Gingrich wins Tea Party Patriots straw poll

posted at 3:25 pm on December 19, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Newt Gingrich might have dropped to third in Iowa — and he and Romney might be neck-and-neck in the latest CNN poll, but, among thousands of Tea Party activists from across the country, Gingrich retains a clear lead.

Tea Party Patriots — the nation’s largest Tea Party organization — last night hosted a Presidential Tele Forum with Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (The other candidates were invited to participate, but declined because of scheduling conflicts, said Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.) Each candidate had 10 minutes to respond to questions from local Tea Party coordinators. After the question-and-answer portion, the call organizers asked listeners to vote for one candidate as their preferred nominee.

About 23,000 Tea Party activists joined the call and a significant portion of them voted in the straw poll, according to a news release. Of those who voted, 31 percent selected Newt Gingrich as their No. 1, 28 percent selected Michele Bachmann, 20 percent selected Mitt Romney and 16 percent selected Rick Santorum. The three non-participating candidates polled very poorly: Ron Paul garnered 3 percent of the vote, Rick Perry 2 percent and Jon Huntsman 0.3 percent.

Activists also identified their enthusiasm levels for each candidate:

True to the mission of the Tea Party Patriots, the call emphasized questions of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. The candidates clearly laid out their plans to repeal Obamacare, balance the federal budget, gut budget gimmicks, reduce regulation, reform the big three entitlement programs, eliminate crony capitalism, achieve tax reform and audit the Fed.

I listened in on the call last night and revisited my recorded audio again this morning in light of the results. Predictably, all of the candidates sounded their most conservative in this particular setting, but, both last night and this morning, I surprised myself by finding Mitt Romney the most impressive. He truly answered every question he was asked — no #dodges whatsoever.

And, at the end of the 10-minute segment, he delivered this inspired quote, which I found particularly compelling:

I believe that what makes America the most powerful nation in the history of the earth is that the Founders crafted a constitution that gives to individuals not only their political right to choose who will represent them in government, but also their economic right to choose their course in life. Right now we’ve got a president that wants to turn America into an entitlement society, where government takes from some to give to others, where government takes over certain enterprises and tries to guide the winners and losers of their choosing. My view is, the right course for America is to heed to the principles upon which we were based and remain as a merit society. … We therefore have a choice: Are we going to be an entitlement nation? … Or are we going to be a merit and opportunity nation?

Now, I’m kind of curious as to what the Tea Party activists heard that made them choose Newt Gingrich as their No. 1.


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

The way I see it people all across the country have every right to get involved in Iowa. What they decide affects all of us.

cheetah2 on December 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I ask, with genuine concern, why is this so?

History? Tradition? Malarky?

Nationwide primaries, in June. Convention in July. Election in November. I’m already worn out from all the Election 2012 talk.

Who is John Galt on December 19, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Have you folks even considered for moment what kind of far-left kook Obama is going to be when he doesn’t have to face the voters again, when it’s all or nothing? My God. It actually makes me sick to my stomach to think of the imperial presidency this man will have.

And if Romney allows himself to be pushed left, he’ll have an inconsequential presidency and be voted out in 4 years, just like GHWB. I don’t think that’s the legacy Romney is after.

Rational Thought on December 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Has no one noticed how every element of Obamacare, or the Pipeline, or any/every thing else always has a 2013 date on it? AFTER the, presumed, re-election of Teh 0?

Arggh!

Who is John Galt on December 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM

@writeblock: Newt’s the other extreme. He’s a feisty southerner–but far more prone to implode eventually by saying something foolish. And he’s not polling well against Obama or in the swing states.

Did you not read my comment?? Newt’s the extreme? Compared to Romney..hell yeah!! Prone to implode…saying something foolish? Give me that instead of being a pu$$Y!! Polling Well? I live in a ‘swing state” and Newt is up 20 in the polls here.

You sound like Romney…really. I want someone to actually say SOMETHING worthy my attention. I want someone to go balistic on the Marxist Socialist calling him for what he truly is…a Radical Social Marxist!!! American’s want a LEADER…not a panderer….say what you mean…without a liberal filter(no cursing of coarse). Newt is all that….and why he is connecting with people.
Does he have baggage…yeah I can live with it…but we are so headed down the wrong road towards European socialism we need someone with some nads that will speak in plain AMERICAN kick some A$$$$$$ attitude. Perry…has it too but he flusters a bit.
American’s WANT a leader….and NOW!!! Certainly not Romney…or Paul…another spineless panderer.

coach1228 on December 19, 2011 at 9:34 PM

I’m with Glenn Beck as far as questioning why the Tea Party would choose Gingrich as their guy. So he is the standard bearer for limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market capitalism? Are you kidding me? His comment about Romney giving his money back that he earned from bankrupting companies is such a “free market” thing to say. Tea Party is a joke if Newt is their guy. But since they get their marching orders from Rush and Levin it doesn’t surprise me. Yes, that same Rush who in 2007 said Romney held all three stools of conservatism.

teliason on December 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Mitt Romney is the worst candidate in GOP history. A Hollywood screenwriter couldn’t come up with a more ridiculous caricature of a candidate. Radical Left-wing track record. Mormonism. Pandering. Lies about his record. Insincerity. Lust for power. Across the board flip-flopping from liberal to “conservative” on every issue under the sun just so he can secure the Republican nomination. Political opportunism at its worst. The man is a danger to the Republican party and the entire country.

Here’s what Mitt Romney supported as Governor of Massachusetts:

1. Pro-abortion with taxpayer funding (added it to RomneyCare, kept it, refused to line-item veto it).

2. Pro-government mandated healthcare (RomneyCare has cost the state over 20,000 jobs and has actually increased the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts).

3. Pro-government mandates in general (“I like mandates” his own words on tape).

4. Pro-gay marriage with full state sponsorship (was first Governor to install it, earlier broke a law in his zeal to issue gay marriage licenses, then called opponents of his actions “right-wing”).

5. Pro-transgender education to children in public schools (promoted by Governor Romney’s administration, read Amy Contrada’s book: “Mitt Romney’s Deception” available at Amazon).

6. Pro-gay scout masters in the boy scouts (“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” U.S. Senate debate on Oct. 26, 1994. Massachusetts News, June 18, 2002.)

7. Pro-global warming caused by human activity (his own words on tape, “I believe the world is getting warmer and I believe humans are contributing to that”).

8. Pro-environmental regulations to combat global warming (imposed massive environmental regulations in Massachusetts, according to the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said. On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”).

9. Pro-taxes on businesses (closed loopholes, then raised business taxes by $300 million as Governor of Massachusetts, according to USA Today).

10. Pro-taxes and fees on the public (Romney raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts. He raised fees by roughly $500 million in his first year alone, a figure that was highest in the nation. The state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration).

11. Pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants (supports path to citizenship for illegals, his own words in 2006)

12. Romney says his views are “progressive.” (his own words).

Mitt Romney’s track record is indistinguishable from a radical Leftist’s. Romney’s record is even to the Left of most Democrats! Consider how people destroyed Mike Huckabee in ’08 over a couple of liberal blemishes in his record, but give a free pass to Mitt Romney who’s track record is even worse. Across the board liberal worse! The man is a left-wing deceiver and it’s the responsibility of real conservatives to expose him since the establishment GOP and “conservative” pundits aren’t doing it. I see through the man. Can’t you? He is utterly insincere. The man is a pathological liar. Is there a conspiracy to give this snake the nomination?

http://massresistance.org/docs

http://www.redstate.com/erick/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f

“I’m not convinced that a state would be better off with all Republicans. As a matter of fact, I’ve been in a state like that. Not a good thing.”
–Mitt Romney

“my views are progressive.”
–Mitt Romney

cyclo on December 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM

The push for an electronic medical record has been on for about a decade. The Obama administration made a lot of noise about it, but it was really more of a “Me too!” for them, since the Bush administration had already set it as a goal before Obama started running for president.

So all your hard work proves is that Gingrich is a capitalist, ready to take advantage of medical industry spending on an EMR. Whoopty-do.

Gingrich has his drawbacks. This, though, is just another desperate attempt to paint him as a liberal by someone promoting Romney, an even bigger liberal. I would hope no one is fooled.

tom on December 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

So now it’s not Obama’s fault but Bush’s that we have an electronic medical record system? Are you a blame-Bush Democrat? Listen, even granting your premise, it’s still a liberal Big Brother program than annihilates privacy and destroys the doctor-patient relationship by putting a government bureacracy in the driver’s seat as decision maker. That screws us royally. So whether you credit Bush or Obama, Newt was still on the wrong side. He certainly wasn’t on ours.

Nor is Newt a “capitalist” in the normal sense of that word. What he is is a “crony capitalist”. Instead of favoring the free market, Newt favors a system whereby government gets to pick winners and losers by handing out chunks of taxpayer cash to favored enterprises, always in the name of doing good, always to the detriment of the overall economy. Newt admitted as much in the last debate. He’s apparently all for centralized government control of certain markets.

As for being “desperate,” I’m simply putting out the facts. Others can draw their own conclusions. Interestingly enough Mark Steyn draws the same as mine: Newt’s no conservative, not by a long shot. He’s another politician who got rich pushing big government programs. Given his record, conservatives should recoil in horror. That they don’t I would attribute to lack of information. As more and more of the word gets out, however, his numbers keep dropping. You can fool some of the people some of the time…

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Your rant notwithstanding, the entire medical industry was pushing towards an electronic medical record without any government intervention. The big difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration is that the Bush administration was encouraging, not mandating, the move to the electronic medical record, while the Obama administration added penalties for not having one and incentives in the form of cash rewards for adding one.

In short, the electronic medical record is not the big issue you try to turn it into. What IS the big issue is Romneycare/Obamacare. How you get that an electronic medical record is big government socialism but a government mandate to buy government-approved insurance is not is hard to follow.

It’s not just the pot calling the kettle black. Romney’s record is at least twice as bad as Gingrich on this point.

Once again, Romney can only be defended by trying to make everyone else look worse.

tom on December 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM

The way I see it people all across the country have every right to get involved in Iowa. What they decide affects all of us.

cheetah2 on December 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I ask, with genuine concern, why is this so?

History? Tradition? Malarky

Who is John Galt

I am speaking specifically about Perry’s campaign. I am sure no one would disagree that a good showing in Iowa would help him immensely.

cheetah2 on December 19, 2011 at 10:11 PM

coach1228 on December 19, 2011 at 9:34 PM

I hear you.

Perhaps you noticed that this is the well-established pattern of the wormy, passive-aggressive RINO. That is, to send out all sorts of extreme signals about conservatives they find threatening, but when dealing with the Left and MSM, to take the careful and judicious tones of diplomacy. They persist in believing this will appease the Left and earn them points with the media. Gingrich is “zany” but Obama can’t be called a “Socialist.” Look at me, I’m sober and sensible Mitt!

It’s a sickness.

rrpjr on December 19, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Did you not read my comment?? Newt’s the extreme? Compared to Romney..hell yeah!! Prone to implode…saying something foolish? Give me that instead of being a pu$$Y!! Polling Well? I live in a ‘swing state” and Newt is up 20 in the polls here.

Happy to oblige. Newt called Ryan’s plan “rightwing social engineering.” Then he apologized to Ryan. Days after he attacked Romney’s record at Bain–which was properly perceived as an attack on free enterprise itself–he apologized to Romney. It wasn’t enough to blast judges for legislating from the bench. He had to threaten to send capitol police out to arrest them and haul them before Congress. Whatever you might think of the legality of this proposal, it scared a lot of Americans. Even conservatives were alarmed. Most of us believe the Legislative and Executive Branches are already far too powerful–why threaten our weakest branch? It’s another example of his penchant for big government solutions and making sensational statements.

As for your comment on the polls, you’re wrong. Show me the poll in a swing state where he’s 20 points ahead. Just the opposite. He’s losing independents by the drove. It’s true Newt may still be ahead AMONG REPUBLICANS in the polls taken FOR THE PRIMARIES. But not in head-to-head polls against Obama among ALL VOTERS. He’s behind Obama by 10 points nationally, according to Gallup. He’s down 9 points in PA against Obama and 12 points in FL. Romney is either tied or ahead in these same polls. So get your facts straight.

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 10:15 PM

A vote for Perry, Bachmann or Santorum is a vote for big lefty Romney.

cyclo on December 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Romney is the most Liberal Republican in the history of the party.

cyclo on December 19, 2011 at 10:19 PM

I see Bachmann, my true conservative, is neck and neck with Newt.

SaysWho on December 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Your rant notwithstanding, the entire medical industry was pushing towards an electronic medical record without any government intervention. The big difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration is that the Bush administration was encouraging, not mandating, the move to the electronic medical record, while the Obama administration added penalties for not having one and incentives in the form of cash rewards for adding one.

In short, the electronic medical record is not the big issue you try to turn it into. What IS the big issue is Romneycare/Obamacare. How you get that an electronic medical record is big government socialism but a government mandate to buy government-approved insurance is not is hard to follow.

It’s not just the pot calling the kettle black. Romney’s record is at least twice as bad as Gingrich on this point.

Once again, Romney can only be defended by trying to make everyone else look worse.

tom on Dec

The medical industry may have been trying to set up an electronic medical record apparatus without government intervention–but that was not Obama’s nor Newt’s intent. And therein lies your problem in supporting Gingrich. There’s no way you can claim his record does not consist in trying to centralize more power in the federal bureaucracy.

Newt was not only gung-ho for electronic federal record-keeping and individual mandates on the federal level, but he was also active behind the scenes in pushing Bush’s other big government entity, the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. For all of this he received 37 million dollars from a health care industry. Was all that money paid for his political influence, do you think–or for another history lesson?

His involvement with Freddie Mac was still another big government enterprise he used to screw the rest of us. He was as responsible as Barney Frank for the ultimate collapse of the housing industry–and for its impact on the rest of us.Is this the kind of politician we want for president? Is he the kind of guy who’ll reform the system?

Gingrich did a thousand times more to affect our lives by helping to pass the electronic records setup and by pushing for the Medicare expansion program and by his support for Freddie Mac than Romney could ever hope to achieve as governor of a medium sized state.

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM

What does that matter? He’s still on record as recently as last week saying he was in favor of repealing Obamacare.

It matters because of the fact that his change of tune is perfectly aligned to get him elected. It matters because in his heart, he knows that he did the right thing by making a moderate young kid with almost 0 chance of needing medical care pay for a high cost full service health contract (what they push as insurance is nothing of the sort), essentially turning that money over to someone else to spend on their own care, while he may have been planning to use that money to start a business, go visit family in another state, or pay for an engagement ring his would be fiance would see and then say yes.

That’s his position. If he got elected he’d be forced politically to carry through on his promise–or lose a chance for a second term.

How? Can we vote him back out of office 3 months in when he declares that getting rid of Obamacare would waste too much political capital while he is trying to fix the economy instead? Or can we vote him out of office 6 months in when he decides that his 2010 views were more right?

And anyway, how does this speak to my larger point–that he’s not “Obama-lite” as some are saying? Would Obama balance the budget? Romney did.

Romney was forced to, it is the is written into the Constitution and statues of the state. He had no choice but to balance the budget. He most certainly would not balance the budget as president.

Would Obama drill for oil or frack for natural gas? Romney would. Would Obama use the Ryan plan to tackle entitlements? Romney would.

I’ll just accept those as true for now.

In a thousand different ways Romney’s far to the right of Obama. He’s pro-life,

Sometimes he, other times he is not. He is so weak on the issue he is effectively not pro-life as he would never expend political capital to accomplish anything pro-life.

he’s pro-getting tough with China,

Uh huh. What will that accomplish? Didn’t they go all protectionist back when we ended up with a great depression? Instead of worrying what China does, why not fix what causes us to send jobs over there? Romney likes himself plenty of government control, he is a great businessman, without that control, what can he do with that experience? Nothing.

he’s pro-nominating conservative SC justices,

He had a change of heart? I hear he nominated majority liberal politicians to the bench in Massachusetts where the approving group essentially does not look at the politics of the judge. Is he really changed that much? Remember, he lies about this claiming that they would not approve conservative judges, but he never once tried, so how does he know and how would we?

he’s pro-cutting regulations,

Is there a big change from his governor days? In those days he was all for the regulatory state. I think he even attacked republicans on the matter of deregulation in some places. Remember, he is a powerful business man, he wants to be able to use that, and that means taking control, and that requires regulations. Ones that he deems appropriate.

he’s pro-smaller government.

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Have not seen that side of Romney. Which parts of the government has he been in favor of eliminating? Medicare ans Social Security are the two biggest parts of government, and they are unconstitutional, is he for getting rid of them? No, I guess no one is, but what can I hang my crusty socks on to imagine that he really is against big government?

astonerii on December 19, 2011 at 11:00 PM

@writeblock:…..Happy to oblige. Newt called Ryan’s plan “rightwing social engineering…..”which is no better than “left wing social engineering” quote out of a TOP Conservative’s book that Newt was refering too…. Then he apologized to Ryan…he NEVER “appologized”….he backed off and “let it go” due to B…A…L…LESS conservatives that want it “their way” or no way. Days after he attacked Romney’s record at Bain–which was properly perceived as an attack on free enterprise itself–he apologized to Romney. Again….it was a rebuttal to Romney’s assinine “give the FreddieMac money back” statement. That money he “earned” was legal…not illegal…and again…never appologized..rather saying…”he got me”…”got under my skin”. It wasn’t enough to blast judges for legislating from the bench. BLASTING a liberal judge??!!! Seriously!!! They should be immpeached tomorrow!!! Our great 3rd President…Thomas Jefferson did this and impeached a good number of judges because of the very thing Newt points out….ALL CORRECT!!

All your questions sound like you’ve been watch Fox News lateley who is in the bag for Romney. At least O’Reilly tonight asked Romney some real questions and again…..Is Obama a Socialist?
Romney said: “I’M NOT INTO NAME CALLING”??!!! WHAT THE FFFFFF!!!!
HE IS A COWARD AND A LIBERAL SYMPATHIZER!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE….AND HE HAS NO…ABSOLUTELY NO (leave this blank)!!!!!
AMERICAN’S WANT NOW WITHOUT A SECOND TO SPARE….A LEADER WITH SOME MOXY TO CALL THIS MARXIST SOCIALIST PRESIDENT…..A…..MAXIST SOCIALIST!!! ROMNEY WILL NOT!!
OBAMA HAS AND IS…. TEARING US APART…LIMB BY LIMB…AND WE WONT CALL HIM BY WHAT HE IS?? THERE IS ONLY PERSON THAT I HEARD THAT SAID THAT HE WOULD CALL OBAMA FOR WHAT HE IS AND AT THIS POINT I REALY DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT HE SAID IN SPEACHES OR LECTURES 10-15 YEARS AGO…SERIOUSLY….NUFF SAID!!!

coach1228 on December 19, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Romney is the biggest big government guy there is in the race.

Anyone who knows about his track record in Massachusetts knows this.

The amount of government expansion under Romney in Massachusetts was unprecedented for a state.

cyclo on December 19, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Mitt Romney’s track record is indistinguishable from a radical Leftist’s. Romney’s record is even to the Left of most Democrats! Consider how people destroyed Mike Huckabee in ’08 over a couple of liberal blemishes in his record, but give a free pass to Mitt Romney who’s track record is even worse. Across the board liberal worse! The man is a left-wing deceiver and it’s the responsibility of real conservatives to expose him since the establishment GOP and “conservative” pundits aren’t doing it. I see through the man. Can’t you? He is utterly insincere. The man is a pathological liar. Is there a conspiracy to give this snake the nomination?

http://massresistance.org/docs

http://www.redstate.com/erick/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f

“I’m not convinced that a state would be better off with all Republicans. As a matter of fact, I’ve been in a state like that. Not a good thing.”
–Mitt Romney

“my views are progressive.”
–Mitt Romney

cyclo on December 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Let’s look at the record. In the last fifty years or so, we’ve been nominating moderates. But what kind of moderates were they? They were all–with the sole exceptions of Goldwater and Reagan–fiscal moderates. Not a single one except those two were fiscal conservatives. Nixon was a big government Democrat-lite politician. So was Ford. So were both Bushes. So was Dole. So was McCain. All of these Republicans were establishment favorites. Not one was a fiscal conservative.

Now look at who we rejected in 2008. Rudy was a fiscal conservative but a social moderate. He had been part of the Reagan administration, was a fiscal reaganite, was a frontrunner in all the national polls. He was for lowering taxes, balancing budgets, consolidating agencies, privatizing public properties, firing deadwood bureaucrats and fighting the unions and the race-hustlers who got in the way of sound business practices. All of these things were a part of his record. He was also a national hero.

But he was despised by the social conservatives for being a social moderate and he got no traction whatsoever in the early primaries. McCain, who was pro-life, was a legislator instead of an executive, a sunbelter instead of an urban NE politician, and he had very little to recommend him in terms of sound economics. In addition he polled weakly in the swing states. No matter. He still won SC and NH by default, passing Dr. Dobson’s litmus test with flying colors.

What happened to Giuliani is now happening to Romney, another executive, another Northeasterner, another fiscal conservative who hails from a blue state. To social conservatives, he’s just not pure enough. He has waffled on the issues they care most about, like abortion and gay rights. It’s not that he’s not correct on these issues but his record is inconsistent, it’s tepid, he seems too willing to accommodate the left on some issues. Never mind he was working in a hostile blue state context just like Rudy. That’s not good enough for someone from the red states not accustomed to politicians who must operate in hostile terrain. They want perfection–but only on the social issues. They care less about fiscal policies.

Yet here’s the paradox. The important central swing states–PA, OH, MI and WI–are comprised of voters exactly like Romney, fiscally conservative but socially moderate. He’s a good fit–just as Rudy was. He wouldn’t do well in SC or TX but he’d do just fine in PA and OH. The polls show this also. So we have to ask ourselves some basic questions.

Should we demand unreasonable pefection on the social issues and win a lot of primaries only to lose the general election or do we accommodate ourselves to reality and go with the guy who’s most electable? Right now we’ve got a system that actively screens out fiscal conservatives in favor of social conservatives. It tolerates fiscal moderates but not social moderates. Hence its history of producing fiscal moderates who push for bigger and bigger government over and over.

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 PM

@writeblock:…..Happy to oblige. Newt called Ryan’s plan “rightwing social engineering…..”which is no better than “left wing social engineering” quote out of a TOP Conservative’s book that Newt was refering too…. Then he apologized to Ryan…he NEVER “appologized”….he backed off and “let it go” due to B…A…L…LESS conservatives that want it “their way” or no way. Days after he attacked Romney’s record at Bain–which was properly perceived as an attack on free enterprise itself–he apologized to Romney. Again….it was a rebuttal to Romney’s assinine “give the FreddieMac money back” statement. That money he “earned” was legal…not illegal…and again…never appologized..rather saying…”he got me”…”got under my skin”. It wasn’t enough to blast judges for legislating from the bench. BLASTING a liberal judge??!!! Seriously!!! They should be immpeached tomorrow!!! Our great 3rd President…Thomas Jefferson did this and impeached a good number of judges because of the very thing Newt points out….ALL CORRECT!!

All your questions sound like you’ve been watch Fox News lateley who is in the bag for Romney. At least O’Reilly tonight asked Romney some real questions and again…..Is Obama a Socialist?
Romney said: “I’M NOT INTO NAME CALLING”??!!! WHAT THE FFFFFF!!!!
HE IS A COWARD AND A LIBERAL SYMPATHIZER!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE….AND HE HAS NO…ABSOLUTELY NO (leave this blank)!!!!!
AMERICAN’S WANT NOW WITHOUT A SECOND TO SPARE….A LEADER WITH SOME MOXY TO CALL THIS MARXIST SOCIALIST PRESIDENT…..A…..MAXIST SOCIALIST!!! ROMNEY WILL NOT!!
OBAMA HAS AND IS…. TEARING US APART…LIMB BY LIMB…AND WE WONT CALL HIM BY WHAT HE IS?? THERE IS ONLY PERSON THAT I HEARD THAT SAID THAT HE WOULD CALL OBAMA FOR WHAT HE IS AND AT THIS POINT I REALY DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT HE SAID IN SPEACHES OR LECTURES 10-15 YEARS AGO…SERIOUSLY….NUFF SAID!!!

coach1228 on December 19, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Stop yelling.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 12:11 AM

If Newt isn’t the nominee then I’m pretty much done with the Republican party. I want to be no part of a repeat of the disaster of 2008.

tkyang99 on December 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM

It matters because of the fact that his change of tune is perfectly aligned to get him elected. It matters because in his heart, he knows that he did the right thing by making a moderate young kid with almost 0 chance of needing medical care pay for a high cost full service health contract (what they push as insurance is nothing of the sort), essentially turning that money over to someone else to spend on their own care, while he may have been planning to use that money to start a business, go visit family in another state, or pay for an engagement ring his would be fiance would see and then say yes.

I hope it IS perfectly aligned to get him elected. Isn’t that what we want–to defeat Obama? As for “doing the right thing,” that’s for individual states to decide. Under the Constitution any laws not specified therein are reserved to the states and the people. Romney complied fully with that. As he said, “If the people don’t like it, they can change it.” He was faced with a problem and came up with a solution. It may not have been a good one, but it was perfectly legitimate. States, not the federal government, are supposed to be experimental laboratories. You can’t equate what MA as a state did with what Congress did in passing Obamacare.

Obamacare was passed despite clear indications the public wanted no part of it and despite Constitutional impediments. Obama acted exactly as Perry did in the Gardasil incident. Both men were highhanded and indifferent to public opinion in a way that Romney was not. The public, the lgislature and the Governorship were all in agreement.

As fir Romney’s promise to sign any repeal of Obamacare, do you really think a man who you admit is so sensitive to public opinion that he would turn on a dime if the electorate wished it, would disregard the clear wishes of Congress and the public after a major election? If he did, he’d be sealing his fate in terms of a second term. Think about it. There’s no way a candidate says something tantamount to “read my lips” and doesn’t afterwards pay the consequences. So, yes, of course he’ll sign a repeal.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 12:38 AM

If Newt isn’t the nominee then I’m pretty much done with the Republican party. I want to be no part of a repeat of the disaster of 2008.

tkyang99 on December 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM

If you don’t like the way 2008 went, blame the primary system that gave us another fiscal moderate. Giuliani was the only candidate equipped to win in the general. But he was a fiscal conservative from the NE and wasn’t pure enough–just like Romney. Instead you want to repeat the past and nominate another big government fiscal moderate. McCain all over again.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Have not seen that side of Romney. Which parts of the government has he been in favor of eliminating? Medicare ans Social Security are the two biggest parts of government, and they are unconstitutional, is he for getting rid of them? No, I guess no one is, but what can I hang my crusty socks on to imagine that he really is against big government?

astonerii on December 19, 2011 at 11:00 PM

He’s on board with Ryan’s plan–or something close–which deals with the entitlements. He recently spoke about this. He wouldn’t eliminate these programs, but he would make them sustainable. He’s for pulling back on regulations, particularly those coming out of the EPA. He understands the need to create an economic environment that is business-friendly. He would do some serious cutting. I think he’s well-equipped to do the job, given his successful business background.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 1:07 AM

I believe that what makes America the most powerful nation in the history of the earth is that the Founders crafted a constitution that gives to individuals not only their political right to choose who will represent them in government, but also their economic right to choose their course in life.
Government does not grant me nor anyone any rights.

The Constitution is crafted so that government recognizes that all rights are vested in the people and that we grant some powers and utilization of negative liberties by the State to be safeguarded and to safeguard society.

This is pretty basic stuff, how can any politician who claims to be conservative get it wrong?

ajacksonian on December 19, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Exactly.

GuitarMark on December 20, 2011 at 1:29 AM

If you don’t like the way 2008 went, blame the primary system that gave us another fiscal moderate.

Go further back. Look at the role of the media in determining who the lazy voters decided to vote for. Remember, the media built it up as McCain vs the “anti-McCain” and in each state it was a different Conservative filling the role of “anti-McCain”. The result? McCain finished first or second while Huckabee, Paul, Romney, etc finished first or second. McCain finished first or second MORE and it didn’t take long before he was clearly ahead of the rest.

Gingrich is a distraction. The man is out doing book signings for his wife instead of campaigning.

He’s on his third wife. Do you seriously believe women voters will trust him? Do you really think evangelical voters will vote for him? huh uh.

popularpeoplesfront on December 20, 2011 at 1:39 AM

The medical industry may have been trying to set up an electronic medical record apparatus without government intervention–but that was not Obama’s nor Newt’s intent. And therein lies your problem in supporting Gingrich. There’s no way you can claim his record does not consist in trying to centralize more power in the federal bureaucracy.

You’re quite mistaken. An electronic medical record has nothing whatsoever to do with a federal bureaucracy. It’s simply the keeping of hospital records in an electronic rather than a paper format. The records still belong to the hospital.

Therefore, it proves nothing at all as you imagine.

Furthermore, I don’t really support Gingrich. I just recognize that a lot of this criticism of Gingrich is hypocritical, since it comes from fans of Romney, who is far less conservative.

His involvement with Freddie Mac was still another big government enterprise he used to screw the rest of us. He was as responsible as Barney Frank for the ultimate collapse of the housing industry–and for its impact on the rest of us.Is this the kind of politician we want for president? Is he the kind of guy who’ll reform the system?

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Also horrendously overstated. Gingrich’s role in Freddie Mac was pretty limited, whereas Barney Frank was one of the main people circling the wagons against the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Gingrich’s association will certainly hurt him, but it’s hyperbole to assign him the same role as Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.

tom on December 20, 2011 at 2:09 AM

writeblock on December 19, 2011 at 9:20 PM

No point in bothering with people that are so hung up on hating Mitt Romney that they are dumb enough to think he’s the same as Obama. They’re the same people that are likely to think Gingrich is more conservative.

They’re willing to let the whole country go down in flames so that they can make the point that they don’t like the fact that Mitt is more conservative now than he used to be.

Ruiner on December 20, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Of course an electronic medical record system need not imply government control. But you’d be naive to think Gingrich didn’t know as head of a health consultancy that this was the very system being used in Europe and that it ultimately would involve centralizing power in some federal bureaucracy. Of course he knew. He also had to know it would be a two-step process. The stimulus bill–which he praised for setting aside 19 billion for the system–was step one. The national health care bill would be step two.

I won’t quibble about who was more to blame regarding Freddie Mac, Gingrich or Barney Frank. Both approved of the enterprise. Both believed it would do a lot of good, both ignored warnings by more careful economists that dangers lay ahead, and both used political influence to keep the program alive and kicking. The only difference was that Frank used his influence for his relatively paltry congressional salary whereas Newt sold his influence for more than a million and a half dollars. Whoever was more to blame, the average homeowner still got screwed.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 4:09 AM

It’s not a question of his conservatism, I just don’t like Romney’s chances against Obama. And no I’m not fooled by all these media manipulated polls claiming Romney to be the most “electable” and neither should you be.

All that these polls tell you is: Does Romney have a good chance to beat Obama if the elections were held NOW? Of course he would, but so would almost every other candidate. But the election isn’t next week, it’s 11 months from now.

And we all know chances are..things will be a bit better 10 months from now.

Will Romney be able to mount a convincing campaign to replace Obama in an improving economy? If unemployment sneaks under 7%? (I guess you can argue, in that case, NO ONE can beat Obama, but let’s not be that pessimistic yet)

Only scenario where I see Romney winning is if the economy stays just as bad or gets even worse…

So in the more likely scenario, I just feel that Newt gives us a better shot…he is a better candidate running on his own merits and accomplishments. He can run as an ‘out of the box’ candidate, a candidate with ideas who can inspire people.

tkyang99 on December 20, 2011 at 5:11 AM

He’s on board with Ryan’s plan–or something close–which deals with the entitlements. He recently spoke about this. He wouldn’t eliminate these programs, but he would make them sustainable. He’s for pulling back on regulations, particularly those coming out of the EPA. He understands the need to create an economic environment that is business-friendly. He would do some serious cutting. I think he’s well-equipped to do the job, given his successful business background.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 1:07 AM

You do know that Ryan’s plan pretty much puts all the hard decisions off by about 20 years into the future and most of the savings 30 years plus? It is basically a plan to make a plan to maybe do something if congress in 30 years is so inclined to possibly want to do something. The ballanced budget occurs about the same date that most congressmen currently in office are already dead.

astonerii on December 20, 2011 at 8:31 AM

I’m with Glenn Beck as far as questioning why the Tea Party would choose Gingrich as their guy. So he is the standard bearer for limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market capitalism? Are you kidding me? His comment about Romney giving his money back that he earned from bankrupting companies is such a “free market” thing to say. Tea Party is a joke if Newt is their guy. But since they get their marching orders from Rush and Levin it doesn’t surprise me. Yes, that same Rush who in 2007 said Romney held all three stools of conservatism.

teliason on December 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM

+1

Tea Party lost all credibility jumping from Bachmann, to Perry, to Cain and now Newt F’n Gingrich. It reflects a tremendous lack of principle and judgment. A true Tea Partier would have absolutely recoiled at the thought of Newt’s revolving door with Freddie Mac, and would also not cheer loudly at Gingrich quoting FDR as argument to stack the judges. How is the Tea Party today any different from Evangelicals Neocons? They’re not. The Tea Party has been co-opted by them.

haner on December 20, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Boy, the cream always rises to the top, doesn’t it? The fine folks with the Tea Party Movement sure know a true conservative when they see one, and that person is Speaker Newt Gingrich! I can’t wait to see him win Iowa in a couple of weeks, and then go on very quickly to win the nomination, defeat Obama in the fall, and become our next President! You go, Newt!!!

jfs756 on December 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

If Newt isn’t the nominee then I’m pretty much done with the Republican party. I want to be no part of a repeat of the disaster of 2008.

tkyang99 on December 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Why don’t you just leave now then, instead of embarrassing the whole party by making Newt Gingrich of all people the head of it.

Ruiner on December 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I surprised myself by finding Mitt Romney the most impressive. He truly answered every question he was asked — no dodges whatsoever.

Tina, why lend creedence to him with a compliment like this? Do you really believe Romney? The guy has switched positions on every single issue, on abortion, homosexuality, on amnesty for illegal aliens, ObamaCare, etc., etc., on every issue he’s done complete flip flops. And, so, now we should believe him because he answered every question he was asked without any dodges? No Tina, stop giving repeat offenders the benefit of the doubt. If this was a regular guy repeatedly lying to you you wouldn’t give him the time of day. Thanks.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Now, I’m kind of curious as to what the Tea Party activists heard that made them choose Newt Gingrich as their No. 1.

Me too. Bachmann has been fighting for the same things the Tea Party has and they know she is dependable. Something is not right about the poll numbers or those being polled.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Oh, and PS Tina, don’t be afraid of offending the establishment. Just be nice to everyone the same way Mike Huckabee is (he’s gifted at it) but always tell the truth. We should be for truth and against error. Period. Most importantly, go to the Lord in prayer and He will always protect you (Psalm 56:9).

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I think the real issue here is there isn’t a good tea party candidate in this lot. And which Tea Party are we talking about here? Because the original Tea Party message keeps getting muddled with all of these social conservative issues. I’m seriously afraid this is going to be a reversal of 2004. No one really voted for Kerry, they just voted against Bush. We’re going to end up losing this because we’re only voting against Obama. We’re only behind our candidate because he or she is better than the alternative.

McSmack on December 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Will Romney be able to mount a convincing campaign to replace Obama in an improving economy? If unemployment sneaks under 7%? (I guess you can argue, in that case, NO ONE can beat Obama, but let’s not be that pessimistic yet)

Only scenario where I see Romney winning is if the economy stays just as bad or gets even worse…

So in the more likely scenario, I just feel that Newt gives us a better shot…he is a better candidate running on his own merits and accomplishments. He can run as an ‘out of the box’ candidate, a candidate with ideas who can inspire people.

tkyang99 on December 20, 2011 at 5:11 AM

I have never been one to believe Obama would be a pushover. Even if his poll numbers stay flat, right out of the gate he has 196 electoral votes to our 180. He’ll have around 1 billion dollars to use to smear his opposition. He’ll have another half billion in union money fighting on his behalf. So it’ll be tough no matter who we choose.

But Obama desperately needs the central swing states. Without them he can’t win. Most especially he needs PA. Romney has midwestern roots and polls well against Obama in PA. He’s considered fairly moderate on the social issues and fiscally conservative because of his business background. So he’s a good fit in those key states.

Gingrich may seem like more of a warrior, but his sheer glibness is prone to get him into trouble–as we’ve seen time and again. He’s also woefully disorganized and I can’t imagine he would mount an effective national campaign any more than McCain did. Romney’s super-organized and has been waiting to run for four years. Gingrich has only run in his GA district so it’s questionable how well he’d do. My guess is not well at all.

In truth neither man seems to be our best shot. Romney’s too gentlemanly and Newt’s too much of a loose cannon. I would have preferred Daniels or Giuliani or Christie or even Sarah. But if the choice is between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, I go with the more fiscally responsible and conservative candidate–Romney. He’s not perfect, but a safer bet. Gingrich would be a risk.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM

You do know that Ryan’s plan pretty much puts all the hard decisions off by about 20 years into the future and most of the savings 30 years plus? It is basically a plan to make a plan to maybe do something if congress in 30 years is so inclined to possibly want to do something. The ballanced budget occurs about the same date that most congressmen currently in office are already dead.

astonerii on December 20, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Romney would hold the line on spending and work with Ryan to sustain the entitlements. Most of all he’d aggressively go after natural gas and oil to expand the economy and put us back in the safety zone. He would manage the deficit problem rather than seek to eliminate it. It took us decades to get where we are and it’ll take decades more to get us out of the mess. The next president can only begin the process.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Tea Party lost all credibility jumping from Bachmann, to Perry, to Cain and now Newt F’n Gingrich. It reflects a tremendous lack of principle and judgment.

The Tea Party never jumped to any candidate. It was the The Tea Party Patriots who did the jumping. The Tea Party is not an organization but a movement. The Tea Party Patriots can’t speak for the whole movement.

writeblock on December 20, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3