Gingrich admits Romney would be on his short list for VP
posted at 6:50 pm on December 8, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Very magnanimous of the former Speaker, especially given Mitt Romney’s recent stepped-up attacks against him:
But why did he take the bait at all? He could just as easily have remained indifferent, have answered with a simple, “I’d have to give it thought.” He won’t win over Romney supporters — and he significantly owes his own surge to the appetite for an anti-Romney. To praise Romney as “competent” and “serious” might be true as far as it goes — but it also reminds voters that, in some ways, Romney and Gingrich are very much alike. They’re both ambitious, intelligent and susceptible to switching positions.
Too much to take away from a polite reply to a polite question? Maybe. But, while Newt has done well with his magnanimous shtick and while I wholeheartedly wish all the candidates would refrain from tearing each other down, he needn’t sing the praises of his rivals, either. Plus, I’m just really not sure what Romney would add to Gingrich’s ticket, except more ammunition for accusations of inconstancy from the DNC. At this point, that works the other way around, too: Given how deeply Gingrich’s conservative credentials have been called into question under the new scrutiny of his frontrunner status, I’m not sure he’d add much conservative reassurance to a Romney ticket, either.
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Listening to the recording of Levin’s radio show 12/8. He started out with a bang. He really, really is unhappy that Romney and Newt appear to be in a 2 man race at this point. He really can’t stand Romney. He doesn’t consider him to be a conservative OR a leader and he stated that Romney fights dirty through surrogates. He then went on and talked about Newt’s record. Levin wants a more conservative candidate than these 2 but he did not volunteer who he thinks that should be.
Anyone who has been commenting both pro or con for either of these 2 should go to Levin’s website and listen to the first 30 minutes of his show archive.
karenhasfreedom on December 9, 2011 at 5:36 AM
I agree 100% with Levin.
Mycroft on December 9, 2011 at 5:48 AM
He is a kook, Romney is the one. You right wing nutjob. /sarc
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 5:52 AM
Well Newt and Romney sure belong together and it looks like the LA Times thinks so too:
Gingrich’s record belies his conservative image
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1209-gingrich-conservative-20111209,0,2003907.story
..” Newt Gingrich — who is no more conservative than Romney.
Both men have parted company with the party’s most active voters on many of the same issues. Both backed requiring individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. Both supported the Wall Street bailout known as TARP and government subsidies for ethanol production.
Both agreed that human activity is contributing to climate change (though each has backtracked in recent months).”…
bzip on December 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM
bzip on December 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM
Good article, thanks! Anyone who thinks Newt’s a Tea Partier is drinking something other than tea, lol ;)
Aslans Girl on December 9, 2011 at 6:04 AM
He is much better than romney though. Gingrich has only left the conservative farm while out of office while Romney has never been on it. I would like Perry to defeat Romney but I dont know where he is.
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 6:30 AM
Maybe in a few areas but Newt has a lot more baggage and has cheated on his wives (that will go directly to Newt’s honesty, trust issue in the general – that Newt broke an oath in his wedding vows).
Personally the only true consistent conservative with good character is: Rick Perry 2012
bzip on December 9, 2011 at 6:37 AM
Gingrich bragged about being a moderate with this comment: “There is a new synthesis evolving with the classic moderate wing of the party, where as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I’ve spent most of my life.”
Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for an ethics violation.
Gingrich once announced to reporters that a personal grudge against President Clinton affected his duties as Speaker.
Gingrich dumped his first wife because he fell for another woman, & after marrying her, he dumped her when he fell for yet another.
Gingrich accepted $1,500,000 in “consulting” fees from the corrupto-crats at Freddie Mac, which probably were actually lobbying fees, which is probably illegal.
Gingrich starred in a 2007 global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. He has since has flip-flopped spectacularly on global warming.
Gingrich was paid $312,000 by ethanol interests, and then said ethanol is good for national security and for the economy.
Gingrich has consistently supported the type of individual mandates for health insurance that conservatives are trying to overturn through court challenges to Obamacare.
Gingrich went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and called Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan “radical” and “right-wing social engineering.”
Gingrich said of the Medicare prescription drug plan that was the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society, “Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. Obstructionist conservatives can always find reasons to vote no.”
Gingrich attacked Steve Largent, Tom Coburn and other conservatives as “the Perfectionist Caucus,” while giving his last speech as speaker in support of Dick Gephardt and Dave Obey’s colossal Omnibus Bill of 1998.
Gingrich very recently flipped & then flopped on abortion:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/newt-unwilling-say-life-begins-conception/235106
More serious Gingrich problems:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati
itsnotaboutme on December 9, 2011 at 6:43 AM
Still better than Romney. Yawn.
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 6:49 AM
Consistent conservative? Ask the many illegal aliens who benefited from Perry’s programs.
Good character? Ask all those who benefited from being cronies of Perry.
“The only true consistent conservative with good character” would be either Bachmann or Santorum, but they’re unelectable.
Rather than searching for a not-Romney, we need to back Romney as being the only not-Obama who can win.
Consolation: Romney will choose a very conservative running mate.
itsnotaboutme on December 9, 2011 at 6:49 AM
That’s very debatable, but even if it’s true, there’s no way you can seriously think Gingrich can beat Obama…?
itsnotaboutme on December 9, 2011 at 6:52 AM
Fail.
On a happier note – yay for my first comment!
wildkatconservative on December 9, 2011 at 6:53 AM
Sure. Just as much as Romney maybe more. He fights Obama at least. Romney has not been attacked at all and the guy can only tie or barely go over Obama in some polls. Conservatives and Republicans dont like him. He just isnt a likable guy. And people choosing Gingrich over him says a lot. I’m not exactly happy about Gingrich but I would vote for him in a general election campaign.
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 6:55 AM
Given the relaxed, luxurious way Newt campaigned for the first several months, the fact that he charged his campaign like $42,000 for a mailing list, & the fact that the campaign hasn’t paid back most of it’s debt but it has paid him the $42,000, says that Gingrich never seriously thought he could win until recently. He just wanted to live high-on-the-hog for a year on others’ money, plus get his name in the news to up his speaking fees & sell books.
itsnotaboutme on December 9, 2011 at 6:57 AM
ok.
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 7:01 AM
Romney has not been attacked at all??? He had a target on his back for all of the first several debates! And he deftly deflected the arrows, BTW.
“People choosing Gingrich over him says a lot”: that most folks like what Newt is saying now, but they don’t know any of the stuff I referred to at 6:43am.
itsnotaboutme on December 9, 2011 at 7:01 AM
Gingrich/Romney ticket would be fine with me. My objective is to beat Obama. If that’s the best ticket to do it, then fine. Decision isn’t due today. Let’s see what happens.
TheMockingbird on December 9, 2011 at 7:02 AM
Romney has been attacked? I wish. A target on his back, the only thing he has gotten was a petty fight with Perry. Now Perry, Cain, Gingrich, they have been attacked. Gingrich just seems to be holding on well compared to the other two.
Look, if Romney wants to win, he will have to bring out the latex doctor gloves and start shaking conservative, tea party hands.
Flapjackmaka on December 9, 2011 at 7:08 AM
That’s Newt Gingrich, friend of the common man. Why I even heard that Newt touched a a young working class woman walking into a Safeway one time. Though it was the late 90s and he was in his swinging days, so who knows if it was to shake a hand or shake a tailfeather.
libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 7:27 AM
In other words the list is pretty short, isn’t it. And blahblahblah with the “Romney’s the coolest” talking point. We’ve heard that enough as well.
ddrintn on December 9, 2011 at 7:44 AM
Name me a social conservative President who was also a fiscal conservative. That’s going to be a toughie for you because “social conservative” as a label is a pretty new political identity. We know that until the mid 20th century evangelicals purposefully kept themselves out of politics in this country, it was their interpretation of “render unto ceaser” etc. The most well organized and influential social conservatives were Catholics and they were overwhelmingly Democratic and, indeed, were big supporters of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The federal government’s failure to intervene into poverty, they argued, was a “moral” problem. The Progressives, were also moral reformers, who believed that Christian charity demand they work to uplift and protect the poor, particularly poor immigrants, from the ravages of the second industiral revolution. The “social conservative” movement you are referring to is a brand new phenomenon and has more to do with the growth of sexual liberalism in the 1960s than fiscal principles. Reagan was the first “social conservative” President and whatever you think about his Presidency, it was not fiscal hawk stuff.
libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 7:57 AM
Only because the promised spending cuts never materialized. As usual. Republicans have been falling for Lucy and the football with the Democrats forever. Just once I would like to see an actual spending cut, not a reduction in the rate of growth, an actual roll back of budgeted money. Than I will take someone seriously.
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 8:10 AM
The thing that strikes me is that we seem to be having a flashback to 2008, with a “hold your nose and vote for the one not as bad as the other” candidate. In the state this country- and the world- is in, having a “lessor of 2 evils” candidate is the absolute worst thing we could do. Where is our Lincoln? Why is there no strong leader, who can stand up desisively for conservative values at a debate, stepping out to lead our country during this crisis? In the past, during every major “make or break” time in U.S. history, a strong “head on their shoulders” leader who believed more in the power of “the people” than in the power of government, has come forward. It scares me that during this, the most dangerous time ever for America, we have no such leader stepping out. Those rugged individualistic pioneers who founded this country to be different from all the other countries, built upon the power of “we, the people”, probably are turning in their graves as what they set up for us remains teetering on the brink, with no strong leader in sight.
PackerFan4Life on December 9, 2011 at 8:15 AM
What was Bush II’s excuse then? He had GOP majorities until 2006 and didn’t do anything on the fiscal hawk side. Supply siders are not reeduce government types, indeed the whole argument is that low taxes will increase revenues. Why would fiscal hawks want to enact a tax scheme that would increase revenues unless they wanted the size of government to continue to grow? But I understand your pain, every time I pull the level for a Democrat a piece of my soul dies, I know that they don’t have working class people’s interest really at heart, but its the only choice I have.
libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 8:23 AM
How so?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2011 at 8:37 AM
1. People died so I can vote, so not voting is not an option.
2. We have a two party system so I must choose
3. For my world view Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but only barely.
libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 8:46 AM
So lets see we have yet another great article highlighting Newt’s flip-flopping:
New Newt Gingrich Global Warming Book to be Released in 2013
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/44908/new-newt-gingrich-global-warming-book-to-be-released-in-2013/
New Gingrich book on climate change likely coming after the election
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-climate-book-20111208,0,7420605.story “While Gingrich has not run away from “A Contract with the Earth,” he has been hedging on some past stances, especially regarding climate change. He recently told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he never supported a “cap-and-trade” system for limiting greenhouse has emissions, when in 2007 he said he would back such a scheme if it had tax incentives.
Gingrich’s record belies his conservative image”..
bzip on December 9, 2011 at 8:52 AM
Kelly Ayotte, who has endorsed Romney, just introduced legislation to end baseline budgeting:) Although as a practical matter I don’t think it’s possible to say it would be “illegal” to raise budgets based on the rate of inflation. It seems to me they could raise budgets to a rate slightly lower or higher and say it wasn’t based on the inflation rate.
I support cut, cap and balance. But the most important thing we can do in the short term is create conditions for economic growth (whether it be by slashing regulations, real tax reform). Entitlement reform is going to have to be phased in more gradually. And we absolutely must reform the government employee unions, putting their salaries and benefits in line with the private sector, with an end to defined benefit pension plans, something corporations began to do in the 1990s.
Methinks you are seriously confused about how “revenues” increase, and what role tax policy plays. What exactly do you advocate??
Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 8:53 AM
WHY? BTW, I gather “lib” stands for liberal not libertarian.
Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 8:56 AM
Do I look like I’m excusing Bush? As far as I can tell, he didn’t even bother to play the game of trying to get spending cuts. I think W is a lovely man and ten million times better than The Won but please don’t confuse me with someone who has him in my top five great all time conservatives.
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 9:05 AM
That would certainly be a great start and should slow them down while they find a way to ignore whatever new law they implement. The funny thing is that I am not totally against new revenue sources and reform but after getting snookered decade after decade on any real reining in of spending, it seems easier to just shout no. I think Washington is too stupid to know how probably little it would take to appease the public.
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 9:12 AM
I’m not an economist, but from what I’ve read supply side economics argues that the economic growth spurred by an ease in tax rates will eventually lead to more tax revenues because it makes it easier for more entrepeneurs to enter the market, makes it easier for companies to hire and the incomes generated there will be individually taxed etc. etc. Now whether supply side theory has actually produced greater revenue via growth seems beside the point here. I was merely musing that I found it curious that supply siders could ever be trusted to cut the size of government.
libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 9:14 AM
It worked under Kennedy and Reagan.
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 9:20 AM
Lots of accusations, total lack of evidence to back them up. Your chosen POS candidate cannot, will not, earn my vote. Get over it.
astonerii on December 9, 2011 at 9:43 AM
Thanks for the clarification. You appeared to be saying increasing tax “revenues” are the same as tax “increases”. I’m still not clear at all why you vote for the Socialists, sorry, Democrats.
Look, all tax cuts are not alike or equally productive. The Payroll Tax cut is a really stupid idea as all it pushes Social Security more in the red. We already had a situation where 49% of Americans paid no federal income taxes, but Dems would squawk and say, “But, but they pay payroll taxes!”. Now huge swaths of voters pay zero federal taxes period. Obama’s very costly but totally inefficient and supposedly temporary “Making Work Pay” plan is another dreadful tax cut, as it actually gives away free money in the form of a “credit” to people who already pay no federal taxes and is really a form of redistributionist welfare. And the amount of money in everyone’s paycheck was literally nickel and dime stuff which was not enough to “stimulate” the economy. This is a very dangerous situation. What do you think will happen when that “temporary” “Tax cut” expires? We’ll be accused of increasing taxes on the poor and we’ll never get rid of it unless the whole damn system is reformed.
We need flatter taxes with lowered rates combined with few deductions. This will help rein in much of the crony-capitalism we see now which is encouraged by our awful tax system. My one objection to Simpson-Bowles is I do not advocate having a consumption or vat tax combined with an income tax; it has to be one or the other. Corporate taxes should be slashed ruthlessly so we can compete with other markets. Ours are among the highest in the world and it is counter-productive as the burden ends up being passed on to consumers which acts like a dead-weight on economic growth.
So yeah, supply-side works but the cuts have to be in favor of job producers.
Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 9:46 AM
In fairness to McCain, he did try to go after Fannie and Freddie, as did George Bush. Alas, because “minorities” benefited so much from the program, politicians were afraid to make real reform a public issue less they be accused of being raaaaaacists by hacks like Maxine Waters. And F&F had unprecedented amounts of lobbying dollars. They were just rolling in the dough – hence the ability to hand out money to Gingrich (he must have been paid under a “P.R. budget” since he was not technically a “lobbyist”). It was the most corrupt “Private/public partnership” situation imaginable, and why people like Johnson and Raines and Gorelick who cooked the books so they could make millions in bonuses weren’t criminally prosecuted is beyond me.
Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 9:57 AM
There had to be a little pride that home ownership was at an all time high. I guess people would be talking about the money Johnson, Raines and Gorelick took from it if they were running for president. LOL!
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 10:01 AM
Has Gingrich looked at the electoral map for 2012?
Mitt’s going to carry Massachusetts? 12 electoral votes or if the Liberals have their way they will get rid of the electoral vote. Yep they are trying an end round the U.S. Constitution.
Florida has 27 electoral votes, and it’s a swing state. But hey Newt no biggie, tie the symbolic gesture around your neck so everyone can see how magnanimous in victory you will be :)
Dr Evil on December 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM
I don’t think Romney could even carry Massachusetts. Maybe he could help in the rest of the Northeast. I can’t think where?
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Bleh…he’s just killing Romney with kindness. That’s Newt’s modus operandi for dealing with the attacks coming from his fellow candidates. Good strategy.
IndeCon on December 9, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Yikes. Typo fix: politicians were afraid to make real reform a public issue
lesslest they be accused of being raaaaaacists by hacks like Maxine WatersI find it highly improbable that Romney would accept an offer to be Newt’s Veep.
Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Scott Brown could use the coat tails that’s for sure. Why he’s ignoring the Elizabeth Warren taking credit for inspiring the OWS mob is mind blogging. At some point he’s got to move out of his “squish” zone to get reelected.
Dr Evil on December 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Newt knows he doesn’t have the resources or the long-term popularity to win. He’s staying on Mitt’s “good side” and hoping for the VP nod himself.
adamcr on December 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Agreed.
Even less likely
Cindy Munford on December 9, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Dream on…ha,ha. I think Newt’s in it to win it and will continue to climb in the polls. Being the anti-Romney/anti-establishment candidate is working out just fine for Gingrich. No need to be nasty to his rivals. I’m sure he’ll be doing some deft, statesmanlike ‘candidate qualification comparisons’ at the debate tomorrow.
IndeCon on December 9, 2011 at 12:26 PM
That’s not like Newt to be strategically questionable. Why in more then 20 years he’s never done anything stupid that I can remember…except maybe that last documentary he produced…boring!!
KeyserSoze on December 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM
yeah, just like it worked for Cain lol :-)…the truth is it’s not going to last, his campaign is going to implode soon (plus it is in huge debt currently), he is not disciplined and hard-working enough to actually build grass-roots support and organize in a way to win the primaries, let alone the presidency…his campaign is just like the man, all over the place…oh, yeah and he might be the only one with the ‘genius’ insight of accepting participation in a Trump debate that is probably not going to take place :-), talking about good judgment :-)…so, this man, you say is the anti-establishment candidate? hahaha…you have to be on crack or self-deluded or from another planet to actually believe that :-)…he was the speaker of the House, remember, and a 40-year Washington insider…so yeah, the epitome of ‘anti-establishment’ indeed :-)….
jimver on December 9, 2011 at 1:58 PM
hmmm, but you forgot to mention Gingrich….and how this ‘most corrupt private/public partnership’ benefited greatly from his expert advice, in his capacity as a ‘historian’ :-)…
jimver on December 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM
I want more than “anybody but…” Too bad the good ones are not part of the dance…
Boodad on December 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM
I don’t trust anyone who think Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich will bring change to America.
apacalyps on December 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM
this comment above just makes me laugh….
Flap…have you SEEN Gingrich’s record and what he has been speaking just in the last 3 months, 6 months, 18 months, etc…
Romney has been consistent and is not running any differently platform-wise than his campaign did in 2008. He has changed in some of the way he is spending his finances and focus but as far as the conservative message Romney’s stances have remained constant. Gingrich’s have been ALL over the map in the last few years!
g2825m on December 9, 2011 at 3:00 PM
I think BIG RED FLAGS should be when you have people out there like 90% of the Republican Congress, Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, Tom Coburn, Jim Talent, etc etc state that Gingrich is not conservative and will make WILD statements and put the Republican/conservative party in a bad position at some time if elected POTUS should be a sign to many Tea Party fans.
IF elected Gingrich will make the General Election about HIMSELF and what an amazing intellectual he is and where HE can take America with HIS ideas. WE have already had one pontificating professor in office for what will be four years and we do not want to elect another.
Romney has the successful ECONOMIC experience and also has the GOV’T experience to be able to get things accomplished in a conservative way. Gingrich will be baited into political fights like he was in the ’90′s.
g2825m on December 9, 2011 at 3:07 PM
I don’t see Newt picking Romney as a VP whatsover–if it ever came to that. Also, I seriously doubt Romney would accept it even if offered.
jfs756 on December 9, 2011 at 3:07 PM
You have to give Newt credit for consistency: the man absolutely hates success. He just can’t stand it, judging by the way he always says something utterly self-destructive whenever he is ahead.
CoolCzech on December 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM
You excel at the current establishment ‘bash Gingrich’ talking points. Very good.
Too bad if the Trump debate is cancelled because so many candidates wimped out, lest they offend Karl Rove and the RNC. It’s okay to allow liberal media to moderate though. Weird.
It’s indeed amusing to watch the implosion of the elite establishment/media and other Romney backers. Panic time. LOL.
IndeCon on December 9, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Big Red Flags? Ann Coulter is enamored with Christie and Romney, two NE liberals. She’s completely lost her conservative creds. Ann and the others you mentioned are Romney supporters, along with yourself. They’re doing his hatchet job for him.
Wow..this sure smacks of an organized ‘take down’ of Newt Gingrich. The more the establishment politicians and media attack him, the more he comes across as the anti-establishment candidate to the grassroots. Funny how that works. LOL.
IndeCon on December 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM
It’s a shot of rum per pint of eggnog, not a shot of eggnog per pint of rum.
platypus on December 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM
GOP EGGNOG RECIPE
Pour the rum into one glass and the eggnog into another.
Drink the rum.
Pour the eggnog down the drain.
Repeat, until one of the Republican candidates starts to look good.
TheClearRiver on December 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM
So, you’re a person that wants to see the progressive issues pushed but still keep your cash in the bank?
hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 1:03 AM
I’ll have to try this recipe!!
Talon on December 10, 2011 at 5:00 AM
BHO has been a disatster. Now lets see if the GOP can salvage a defeat in the jaws of victory!
Bruce Dickinson on December 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM
Regarding Tina’s post, there is nothing magnanimous at all about what Gingrich said. What else was the adulterer/career politician-turned-lobbyist Newt supposed to say? You people are giving Newt too much credit.
Newt is probably the MOST “establishment” candidate in the race. Newt is also more liberal (AND has flipped and flopped more) than all the other Republicans running. One of the many problems with Newt is that many of the people who have worked closely with him believe he would be a terrible president. For you to say that people lose their “conservative creds” by failing to back Newt Gingrich is beyond ludicious.
It’s saddening to see how quickly and blindly people jump on the Newt bandwagon without even bothering to learn more about the man’s background. Are these the same people who were swayed by Cain’s clown-like performances, despite the fact that Cain never displayed a firm grasp of a majority of the issues? Even Hunstman would be preferable and more conservative than Gingrich! You people do realize that we have to win the general election, don’t you? Why do you want to give it all away to Obama in this way? If we’re going to go for a long shot/risk against Obama, why not nominate a more conservative candidate like Santorum or Bachmann? Nominating a more liberal and divisive candidate like Gingrich makes no sense whatsoever. His vaunted debate performances are fine, but legend-in-his-own-mind Newt comes across as arrogant. This is a not a recipe for general election success. If we want the best shot at beating Obama and at seeing conservative Supreme Court appointees in the next term, then Romney is our best option by far. Romney is the most conservative option with the best chance of winning and he has none of Newt’s MANY personal, ethnical problems.
bluegill on December 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM
From Day One it was clear that the Trump debate was going to be a clown show. The candidates who turned down the Trump invitation are to be congratulated. Why would any candidate want to be on a debate moderated by someone who is considering a presidential run of their own? The most liberal Republican candidate, Mr. Establishment Newt Gingrich, seems to like the sound of his own voice, so of course he’d accept. The Trump debate seemed more like an opportunity for Trump to get his name in the headlines than anything else. I’m glad candidates like Romney, Perry and Bachmann had the sense and dignity to say no to bowing down to and kissing the ring of the liberal/RINO Donald Trump.
bluegill on December 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM
We can only hope it will be a Gingrich/Scozzafava ticket in 2012. He knows how to pick ‘em!
TheChucker on December 10, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5