Audio: Newt Gingrich “in a benign sense … is a totalitarian,” says Mark Steyn

posted at 8:00 pm on December 17, 2011 by Tina Korbe

This, to balance out my anti-Mitt post earlier. The truest sentence Mark Steyn speaks in this audio: Newt Gingrich has “solutions to stuff most of us didn’t know were problems.” I’ll let Steyn’s statements about Gingrich speak for themselves:

Rather than add more about what we don’t want in a president, I’d like to offer a model for what I, at least, would like. Steyn references Calvin Coolidge as the quintessential conservative president. He’s onto something. Silent Cal truly grasped that less is more. Here, indeed, is a lesson for our crony-capitalism-plagued times, from Coolidge, via Paul Johnson in A History of the American People:

Later that year [1925], in an address to the New York Chamber of Commerce, Coolidge produced a classic and lapidary statement of his own laissez-fair philosophy. Government and business, he said, should remain independent and separate, one directed from Washington, the other from New York. Wise and prudent men should always prevent the mutual usurpations which foolish men sought on either side. Business was the pursuit of gain but it also had a moral purpose: ‘the mutual organized effort of society to minister to the economic requirement of civilization … It rests squarely on the law of service. It has for its main reliance truth and faith and justice. In its larger sense it is is one of the greatest contributing forces to the moral and spiritual advancement of the race.’ That was why government had a warrant to promote its success by providing the conditions of competition within a framework of security. The job of government and law was to suppress privilege wherever it manifested itself and uphold lawful possession by providing legal remedies for all wrongs: ‘The prime element in the value of all property is the knowledge that its peaceful enjoyment will be publicly defended.’ Without this legal and public defense ‘the value of your tall buildings would shrink to the price of the waterfront of old Carthage or corner-lots in ancient Babylon.’ The more business regulated itself, he concluded, the less need there would be for government to act to insure competition. It could therefore concentrate on its twin tasks of economy and of improving the national structure within which business could increase profits and investment, raise wages and provide better goods and services at the lowest possible prices.

(Read the full address here.)

And, as a matter of personal taste, how nice would it be if our politicians said a whole lot less? As Coolidge put it, “I don’t recall any candidate for president that ever injured himself very much by not talking.’ Or again: ‘The things I never say never get me into trouble.’ All our candidates could stand to learn that lesson.

Parting thought: Coolidge was president in the twentieth century, and Newt still chooses FDR as the “greatest”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM

your a paid romney shill and you talk about being lied to~!! irony thy name is basilbest!

chasdal on December 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM

I think we have to find a candidate who is clear on the principles that this country was founded on and keep running him/her out there until the majority are forced to elect a real (name irrelevant).

How much time you think we have for that?

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I think the better question is can we afford to keep marching out these candidates who are not really even talking about reducing the $15,127,281,704,823 federal debt (which has just risen to $15,127,283,432,127 in the time it took me to type this response).

noeastern on December 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Theres two people in the race at this point. Could it change?..sure. But the comment that people are expressing are based on the here and now.

Rahmney is a Pu**y fake. Newt is not. Shilling for the pu**y is pathetic.
(see how that works)

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Hot Airheads shilling for Freddie Mac Gingrich. Worse than pathetic. You must love being lied to kingsmill.

Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM

What is wrong with Gingrich consulting Freddie Mac and getting paid for it?

I don’t really understand what the crime is here.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I’m sure Gingrich pays a lot in taxes, so what’s wrong with him having the government throw some of that money back at him for some advice?

I don’t know, this seems like a weak line of attack on Gingrich but maybe I don’t understand something about it.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I think the better question is can we afford to keep marching out these candidates who are not really even talking about reducing the $15,127,281,704,823 federal debt (which has just risen to $15,127,283,432,127 in the time it took me to type this response).

noeastern on December 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM

I would bet that everyone thinks that.
But that is neither here nor there.
The nominees are the nominees.
I’ll vote for the strong horse.
We have to start somewhere.

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Hot Airheads shilling for Freddie Mac Gingrich. Worse than pathetic. You must love being lied to kingsmill.

Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM

When I look at you, Newt Gingrich, what I see
Is the face of FDR and maybe even Mussolini, starring back at me
I can see the same big government control man of old
As hopes for America’s salvation grow cold
You may now somehow be the Republican leading star
But, Newt Gingrich, some of us know what you really are

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM

I don’t really understand what the crime is here.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM

There is no crime.

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Here I was thinking Obama was the problem but it’s been Newt Gingrich, private citizen, all along.

I never get anything right.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I’ll take Gingrich over Mittens anytime.

Conservchik on December 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM

There is no crime.

Ok, so why do the Newt haters make it out as one? I feel like I’m missing something that is obvious to other people.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:11 PM

When I look at you, Newt Gingrich, what I see
Is the face of FDR and maybe even Mussolini, starring back at me
I can see the same big government control man of old
As hopes for America’s salvation grow cold
You may now somehow be the Republican leading star
But, Newt Gingrich, some of us know what you really are

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM

My…what a vivid imagination you have.
just sayin.

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM

This guy argues that he is backing Bachmann, then again, every last talking point he has seems to come from the Ron Paul blogs…

Most of it is just a bunch of repeats, so here is the easy cut paste response.

McCain’s was 86%.
Newt’s misdeeds & bad ideas were mostly outside of his votes on the floor.

Kind of tells you something. Gingrich is a thinker and comes up with thousands of ideas. When he is not in office, he shares those ideas with the world so that those ideas can be kicked around in the world and see if they have any value. When he is in office, he does this only in meetings where the ideas are not spread all around. Quite frankly, I would rather have someone with ideas, most good some bad, rather than someone who plays everything safe and just does the minimum to get by.

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.”

itsnotaboutme on December 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Guess I am trying to find the problem there? he was not Goldwater enough at some certain point in time in his life to be a conservative today?

No one claimed to know everything about everything.
Purity test:

Newt Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for an ethics violation.

Newt was the only Speaker of the House to have ever accomplished any conservative goals. He stepped on the toes of many pseudo-republicans when he did that, and they wanted revenge.

Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

He had no ethics violations. The only thing that he did wrong was a single paper he filed that was incorrect, of several he gave supplying the same information with out the error, and his testimony which also was not conforming to the paper, because the paper slipped through. Some ethics violation!

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt’s “ethics problems”? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn’t catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.

Gingrich once announced to reporters that a personal grudge against President Clinton affected his duties as Speaker.

I just spent about 20 minutes looking for anything that fits that bill, and there is nothing out there except you, and it is tied to your facebook account by the way, spewing it. So, I will need a reference before I can respond.

Gingrich dumped his first wife because he fell for another woman, & after marrying her, he dumped her when he fell for yet another.

Old and well enough known news to not even need a reply at this time. Bleh what a tool.

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.

A man works for money. Unless you have evidence of him being corrupted, I tend to have to say this point is worthless in your argument for anyone informed. I intend to do that for people.

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.”

Well, a date would be appreciated on that.

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.

Should I get my chapter length argument out for this. Short story shorter. Global Warming was winning the polls in 2007. It looked completely inevitable that something was going to happen. No one else was out giving any alternatives to the full blown marxist plans that the Democrats would implement. Newt chose to take the heat and sit down next to Mrs. Toxic Waste Dump and try to get a conversation started. It was dumb, he admits it was dumb, but at least he did something while every single other person associated with the (R) brand sat back and watched on dumbfounded ensuring that the democrats would eventually get full blown legislation passed without their input. The only thing that stopped it, was Obama’s need to boost the economy first and the life long dream of the progressives to nationalize healthcare, and the climate gate emails. Newt was brave enough to do SOMETHING to stop the something that the democrats were going to foist on us.

Gingrich was paid $312,000 by ethanol interests, and then said ethanol is good for national security and for the economy.

A man has a job? It is good for our national security, but not really for our economy. Then again, those are both opinions. They vary from person to person. Again, he had a job, got anything else to say?

Gingrich has consistently supported the type of individual mandates for health insurance that conservatives are trying to overturn through court challenges to Obamacare.

Yes, it is mostly true. Not the locked down version you are saying. he says you could post a bond in leiu of having insurance. But on this, he has been consistantly one thing, able to be pulled to the right. Somehow I just do not see him expending more than ten seconds once every blue moon trying to actually implement it. Feel free to prove otherwise.

Gingrich went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and called Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan “radical” and “right-wing social engineering.”

I disagree with him on the radiacal part. I can live with that disagreement, because I do not support Ryan’s weak tea plan that balances the budget sometime after every last current legislator is either dead or retired. I also do not agree with the idea that it is right wing social engineering. I tend to think of it as progressive light social engineering being packaged as if it was conservative. The conservative thing to do would be to get rid of SS and Medicare.

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.”

Yup, another strike. Then again, as I have said repeatedly, Gingrich can be pulled back to the right. The problem with the Prescription drug plan was that the base was not upset by this plan, they were perfectly happy to have uncle sam at the time pick up the cost of drugs for the elderly. Remember, it was the time of compassionate conservatism. No one was pulling Newt to the right, but pushing him left.

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.

Wow, he did not use words like heartless, or inhumane or some other progressive left argument? What a bummer. When you are trying to get legislation passed, it is totally unheard of to try and twist some arms in the process.

Gingrich flipped & then flopped on abortion:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/newt-unwilling-say-life-begins-conception/235106

I saw his recent argument, it works for me.

Many more serious Gingrich problems:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati

Not electable. Not presidential.

itsnotaboutme on December 5, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Every single candidate has problems. Find the perfect candidate and get them to run for office. I am willing to support Bachmann, Santorum and Newt, and Perry has a slim greater than 0 chance to convince me to vote for him, and the rest of those running are pretty close to out of luck.

Maybe you should update your cut and paste with some information where to find many of these missing pieces of information. I doubt you will, because you would rather remain an ignorant nobody that never did the actual research, just a cut paste hit job.

P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C

astonerii on December 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Ok Mark, I get it. You think Newt’s a pompous windbag. You’re probably right.

Do you really prefer Romney? Really?

ElectricPhase on December 17, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Are they supposed to stifle themselves when they don’t agree with you? They can rise to the top but if they don’t agree with the rrpjr’s of this world they should just STFU. Is that your absurd position?
Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Given your fantastic misreading of my words, really, does it matter how I answer that question?

rrpjr on December 17, 2011 at 11:13 PM

You got to admit, pols like Newti poo make politics a lot more entertaining b/c he’s throwing all sort of things out there. Pundits should think this guy for providing all this material…you could make a career out out of just sorting through everything my Newtie poo has said.

I think I’d rather a candidate that talks too much than talks too little though. The guy thatn’s not saying much is probably trying to hide something.

THere’s no doubt we know what we are getting with my Newtie poo. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:18 PM

I don’t really understand what the crime is here.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM

It is worse than a crime. It is a corruption of the soul.

Through the mist your Gingrich is beckoning
But soon will come that moment of reckoning
His many faces change
As he grows ever more strange
He has so many faces
His real self erases
As an enticing flood of lies
Flicker through his darting eyes
Feel the terror draw ever nearer
The more you stare in his mirror

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM

All I know is I never heard conservatives calling Newt a benign version of Stalin until he took a lead over Romney in the polls.

Chalk it up to coincidence, I guess. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

AMEN-

Krauthammer calls Newt a “Socialist”; but he isn’t
Don Imus calls Newt a “Fat Pig”. Never appropriate.
Steyn says he is “Totalitarian”. Newt wants to enhance the power of Congress against the Courts making up law and the POTUS’ unilateral regulatory overreach. Does that sound “Totalitarian” or exactly the opposite.

Newt is correct when he says we should focus our fire on Obama. This business of eating our own through over the top character assasination just salts the fields of the Republican Party. Obama and Axelrod just love this stuff as they will be able to use it in both Presidential and Congressional campaigns. Lincoln observed that a house divided against itself cannot stand. If the establishment wing of the GOP totally alienates the conservative wing by ad hominem destruction of anyone who becomes popular with conservatives, the conservatives may just stay home.

Is Newt pugnacious? Yes, so was Rudy Giuliani. Does Newt say we can change things others feel are hopeless? Yes, so did Giuliani. Maybe there is a reason that Giuliani has defended Newt. Did Newt reach across to Democrats to get real change? Yes, so did Reagan.

Has Newt blistered Romney the way Romney’s backers have blistered Newt? Couldn’t he do so if he wanted? Does everyone really want a suicide pact primary? Lets talk about policy and achievements not about such nonsensical attacks as we have seen in the last two weeks.

KW64 on December 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Ok, so why do the Newt haters make it out as one? I feel like I’m missing something that is obvious to other people.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Its all they have for a criticism.
Its not just Newts critics. Its anyone who can’t find and express any actual problems with what is being put forth.
At least thats the way it seems to me.

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:21 PM

It is worse than a crime. It is a corruption of the soul.

Through the mist your Gingrich is beckoning
But soon will come that moment of reckoning
His many faces change
As he grows ever more strange
He has so many faces
His real self erases
As an enticing flood of lies
Flicker through his darting eyes
Feel the terror draw ever nearer
The more you stare in his mirror

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Heh, you are quite the poet. Not bad, brother.

Now, is my Newtie poo, is he benign Stalinist because some government agency threw some cash at him for advice? To be honest, I wish I could get a piece of the government’s stash….I know they get a lot of mine! :)

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM

It is worse than a crime. It is a corruption of the soul.

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Thats pretty..over the top? Maybe just for these times.
Are you that Percy that wrote Frankenstein?

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:29 PM

To be honest, I wish I could get a piece of the government’s stash….I know they get a lot of mine! :)

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM

So follow him like he is your shining star
Then you will find out where you are
In a place where only fools
Follow golden rules!

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:32 PM

What if Newt actually offered this government agency sound advice, advice that conservatives would agree with?

Is that relevant at all, or is it corruption of the soul and benign Stalinism regarldess of the nature of the advice?

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:33 PM

All I know is I never heard conservatives calling Newt a benign version of Stalin until he took a lead over Romney in the polls.

Chalk it up to coincidence, I guess. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Good point.

Mimzey on December 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Now, if Newtie poo had used the word a “fundamentally” only 2 or 3 times when consulting a government agency, rather than 500 times, would that make it less corrupt and less Marxist?

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Now, if Newt had just not said a word while getting paid for advice by a government agency, would that make it less immoral? If he just gave advice without talking, would it have been ok?

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I don’t really understand what the crime is here.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM

It is worse than a crime. It is a corruption of the soul.

PercyB on December 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM

But somehow you support Romney, right?

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2011 at 11:45 PM

We haven’t even had the first primary yet – why are we letting ourselves be herded like cattle into settling for one of the two frontrunners? Ole Newt is just as slippery as Romney, and knows how to play the game. I think he is playing all of us, telling us just what we want to hear, wink wink. I am in the Perry camp for now, and I hate like hell hearing about all his gaffes and positions that I may disagree with. But it’s all stuff I need to know in order to make an informed decision. That’s what the primary season is all about.

dingding on December 17, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Cause if another Coolidge is what you want, Ron Paul seems to be your man that will get you closest.

Thanks all! Just happy to be a part. :)

Genuine on December 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Every time I hear the name of Ron Paul, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones’ documentary masterpiece Ace was kind enough to embed on AoS, ‘Endgame’. Alex is a friend and associate of Dr. Paul, who has appeared as a guest numerous times to discuss the burning issues of the day, as well as the goings-on with those nefarious elites intent on world domination. That sort of thing.

Anyway, the Alex Jones documentary changed my life. Dr. Paul featured prominently, of course, but that was just the icing on the cake. The important stuff was deep inside and when The Awful Truth was revealed, my whole world was shaken to the core. Years of false consciousness embedded into my cerebral cortex by the Illuminati were stripped away until I was fairly naked with enlightenment.

I’m talking about spider/goat DNA hybridization experiments, of course, mentioned specifically (if only too passingly) in Alex Jones’ riveting masterpiece: conducted by diabolical scientists in the employ of the Bilderburgers, these evil henchmen in white lab coats are even now creating a super-race of spider-goats, ready to use steel-like fibers to enwrap their unsuspecting human prey in horrifying cocoons of death. But now that I know about their sinister machinations, what to do?

There is only one man up to the task, and that man is Dr. Ron Paul. Now is his time, his moment.

Vote for Dr. Ron Paul and eliminate once and for all the threat posed by the voracious spider-goat hordes.

troyriser_gopftw on December 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM

troyriser_gopftw on December 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Epic comment. And I will not be able to sleep tonight thinking of spider-goats. Thanks.

tom daschle concerned on December 17, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Why wasn’t McClintock asked to run!?

Oh, that’s right, the GOP/RNC choose our candidates for us. Maybe we should do something about that!

Pouring the Tea into The GOP
http://pjmedia.com/blog/pouring-the-tea-into-the-gop/

Winghunter on December 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM

When was the last time you saw a benign totalitarian? I enjoy Mark Steyn as much as the net Patriot, but this might be a titch too far…

MooCowBang on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Vote for Dr. Ron Paul and eliminate once and for all the threat posed by the voracious spider-goat hordes.

troyriser_gopftw on December 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Your extended family doesn’t pose nearly that much of a threat.

MelonCollie on December 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Are you that Percy that wrote Frankenstein?

Just FYI, it was Percy (Shelley)’s wife Mary who wrote “Frankenstein”

baron scarpia on December 18, 2011 at 12:10 AM

I think the better question is can we afford to keep marching out these candidates who are not really even talking about reducing the $15,127,281,704,823 federal debt (which has just risen to $15,127,283,432,127 in the time it took me to type this response).

The ruling class up in Washington’s on the take. They tell us what they think we want to hear while stealing from the cookie jar. There are no checks and balances. By the time justice kicks in, it’s too late, the damage is unrepairable. And it doesn’t seem like anyone in Washington is serious about fixing anything. The spending continues unabated. They can’t do something as simple as defunding PBS. It’s all very depressing when all Washington knows is how to spend our money badly. So we get to choose whom will spend our money, badly, at a slower pace. Ron Paul seems like the most conservative candidate to at least get us back to the Constitution and limited government. But I can’t trust him as Commander in Chief even though he did serve our country. The bottomline, regardless of what Mark Steyn says and I do agree with him, he’d punch his chad for Newt if it came down to it.

racquetballer on December 18, 2011 at 12:15 AM

As long as Newt keeps his totalitarianism benign and in the closet, he could possibly be an acceptable candidate.

Steyn had to throw the benign in there b/c he knows he sounds like a nut.

If you are going to call a man a Stalinist, be man enough to call him one that is cancerous. Calling a man a benign Stalinist is a cop out, in my view.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Didn’t Ron Paul have a bunch of racist stuff get sent out to supporters with his name on it?

He denies knowing anything about it, but this guy is loved by the StormFront types.

National Review should be more concerned about taking out Ron Paul than Newt Gingrich, as El Rushbo pointed out.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM

… Newt has said that he has no problem moving over 200,000 employees of Homeland Security that are stationed in Washington, D.C. to the southwest border.

Now those who don’t want to go can quit…

.. and those transferred just might start to have an effect on controlling our borders.

Those that won’t do their new jobs, will be fired…

… You have to understand just how vast of a problem that we are facing, and since Newt was an insider, he knows, and for the sake of his Grandchildren, he wants to try to fix it.

I think this was lost on Mark Steyn…

… Just sayin’.

Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2011 at 8:21 PM

to honestly think that republican or democrat politicans want to do anything about our southern border is a mistake,if they did it would be fixed.there been complaints since Morten Downey Jr. had a t.v. spot,but yet the american public keeps giving these lying politicians the benefit of the dought time and again.THE ELITES DO NOT WANT THE SOUTHERN BORDER CLOSED,GOT IT?????

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 12:31 AM

National Review should be more concerned about taking out Ron Paul than Newt Gingrich, as El Rushbo pointed out.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Let me help you out on this.

Ron Paul cannot win the nomination.

Newt possibly could, that is why National Review is going the route they are.

scotash on December 18, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Well, as I have said before, if Newt is unacceptable as a candidate, I think you have to say Romney is too.

National Review never seems that concern about ideology unless it’s’ Newt Gingrich. All they care about with Romney is his world class temperament, his business experience, and he seems nice enough, and he’s electable.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM

as El Rushbo pointed out.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM

that great (FRAUD),I mean freedom fighter rush limbaugh.rush is a conservative hack,that beleives freedom begings and ends with money,and thats about all freedom means to the man.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MINUTIA MATTER?

we can keep fighting over one of the 3 and than get stubborn in the poll and not vote..

OR WE CAN JUST pick one – i donf care anymore and get one of ours elected..

4 mores is gonna be real bad..

I’m so freaked out by my grand ole conservative party.. we’re going to be utterly done with if we can make a peace and see eye to eye on just getting Oboma out.

.. please..

amend2 on December 18, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Just poll for the person who’s ahead at this point.. like rush says.. anyone of them are better than a new socialist America..

we can do something better in 2016.. I’m giving up my perfect candidate.. Im just going for who can WIN!

do you idealogues see that!

amend2 on December 18, 2011 at 12:43 AM

that great (FRAUD),I mean freedom fighter rush limbaugh.rush is a conservative hack,that beleives freedom begings and ends with money,and thats about all freedom means to the man.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM

I almost expected you to call El Rushbo a Stalinist.

People get on the crazy train in election years.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:44 AM

One platitude that I want retired and put out to pasture is

“Purity is for suicide bombers.”

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:47 AM

The establishment wants someone who will fall in line; someone they are sure they can control. Romney fits that. But do we know exactly what the establishment wants?

Connie on December 18, 2011 at 12:48 AM

And, the establishment does not want a leader. They want someone who can be led.

Connie on December 18, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Romney’s not going to anybody’s puppet if he’s president. He and other pols will dance for the establishment until they are on top. Then other pols dance for them.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:56 AM

The establishment wants someone who will fall in line; someone they are sure they can control. Romney fits that. But do we know exactly what the establishment wants?

Connie on December 18, 2011 at 12:48 AM

You assert the Republican establishment is a monolithic bloc–or something akin to a meeting of the Society of Super Villains. You also say the sinister ‘they’ want a GOP nominee who will gall in line. Okay, fall in line with what–directives from Karl Rove aka Fearless Leader?

It doesn’t work that way. People don’t work that way. Remember what Will Rogers said about one of the major parties in his lifetime? Paraphrasing (because I’m too tired to look it up), Rogers said, “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

Same thing in the here and now. From what I’ve seen and read, the prominent big name and big money donor Republicans that form the elite of the GOP don’t like Newt Gingrich because they know Newt Gingrich.

troyriser_gopftw on December 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I still tend to think Gingrich would be the establishment’s and National REview’s candidate this year, if Romney wasn’t running.

That’s what’s funny about their over the top attacks on him. They love Romney, nobody can question that.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:06 AM

They all add up to me but Newt is the great debater, is the only one who will go after Obama or something.

Too many people wanting to win the battle of the debates but aren’t paying attention to how we win the war/election.

JPeterman on December 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Agree. People can’t even agree on who actually wins the debates, so how are we supposed to vote for the “debate winner” if everyone thinks a different person won?

cptacek on December 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Newt the Hoot is merely the Pillsbury dough boy with a gigantic ego, a habit of screwing outside of marriage and a taste for plastic women.

That said, he is obviously more intelligent than Jethro Perry. That isn’t saying much because so are table lamps. (Go, Rick Go!)

And Gingrich is obviously more honest than Romney, but, again, that isn’t saying much because so is the Wizard of Oz.

So…who to nominate? Ron Paul has great entertainment value and Michelle Bachmann is very bright and very easy on the eyes.

But….no one can top Jethro Perry when it comes to four years of comedy gold! Can’t wait to see him lasso Putin. Or pull a six-shooter on them Chinese bandits. Gunfight at the Mao Corral! Sheeewwwweeeee! Yeeeeee-HAH! Go, Rick Go! Get them varmits!

Horace on December 18, 2011 at 1:18 AM

stopped listening to rush over a year ago. one caller,rush punted,and i turned my station and never went back.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM

svs22422

I was going to call you dumber than a rock due to your El Rushbo comments, but then I would have to go around all day tomorrow apologizing to the gravel. So, I’ll limit it to just “dumb.” Cheers!

Horace on December 18, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Can Iowans write in names in the GOP caucuses?

Otherwise, the house is on fire and all exits are blocked.

AshleyTKing on December 18, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I almost expected you to call El Rushbo a Stalinist.

People get on the crazy train in election years.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:44 AM

stopped listening to rush over a year ago. one caller,rush punted,and i turned my station and never went back.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:24 AM

I was going to call you dumber than a rock due to your El Rushbo comments, but then I would have to go around all day tomorrow apologizing to the gravel. So, I’ll limit it to just “dumb.” Cheers!

Horace on December 18, 2011 at 1:22 AM

you can call me anything you want,i dont really give a s@it,i dont blindly follow nobody and that includes rushbo!!!

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:28 AM

stopped listening to rush over a year ago. one caller,rush punted,and i turned my station and never went back.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM

With interesting stories like this, I’m surprised you don’t have your own talk radio show. I know I’d tune in everyday.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM

When was the last time you saw a benign totalitarian? I enjoy Mark Steyn as much as the net Patriot, but this might be a titch too far…

MooCowBang on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Yeah, the vitriol for Newt from the conservative media has been astonishing. Newt is by no means an ideal conservative candidate, but this attempt to cast him as a socialist/totalitarian by the likes of Steyn, Will, Coulter, and the editorial board of National Review is baffling. It is especially baffling that many of these same conservatives are pushing Mitt Romney as the last, best conservative hope in 2012.

Look, if Perry or Bachmann are still viable by the time Michigan’s primary rolls around, I’ll give one of them my vote, but if it’s Newt and Mitt I’m filling in the oval next to Newt’s name without a second thought. When you compare the legislative records of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s is by far the more conservative, and it’s not even close.

holygoat on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM

I still tend to think Gingrich would be the establishment’s and National REview’s candidate this year, if Romney wasn’t running.

That’s what’s funny about their over the top attacks on him. They love Romney, nobody can question that.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:06 AM

I think that the establishments thinking is that since we will have some tight senate races in Nevada, Michigan, New Mexico,Montana, etc. that a Romney on top of the ticket will help in specific states, (especially those mentioned above)

OrthodoxJew on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM

So the key to thinking for yourself is to never listen to anybody else?

How do you learn anything if you shelter yourself from other people’s opinions?

It’s like saying, I can’t read anything by James Madison or F.A. Hayek because I’m my own mind and nobody thinks for me. You are only telling us you are ignorant and proud of it.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:33 AM

I could see Romney helping in senate race in Michigan, but not much in those other states.

Again, this notion only He can win is absurd. That’s his campaign propaganda, not reality.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:35 AM

KW64 on December 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Amen. The over the top attacks on Newt make me wonder what they’re afraid of.

cpaulus on December 18, 2011 at 1:35 AM

I could see Romney helping in senate race in Michigan, but not much in those other states.

Again, this notion only He can win is absurd. That’s his campaign propaganda, not reality.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:35 AM

I don’t think anything in my comment indicated that only he can win, i am only trying to explain to you that instead of baking a theory that the establishment want someone they can control, they want someone who will help them down ticket, even if he loses overall,

And as much as Romney’s Mormonism might be a problem for him, in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, it would be helpful, and according to latest polls he is the only one who leads or is within the margin in these states,

Again with the right campaign everybody can beat Obama, but Romney might be helpful in certain states, that’s all

OrthodoxJew on December 18, 2011 at 1:41 AM

amend2 on December 18, 2011 at 12:41 AM

The GOP hasn’t really been a conservative party since the election of Eisenhower. The hoi poi tried to move it that way with Goldwater and the Rockefeller wing voted in mass for LBJ. The same wing that voted for the dem candidate in three states that you all know. With the help of disaffected dims we got Ronald Reagan but with him gone we got more of the same Rockefeller wing choices. I wish the Tea Party well in trying to take over the party maybe they will have better luck than we had after Reagan.

chemman on December 18, 2011 at 1:50 AM

With interesting stories like this, I’m surprised you don’t have your own talk radio show. I know I’d tune in everyday.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM

well,i could start the show with a great Tesla tune, the Pretenders tune was getting to me. hey,maybe thats why i gave el rushbo the heave ho.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:56 AM

As Newt says, he’s changed. Why, more recently, he was pushing a socialist mortgage scheme that created a housing bubble and nearly destroyed the banking system. His involvement in this debacle was so embarrassing that he lied about it when he was exposed. As you said, Steyn is a very astute observer. Unlike you.

Basilsbest on December 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Srsly? Pushing? Lol! Wouldn’t it be great if you could substantiate that claim? In the meantime, the rest of the field is pure as the wind driven snow and have records of……lol!

MTLassen on December 18, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Steyn,the best person behind the Golden EIB microphone!!!

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 2:12 AM

Calvin Coolidge was definitely the best economic president of the 20th century, but come on Tina, the roaring twenties cannot come close to winning World War 2 under the strong leadership of FDR – who would be kicked out of today’s Democrat Party for being a bad ass on matters of war.

timbok on December 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM

well,i could start the show with a great Tesla tune, the Pretenders tune was getting to me. hey,maybe thats why i gave el rushbo the heave ho.

I didn’t know the band Tesla had good songs. Their “best” song is Signs which is a cover of some other band’s song. They are a one hit wonder with a cover of another band one hit wonder. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Drudge headline:
BOLD: Gingrich says he’d defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed…

“But the former House speaker demurred when asked whether President Obama could ignore a high court ruling next year if it declared unconstitutional the new healthcare law and its mandate that all Americans have health insurance by 2014. Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in ‘extraordinary’ situations.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story

What a joke.

haner on December 18, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Zombie Coolidge 2012!

Thanks for that Tina. I learned much.

BoxHead1 on December 18, 2011 at 3:25 AM

I’d rank Reagan over Coolidge. I don’t think it’s even close.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:11 AM

From Wikipedia….I didn’t expect to this:

Despite his reputation as a quiet and even reclusive politician, Coolidge made use of the new medium of radio and made radio history several times while President. He made himself available to reporters, giving 529 press conferences, meeting with reporters more regularly than any President before or since.[159]

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:32 AM

From Wikipedia:

Coolidge’s best-known initiative was the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, named for Coolidge’s Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg, and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. The treaty, ratified in 1929, committed signatories including the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan to “renounce war, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”[137] The treaty did not achieve its intended result – the outlawry of war – but did provide the founding principle for international law after World War II.[138]

This is case in point that treaties are meaningless.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:36 AM

It’s kind of crazy how easy people seemed to be killed off back in the day….you’d think a president’s son would have had acccess to the best medical care yet a infected blister killed Coolidge’s son. Weird.

Shortly after the conventions Coolidge experienced a personal tragedy. Coolidge’s younger son, Calvin, Jr., developed a blister from playing tennis on the White House courts. The blister became infected, and within days Calvin, Jr. developed sepsis and died

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Thanks all! Just happy to be a part. :)

Genuine on December 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Some one go bite genuine and make sure genuine is genuine.

*sip*

Bah. Fine. I’ll do it.

Axe on December 18, 2011 at 6:09 AM

Ok, so why do the Newt haters make it out as one? I feel like I’m missing something that is obvious to other people.

Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Nobody. Absolutely nobody is calling his involvement with those GSEs a crime. Many of us are pointing out that his involvement was lousy judgement. We are pointing out that he accepted money from them to influence legislation. We are pointing out that he was a participant in the kind of housing “reform” that brought down our entire economy. We are pointing out that he lacks any understanding of private, free market capitalism as illustrated by his insistence that GSEs are part of the private, free market economy. We are saying that he enriched himself his entire life at the expense of the taxpayers. We are saying that he used the revolving door where politicians leave office and use their influence from having held office to profit at the expense of the taxpayers. We are saying the he was corrupt while in office and the by his involvement in those GSEs he clearly had not improved.

None of the above is a crime (except for his activities in office for which he was kicked out). All of the above and much more demonstrates why he is not deserving of a vote for POTUS.

MJBrutus on December 18, 2011 at 6:23 AM

What is wrong with Gingrich consulting Freddie Mac and getting paid for it?

I don’t really understand what the crime is here. – Dr. Tesla on December 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Yep, he broke no laws that are on the book, but made a few million for lobbying for a what is a quasi-government business. It has a stink all of its own in my humble opinion. The fact is that nearly everyone in power in Congress trades on their influence. I am for Romney, but if Newt is nominated I will vote for him. Neither one is a perfect candidate. No one ever is.

SC.Charlie on December 18, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Was it inevitable that we arrive where we are now?

noeastern on December 17, 2011 at 10:00 PM

The answer to this is not in our current state of affairs but in the nature of the things we call government, State, Nation and human nature. If one only reads the Federalist Papers, you get a distinctly pointed view of the good of a federalist structure with divided powers, which is all and well to the good. A republic is an embodiment of federalist structure at its core by dividing powers and ensuring that no single branch can dictate itself to the entire government and people. What is necessary is to understand that the ratification process had an ongoing conversation along with it and that the Anti-Federalists also had a part to play. If you want to see the types of flaws that we have today in our system one must go back to the very Framing of this system and ask: did anyone see this coming?

Yes, yes they did. You can even flip over to the Federalist Papers and get some shorthand of how the federalist perspective tried to deal with some of the flaws ( #26 is a very good place to examine Hamilton’s proposition for what happens when government at the federal level usurps power). There are a few places in the Federalist Papers where Hamilton, Madison and Jay try to address the Anti-Federalist concerns, but come away a bit on the too high-minded side and not enough on the brass tacks side of things.

The Anti-Federalists are not a cohort, they do not march to one tune, and a number of the actually support the Constitution but see its federalist system as too WEAK… these people we would call ardent federalists wind up in the Anti-Federalist camp because their concerns about the power checks and balances were not being taken seriously. Others were concerned about the extent of powers granted to the various branches of government at the federal level… others wanted a reformed Confederation with slightly stronger central powers for a few items, but not an overhaul… there are also the monarchists and conspiracy theorists amongst them, too. With that said the variety of concerns boil down to how man gravitates towards power and investing that in government far past the few restrictions necessary to keep man’s negative liberty from endangering his fellow man and society as a whole.

Reading the Anti-Federalists papers leaves one with many modern day ills popping up as expressed by them, such as in Cato VI:

In what manner then will you be eased, if the expences of government are to be raised solely out of the commerce of this country; do you not readily apprehend the fallacy of this argument. But government will find, that to press so heavily on commerce will not do, and therefore must have recourse to other objects; these will be a capitation or poll-tax, window lights, &c. &c. And a long train of impositions which their ingenuity will suggest; but will you submit to be numbered like the slaves of an arbitrary despot; and what will be your reflections when the tax-master thunders at your door for the duty on that light which is the bounty of heaven. It will be the policy of the great landholders who will chiefly compose this senate, and perhaps a majority of this house of representatives, to keep their lands free from taxes; and this is confirmed by the failure of every attempt to lay a land-tax in this state; hence recourse must and will be had to the sources I mentioned before. The burdens on you will be insupportable—your complaints will be inefficacious—this will beget public disturbances, and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that you and the government, if it is adopted, will one day be at issue on this point. The force of government will be exerted, this will call for an increase of revenue, and will add fuel to the fire. The result will be, that either you will revolve to some other form, or that government will give peace to the country, by destroying the opposition. If government therefore can, notwithstanding every opposition, raise a revenue on such things as are odious and burdensome to you, they can do any thing.

In the first case we now have a government that DOES think it can not only tax you for lighting but tell you what kind of lighting for your porch you may have… the lightbulb ban is unfunded but still in place, and which retailers will warehouse and stock such an item under threat of sudden reapplication of federal power?

If you get into Congress you can: exempt yourselves from the laws you pass, ‘regulate industry’, which then gives industry an interest in lobbying government, and then go on to work for said industries you passed legislation about and, maybe, go full circle from government to lobbyist and back to government again. Isn’t that nice? A new landed class that can do better than the landholders of old and act like an Aristocracy with the overhead paid by you.

That such power expands over time is without question, and the failed republics of Ancient and even (then) modern times are given asessment by different writers: Greek, Roman, Venice, Dutch, Swiss. They did not write in a vacuum, but we have a vacuum of knowledge about these societies that leaves us without the tools to examine them. That, too, is in the daring of expanding government which is how human nature’s worst aspects come to rest in government, by eroding trust amongst the people, villainizing a few to get expansive laws passed, and then expanding those laws to villainize the many.

In one paragraph from one writer we see the course of human events in relation to government played out in shorthand… and yet the problems are those that we now see before our very eyes TODAY. He called it slavery to go this far…he placed a standard in history and acknowledges that things can be different, and his timing was far off from the expected near term to centuries later. Yet he is also a fellow citizen concerned with the nature of our government at a time when it was not set. We turn towards the winners of the federalist debates at our peril, because out of the bombast, conspiracy theories and other assortment of riled up people you will also get a Brutus, a Cato, Federal Farmer and James Mason who signed the Declaration, drafted the Bill of Rights but then would endorse neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights as they were insufficient to protect liberty as they were deeply flawed.

Bothering to read from this era in history shows us that what we have is, in many ways, inevitable, and yet that is not immutable to man and the application of liberty and protection of freedom. We can, in this course of human events, change or abolish government when it becomes hostile to our rights, liberty, freedom and well being. We do not do so lightly and change is preferred until the weight of the usurpations can no longer be withstood.

Government, like fire, is a tool and a force with its own set of abilities. It can protect us and offer us a warming place in life… and it can burn our lives, our homes, our Nation and freedom. It is a dangerous tool and best kept in the hearth and errant sparks put out with water and then stamped into oblivion. These people running around with bags of embers to spread them onto the floor and walls of every room because such a power is obviously so good, must be stopped or we will then face the destructive power of government inflicted upon us.

ajacksonian on December 18, 2011 at 7:23 AM

OT:

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:32 AM

Dr. Tesla, I’m not taking issue with any particular point you’ve made. The quotes were interesting.

I just want to point out that better sources for information might be available, especially when trying to consider religious, political or historical context. Rigorous analysis of bias (not accuracy) is difficult, but it’s attempted now and then, to varying effect:

How the Left Conquered Wikipedia
How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, II

… and for anyone into Atheistic Apologetics, Wikipedia is surely as good as Holy Writ.

You may love it, and who you quote is certainly none of my business. Many people swear by it. I use it for finding occasional unattached facts. I just wanted to mention — for the benefit of anyone that may not know it — that Wikipedia often has a point of view on religion, politics, and history, and it will make social, political, and economic conservatives each wince from time to time.

Axe on December 18, 2011 at 7:30 AM

troyriser_gopftw on December 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Thats great stuff, right there! +

Mimzey on December 18, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Let’s face it, it isn’t the Republican Party that has a deficit of character and personality in its candidates, but our society as a whole.

Cleombrotus on December 18, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Just FYI, it was Percy (Shelley)’s wife Mary who wrote “Frankenstein”

baron scarpia on December 18, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Thanks…I couldn’t resist the connection to poetry and the name.
Just an off the top of my head comment.
PercyB..no offense intended. Great verses +

Mimzey on December 18, 2011 at 8:17 AM

We are pointing out that he accepted money from them to influence legislation. We are pointing out that he was a participant in the kind of housing “reform” that brought down our entire economy. We are pointing out that he lacks any understanding of private, free market capitalism as illustrated by his insistence that GSEs are part of the private, free market economy. We are saying that he enriched himself his entire life at the expense of the taxpayers.

What legislation was that?

Newt is to blame for the policies of Peanut Jim and Cleatus Clinton?
How so?

By your standard, for having enriched oneself at the expense of the taxpayers, nobody..absolutely nobody in government is good enough to run.

Mimzey on December 18, 2011 at 8:23 AM

I am not a Gingrich fan, but the good news (if we are stuck with him) is that he will definitely be better than the current clown President, and at his age (69), he will only be there for one term.

rjh on December 18, 2011 at 8:55 AM

It’s difficult to take issue with anything Steyn said.

I see essentially no political differences between Romney and Gingrich, and the conservative embrace of Gingrich has been perplexing. I can only attribute it to taking “anyone but Romney” too literally.

It is ironic that Gingrich who famously said he was opposed to “right-wing social engineering”, clearly, is quite fond of it.

For the record I would prefer Perry, Santorum or Bachmann to either Gingrich or Romney, but if my two choices are Romney or Gingrich, I will take Romney. (I essentially classify myself as “undecided” right now, but will enthusiastically support the GOP nominee, whoever he/she may be.)

Jingo95 on December 18, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Well said by Steyn. If someone, say a Democrat or a Republican, says, “There is a problem”:

1.Newt accepts the premise that “there is a problem”.
2. Newt thensee himself as the brightest guy in the room and the best guy to come up with a solution since he has a million ideas a minute.
3. Newt sees government as the solution. Newt doesn’t seem to know the words “let the free market decide”.
4.Newt can’t wait to implement his ideas to “fix” everything while destroying the free market system, your healthcare and whatever. All of which would be better if the government left them alone, but then Newt wouldn’t get to be the genius with the great idea to solve “the problem”. This is how Newt gets into making commercials with democrats promoting democrat policies.

Charm on December 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘Press On’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

- Calvin Coolidge

(Possibly my favorite quote by any President.) :)

CorporatePiggy on December 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Mittens would be okay only if Newt was his VP.

IMHO, Mark Steyn has lost all credibility with me since he started supporting Kathy Shaidle, a potty-mouthed, shrill, Cdn. blogger who believes that Afghanistan children should all be nuked!

Sparky5253 on December 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Pleased to see John Calvin Coolidge gain a nod here at Hot Air. I have grown quite fond of the man and his presidency over the years. He is my favorite president of the twentieth century.

How Newt could choose FDR as his favorite president speaks much about his thinking. New Deal? Court packing? Breaking with tradition with third and fourth terms? Japanese internment camps? TVA?

Newt picking the other Roosevelt, Teddy, would be acceptable. Although over the years as I have gained appreciation for Coolidge it has been equaled in disfavor for Teddy. Progressivism is insidious and TR was a willing fool.

When will we hear of a candidate speak glowingly of Coolidge as much as they do Reagan? If they do, I’ll give them a second look.

islandman78 on December 18, 2011 at 10:38 AM

None of the above is a crime (except for his activities in office for which he was kicked out). All of the above and much more demonstrates why he is not deserving of a vote for POTUS.

The thing is, the people like you who get up on the soapbox as being this rotten SOB are almost always this diehard Romney fans, and let’s face it, if you support ROmney, you don’t care that he forced RomneyCare on the citizens of his states, along with the rest of his liberal governing record in that state.

My logic, and I think it’s sensible, is that if Gingrich is so horrible, then is so is Romney, and we need to nominate one of the other candidates excluding Ron Paul or Huntsman.

I doubt you go for that thought, because Romney’s the guy some moderates have told you to vote for because he’s smart as a whip and “electable”. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM

To me, the most incredible thing about this election cycle is how Gingrich is held up and slapped around for not being conservative but so many people could care less about ideology when it comes to Romney.

Why the double standard? Why aren’t these people hypocrites?

We are told taking money from a government agency isn’t a crime but yet, it sure seems like his criticis want to prosecute him for it.

Nobody seemed to care about his lobbying until he took a lead over Romney in the polls. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM

When will we hear of a candidate speak glowingly of Coolidge as much as they do Reagan? If they do, I’ll give them a second look.

Coolidige was president prior to both FDR and Lyndon Johhson. In other words, prior to the massive expansion of the reach of the federal government into our lives.

If you read the Wikipedia article about him, he reduced taxes, and actually eliminated everybody from paying taxes except the top weathiest 2%. Their budget must have been super tiny compared to today, because apparently he was able to limit debt and balance budgets with only the top 2% paying any taxes. I’d like to see what kind of income tax rate those top 2% were paying.

How would that possible under Reagan or any president post FDR and Lyndon Johnson when we have much more sizeable budgets?

Coolidge seems like a pretty conservative president, and I can see Reagan looking at him as a model, but at the same time, Reagan had to govern in a post FDR world, and with an active USSR, and to me, he deserves the nod as the best president of that century. They dont have statues of Coolidge in eastern Europe like they do Reagan.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I saw somebody claim that Gingrich traded on his influence, but at the same time, I’ve seen people claim that all his former collegues in Congress hate his guts. What influence does he really have to trade on and cash in on if everybody in the government hates his guts?

To me, there some kind of contradiction in that.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

It’s interesting that people will talk about Calvin Coolidge as a great President of the 20′s. It is true that he was able to do many great things that kept the roaring 20′s going. I would just suggest that people not forget who it was that set the whole ball of wax going at the beginning of the ’20s.

Warren Harding was elected at the height of the 1920-21 depression. He selected Calvin Coolidge as his VP because they thought so much alike. Harding also begged and got Andrew Mellon, a titan of industry and investment back then to come on as the treasury secretary. Mellon was the one to come up with the low tax rate structure of the 20′s. He also came up with the budget cuts to the Federal Budget that ended up cutting it by 50% from the point of when Harding was elected to the mid 20′s.

Harding and Coolidge were both great Presidents because they knew how to get the right people and keep them when needed. It also helps to have the right philosophy to government to make it happen. They both knew government is to only provide a legal and security framework that applied equally to everyone so they could thrive. Otherwise they got out of the way.

Only one candidate has uttered the same philosophy of “to make Washington D.C. as inconsequential in our lives as possible.” If you’ve done your homework, you’ll know who I’m talking about. The primary system is to let us voters be able to vote for who we think is the best to run the Federal government. The best part of that is that you can for any of the candidates on the ballot no matter what the herd mentality is at the time. I would suggest you vote for someone based on their record, not on what they say currently or who is the least offensive to the MSM.

To me the only sane, consistent constitutional conservative executive out of the bunch is Gov. Rick Perry.

Ronaldusmax on December 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Yes, Newt is “zany”. LIghts from stars to illuminate our nation’s highways. Buck Rogers gee whiz stuff. Glad he has time to contemplate it all. Don’t care about that. Where are the jobs and when is Obamacare going to get dumped?

kens on December 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM

My logic, and I think it’s sensible, is that if Gingrich is so horrible, then is so is Romney, and we need to nominate one of the other candidates excluding Ron Paul or Huntsman.

I doubt you go for that thought, because Romney’s the guy some moderates have told you to vote for because he’s smart as a whip and “electable”. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Hog wash. Romney did not enrich himself at public expense. In fact he served his term as governor for the extravagant cost of $1/year. Romney did not provide access to law makers from Freddie or Fannie. Romney did not get kicked out of office for being crooked. That’s Newt’s life story and to say he’s no different from Mitt is ignorant.

Say what you want, but Mitt is honest, faithful to both his private and public his vows and is not a creature of government. Mitt was a success in private industry, Newt never tried it. Mitt is a free market capitalist and Newt is a crony capitalist.

MJBrutus on December 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I didn’t know the band Tesla had good songs. Their “best” song is Signs which is a cover of some other band’s song. They are a one hit wonder with a cover of another band one hit wonder. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM

lets see if your right: 1)the way it is
2)love song
3)what you give

well Dr. Tesla,i think it’s safe to say you dont know what your talking about when it comes to the band Tesla.

svs22422 on December 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Mark Steyn is one of the best writers and a smart MF’er. And he’s right on this one.

ManWithNoName on December 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4