, importantly, would be much lower cost. This would make it sustainable in the long run. We need to remember that the fight against jihadism is a generational conflict, it will probably go on forever, or at least for many decades. I am a believer in the “Long War”, and we must fight it in a sustainable fashion. Only Ron Paul is advocating for such.

Those who think the “War on Terror” can be won like a conventional war and ended with a victory parade are going to be waiting for a long time.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Funny, I didn’t see Speaker Gingrich’s name mentioned in that comment at all.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Your pardon. Just about everyone who supports Newt asserts that he would “absolutely destroy” Obama in a debate. I assumed your comment was in that vein as well.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:22 AM

I get a blue screen every time I try to listen to the Stein audio.

FloatingRock on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Newt’s core base. Those who hate the Constitution and have their own version of the globalist dream. Viva La Raza!

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

La Raza are self hating Hispanics who deny their European Heritage. Now if you had called me a Falangist, I would view it as an compliment. I am to the Right of you. You’re a Progressive of the National Socialist variety.

What will you do when Marco Rubio becomes President in the future? Probably sit home and cry.

Fe a la Falnge!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Ugh. Do we really think Newt or Mitt (or the rest of the field except Ron Paul) are worse than what we have now? What does it matter?

In other news, the price for garden gnomes has skyrocketed…

the_souse on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4