Rush to Newt: Stop whining about negative campaigning

posted at 1:55 pm on January 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Who’s up for another establishment RINO taking a whack at Newt Gingrich for his complaints over getting outboxed in Florida?  Click the image to watch:

I’m with Rush on this point, and I’ll offer another data point for his argument.  After the first debate in Florida, Newt Gingrich complained about NBC’s actions to minimize audience reaction and “served notice” that he would not allow that to happen again.  Of course, the general election debates don’t allow audience reaction either, which made Gingrich’s “great debater” argument somewhat suspect after offering that excuse — but what came next was a headscratcher.  After Mitt Romney outclassed Gingrich in the second Florida debate on Thursday and clearly had the crowd behind him, Gingrich’s team then griped that Romney had “stacked” the audience.

Gingrich isn’t mad that Romney and his allies are running attack ads where Gingrich and his allies aren’t; they’re mad that they have a lot more money to spend in doing so.  There isn’t anything wrong with negative campaigning per se anyway, as long as it’s honest, and in this campaign, the inaccuracies and cheap shots have gone in both directions.  As Rush says, if Newt’s whining about this, how can we expect him to handle what a billion-dollar campaign will lay out against him in the fall?

On Rush’s last point, though, I’ll disagree.  Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too.  He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.  Plus, Romney doesn’t have to delve into the subjects of 2008 to hit Obama hard; back then, Obama didn’t have any record at all to defend, which made most of the open attack lines personal.  After three years in office, Romney has a cornucopia of crony capitalism, Obamanomics, czars, Porkulus, and Fast and Furious attack lines to use.  Romney is likely to attack in less spectacular fashion than Gingrich, but that caution will keep  those attack lines from imploding like they have on occasion with Gingrich, too.  That doesn’t make Romney a great conservative candidate, but it does at least make him competitive.

Update: I had “crony capitalism” on the list twice.  Well, it is a great line of attack …

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

So now the anti-romneys are talking about physical fights?

kage on January 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

In the context of handling stress and confrontation. Gosh, did you know that Allen West faced combat? John McCain? JFK? The fainting couch is over there—>

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Ya nice poll. I can find others, like on Drudge, that show Romney +1 in swing states. Whats your point?

kage on January 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It’s not a poll. It’s several, all showing Willard going down in flames. Drudge Report might as well be renamed the Rommey 2012 Report. They’ll cherry pick one outlier positive Romney poll and ignore the 10 negative ones.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Michelle Obama dropped $50k on lingerie

Mmmm, imagine that sashaying up to you wearing nothing more than a baby doll neglige and a smile.

CorporatePiggy
on January 30, 2012 at 3:43

You should be banned for posting that and putting such images in the minds of innocent people!

I’m reporting you to AP/ED AND AtttttaaaaccccckkkkkWaaatchhhh!

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama Marquette University Obama 48, Romney 40 Obama +8

Michigan: Romney vs. Obama EPIC-MRA Obama 48, Romney 40 Obama +8

Obama NBC News/Marist Romney 41, Obama 49 Obama +8

Anyone see a pattern?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Silence from the Mittbots on the polls all showing Romney down 6% nationally and close to 10% in swing states like MI and FL.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Hereyago.

http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-romney.html

Mitt’s certainly not ahead but he’s not in a bad position for a challenger who’s still in the primaries going against an incumbant. It will be a tough slog, no doubt. But he’s in a heck of a lot better position than Gingrich.

http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-gingrich.html

I would rather be behind by six in Florida than behind by 17.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama Marquette University Obama 48, Romney 40 Obama +8

Michigan: Romney vs. Obama EPIC-MRA Obama 48, Romney 40 Obama +8

Obama NBC News/Marist Romney 41, Obama 49 Obama +8

Anyone see a pattern?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Last one should have read:

Florida: Romney vs. Obama NBC News/Marist Romney 41, Obama 49 Obama +8

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I would rather be behind by six in Florida than behind by 17.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Another poll has him behind by 8. Split the difference, -7 is not looking good no matter how you spin it. This was a state Bush won twice and McLame only lost by 3 or 4 and a state that went deep red in 2010.

And Willard is down 7% after a week of him being in the state and running ads 24/7. Non-Republicans have seen Romney in FL and they don’t like what they see at all.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

If Willard attacks Obama with 10% of the venom he used against Newt, I’ll eat your shorts.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

.
Ed, Girls- C’mon – Make up my mind.
Is Mittens squishy spineless milquetoast preppie- or is he this Ruthless Mittigater of the spin the destroys men withour regard to their infidelity OR his lack of EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE !!!!!!
WHICH IS IT ALREADY ??????

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Thankfully, most involved survived, though there was tragically one fatality. Mitt sustained a severe blow to the head and a broken arm and was initially feared dead on the scene, according to reports. Supposedly, he was in a coma. I’m glad he survived and has enjoyed a long, happy life.

Definitely wondering about any lasting impacts from a major head injury. He was lucky to survive.

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Ed, Girls- C’mon – Make up my mind.
Is Mittens squishy spineless milquetoast preppie- or is he this Ruthless Mittigater of the spin the destroys men withour regard to their infidelity OR his lack of EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE !!!!!!
WHICH IS IT ALREADY ??????

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Was that English?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

If this is the case, then I propose the following. Get rid of all legislators and turn every vote over to pure votes from we the people.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Government by yobs and the momentary, irrational emotions of a vulgar mob. Yeah, that’s the ticket! For Stalin!

After you read the Federalist Papers, try Aristotle, Plato and James Madison on why pure democracy is the worst from for a polity and always leads to tyranny.

I, for one, don’t envision rule by OWSers as preferable to a Republic.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Definitely wondering about any lasting impacts from a major head injury. He was lucky to survive.

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

That explains the stupid smile on his face in between speech lines.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Was that English?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Reformed Middle Kurdish, I believe.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

As I said remember in 2008, only 3 years ago, Rush and the rest of “so-called” conservative talk radio BACKED Romney. They all endorsed him. Now they are against Romney? That is absurd to the highest degree!
apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM

They backed him because they knew the disaster McCain was.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Every one of the top so-called conservative talk show hosts were SHILLING for Mitt Romney from pretty well the start of the 2008 Republican primaries… they didn’t back Romney because they knew McCain was a disaster… they backed him because Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s, and other talk radio hosts carrier, Clear Channel, was being aquired by Romney’s Bain Capital in 2006…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

It’s the vitriol of the anti-Mitters that turns me off. Why take any such person seriously. My take away from them is not their argument, which frequently they don’t even have, but their unhingedness striking snobbishness, self righteous arrogance, and complete tone deafness to Mitt’s flaws.. You not only write them off, it also makes you question the whole anti-Mitt group.

Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM

FIFY,

Do you Mitt fans even read what you type to us? The constant complainng about how stupid Newt supporters are, how immoral, how unedumacated…

It was never about Newt for me so much as I do not trust Romney, like many of the others, but we’re all trailer park pro-wrestling fans if we don’t like the guy being shoved at us. We’ve been called everything by the Mitt crew,.. and even when we just put our heads down and pushed back,

you still whined about us…

You take the few irrational comments about Romney, and paint us with a very broad brush..

We know Newt’s flaws, and sorry to snag the narrative you Mittbots got rolling, but I wasn’t a Mitt fan in 08 either. A great many of us weren’t. At this point, you smell a victory,

finally..

and just have to spike the ball to alienate as many conservatives who do not like Mitt as possible. Nice way to unify the vote guys.. makes many of us think, why not go write in, Romney’s going to loose anyway, same as McCain no matter how much you say he wants it. He will not cross the liberal New England ethic of always play nicey nice with the liberals..

mark81150 on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

.
And with this logic – your boy Newton shouldn’t even be on stage !! sucking ANY oxygen. Good point though.

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Totally. Can’t dare have those rube express their wishes. Best we let the old boys network tell us what we need. They always know what’s best for us.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Another poll has him behind by 8. Split the difference, -7 is not looking good no matter how you spin it. This was a state Bush won twice and McLame only lost by 3 or 4 and a state that went deep red in 2010.

And Willard is down 7% after a week of him being in the state and running ads 24/7. Non-Republicans have seen Romney in FL and they don’t like what they see at all.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

And there are two polls that have Mitt up by five and one that has him tied. Do you purposely filter out facts that don’t fit your narrative or is something that doesn’t fit your worldview too frightening to consider and so you can’t even acknowledge it?

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

And with this logic – your boy Newton shouldn’t even be on stage !! sucking ANY oxygen. Good point though.

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

So your defense of Willard boils down to He’ll lose, but the margin will be smaller.

Wonderful.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM

If Romney gets the nod and goes after Barack as ruthlessly as he has conservatives, I’ll eat my shorts.

SouthernGent on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

…. and … bookmarked. :)

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

And there are two polls that have Mitt up by five and one that has him tied. Do you purposely filter out facts that don’t fit your narrative or is something that doesn’t fit your worldview too frightening to consider and so you can’t even acknowledge it?

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

You are confused.

Florida Republican Presidential Primary Insider Advantage Romney 36, Gingrich 31, Santorum 12, Paul 12 Romney +5

That’s a primary poll.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

we don’t always agree,… but this is dead on..

So your defense of Willard boils down to He’ll lose, but the margin will be smaller.

Wonderful.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM

mark81150 on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Why Rush Limbo Supports Mitt Romney And Won’t Tell You

If you wanna chase this rabbit down the hole and find out what’s REALLY going on behind the scenes then do a little reading about how Romney’s Bain Capital owns one of the largest media groups in the United States, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., which broadcasts Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox new radio and others. Then read this and my other post here.

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Sure, Rush is a closet Romney supporter – for the money. Because willing $50 million to his cat and $250 million to his wife isn’t nearly enough.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

The one thing people with money fame and power want is…. more money fame and power…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Romney is going to need some ruthlessness against Obama. But I would rather have Romney or Santorum representing me than that lying, cheating, backstabbing Gingrich.

crosspatch on January 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Shouldn’t you be sleeping./ Seriously though if you’re going to be over there for a while longer. Put together a list of needs, be glad to send out some stuff. If in fact you are where I think you are.

Bmore on January 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Bmore…IF you are still online
Sorry had to step away for a bit as we were getting “visited” on the base by some unexpected “rocket visitors” that were keeping us hopping IF you track what I am saying…

I appreciate the offer. I’ll have to figure out how to get you my address without blasting it ALL over HA here. But, yes, I am located in RC-East in AFG.

Thanks again!

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I mean, lying, cheating, backstabbing, whiner, Gingrich.

crosspatch on January 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Ed, Girls- C’mon – Make up my mind.
Is Mittens squishy spineless milquetoast preppie- or is he this Ruthless Mittigater of the spin the destroys men withour regard to their infidelity OR his lack of EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE !!!!!!
WHICH IS IT ALREADY ??????

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM</blockquot

Mitt is a nasty sleazy man who prtends to be above it all but sends his men to do his dirty work.
When faced with Obama he will cower, try to extend an olive branch in order to get the Indies, but the attacks of the media will be so bad that they will mop the floor with him.

evergreenland on January 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

So Rush tells Newt to stop complaining about the negative campaigning, but he spent weeks going to bat for Cain when he believed he was being attacked by the media, and some others unfairly. Rush went to bat for Palin for weeks also because of the same reason, the harsh and negative media attacks. Does he think that Obama, and the media would have gone easy on Cain or Palin?

Diesel on January 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I would add that Romney’s instincts seem conservative–even if he’s not completely attuned intellectually. On social issues his Mormonism is naturally conservative. On fiscal matters, his pragmatic business background is exactly what we’ll need to get out of the mess we’re in. It was his job to rescue companies–or the Olympics–from financial difficulties. What could be more useful at this juncture? That’s why he was quicker to appreciate Paul Ryan’s plan than Gingrich was. He saw immediately its practical value. Gingrich was less interested in Ryan’s plan than in scoring points with a clever put-down. But he’s also quicker to sense what plays well with a conservative audience. The minute he sensed criticizing Ryan did not play well with conservatives, he switched.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I would add that Romney’s instincts seem conservative–even if he’s not completely attuned intellectually. On social issues his Mormonism is naturally conservative. On fiscal matters, his pragmatic business background is exactly what we’ll need to get out of the mess we’re in. It was his job to rescue companies–or the Olympics–from financial difficulties. What could be more useful at this juncture? That’s why he was quicker to appreciate Paul Ryan’s plan than Gingrich was. He saw immediately its practical value. Gingrich was less interested in Ryan’s plan than in scoring points with a clever put-down. But he’s also quicker to sense what plays well with a conservative audience. The minute he sensed criticizing Ryan did not play well with conservatives, he switched.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Great analysis! Concur

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You are confused.

Florida Republican Presidential Primary Insider Advantage Romney 36, Gingrich 31, Santorum 12, Paul 12 Romney +5

That’s a primary poll.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

So contradictory data never makes it through. I wonder if you’ll even be able to see this comment then.

Miami Herald 1/24-1/26 FL: Romney 48, Obama 44
Suffolk 1/22-1/24 FL: Romney 47, Obama 42
Quinnipiac 1/23: Romney 45, Obama 45

So there are recent polls that show Mitt leading Florida and there are recent polls that have Obama leading Florida. The most recent poll from every polling firm who has looked at Florida shows Obama with a substantial lead over Gingrich. Obama’s leads in those polls are 17, 9, 9 and 11. The poll where Newt is down 17 is NBC/Marist and they have Romney down by 8 so given the show consistently show the Republican candidate performing the worst it might be a methodology issue but I can’t be sure and I’m not interested enough to look at the internals to figure out if they oversampled Democrats. I’ll leave that to you since you’re original point has been thoroughly nuked and now you’ve got not much else to stand on.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Do any of you Romney fans TRULY believe that the author of Romneycare is going to work to repeal Obamacare? I don’t believe it for a second. Newt has his flaws but Romney is Obamalight.

Samantha

I don’t believe it. Do you believe federal mandate Newt who supported Romneycare is going to do it? I don’t.

I have a newsflash for you….neither of them is going to do it, especially after the Supreme Court rules that it’s constitutional. The time to defeat Obamacare was in 2008. Instead, we chose to teach McCain and the Republicans a lesson, and screwed ourselves in the process. Apparently, Republicans enjoyed it so much, we’re ready to screw ourselves again by letting Obama have 4 more years.

xblade on January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

evergreenland on January 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

.
Where do they sell these crystal balls everyone has ?

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

NO DONKEY….you rode the metro? I always took you for a “slug”….:)

SwabJockey on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Why Rush Limbo Supports Mitt Romney And Won’t Tell You

If you wanna chase this rabbit down the hole and find out what’s REALLY going on behind the scenes then do a little reading about how Romney’s Bain Capital owns one of the largest media groups in the United States, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., which broadcasts Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox new radio and others. Then read this and my other post here.

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Disclosure statement: I loathe Romney and do not support him. BUT, Romney is no longer part of Bain capital, and Bain capital gave money to the Obama campaign in 2008.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on January 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Do you read the information in the links and think about it or do you just post how you feel… Mitt Romney co-founded Bain and receives millions from them every year… and besides giving to Democrats they are one of Romney’s top contributors…

O/T, …I just heard that a UK newspaper is reporting that Michelle Obama dropped $50k on lingerie.

See the wall next to you… run full speed into it…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Where do they sell these crystal balls everyone has ?

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Oh it is easy, just look at what happened in 2008, with McCain.

evergreenland on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The latest Gallup poll shows Romney one point ahead of Obama in the only states that really matter in November–the twelve swing states. Gingrich, oth, is far behind.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I propose the following. Get rid of all legislators and turn every vote over to pure votes from we the people.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Sure, but can we have some context?

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I’m seeing a pattern here….

runawayyyy on January 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Do any of you Romney fans TRULY believe that the author of Romneycare is going to work to repeal Obamacare? I don’t believe it for a second. Newt has his flaws but Romney is Obamalight.

Samantha

.
Youve drank too much mitthate flavored koolaid. CONGRESS has to do the work. The SENATE will have to approve- ALL PESIDENT ROMNEY HAS TO DO IS SIGN IT- as he has promised- OR ELSE it is a “Read my lips” waterloo for Mittens. President Mitt’s job aint that hard in this Repeal Process – People are just “misspeaking” as the repeal is not as hard as some want you to think it is.

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Alchemist19, the Republican establishment were there in 2008… they took Huckabee out. What happend in 2008 was they pushed for Romney and ended up with McCain. The difference in 2011 is that the power elite have to be bolder because their opposition in greater with the Tea Party people and so many other disgruntled Americans…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

If in 2008 the Republican establishment, whoever they are, saved us from nominating a devoutly religious Democrat then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

What are you talking about… I’m referring to the parties operatives SHILLING for a liberal establishment wall street Republican in both 2008 and 2011… explain your post here…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Oh it is easy, just look at what happened in 2008, with McCain.

evergreenland on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

.
Reagan could not have stopped the Obie machine in 2008, or the wall st. meltdown or the unpopularity of GW Bush – Obama the Uniter was a done deal. Its amazing how smart people cannot remember 3-4 yrs ago

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Good post. Something to think about going forward…

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Thank you. And thank you for your service.

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

What are you talking about… I’m referring to the parties operatives SHILLING for a liberal establishment wall street Republican in both 2008 and 2011… explain your post here…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

A heavy dose of sarcasm.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

All these people claiming Romney will not attack Obama are just pathetic really. I agree with Ed on that point. You don’t get to be very good at venture capitalism by not being ruthless. Romney wants to win, and he loves winning, and he will be extremely ruthless against Obama. That is in his DNA, and his history bears it out.

Chudi on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Clear Channel Communications, Inc., which broadcasts Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox new radio and others. Then read this and my other post here.

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Also Levin who’s been criticizing Romney for about two weeks now.

gh on January 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Much respect to gh… yes the Mark Levin Show airs on Bain’s Clear Channel too so no suprise Levin is defending that rabid Romney SHILL Matt Drudge…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:58 PM

As far as the head to head matchups with Obama go – at this point in time, Obama seems to be looking stronger for one reason and one reason only. The GOP Primaries are making the republicans look far worse than they are. Prior to the start of the primaries, all GOP candidates scored higher than they are now when being offered up against Obama, with Romney pretty much beating Obama consistently. These match up polls will once again calm down when a GOP nominee is finally chosen. The back and forth attacks by both Newt and Mitt are showing the Republican party is quite a negative light.
I am quite comfortable (crossing my fingers behind my back) that Mitt will be the GOP nominee and will start showing much higher numbers against Obama when things start to calm down. I used to be the biggest Gingrich fan on the face of the earth (not including any moon colonies, of course) but a little research on the web and seeing some public appearances by Newt since leaving congress (via Cspan and other news outlets) I have lost much respect for the man. I will always see him as a hero for his work in the lates 80′s and the earlier 90′s as the conservative superman he truly was. But his more recent political activities (partnering with Hillary, Pelosi, John Kerry and even Rev Al Sharpton) during his work on K Street made me realize he is far too easily distracted, eager to keep his face in the public view and open to selling himself to the highest bidder. Romney on the other hand, cannot be “bought” and I truly think there is no ego issues there compared to Newt. As time goes on, we see Newt acting more like a cry baby and if it’s any hint as to how he will act if he has to run against Obama – we are in big trouble.

BabysCatz on January 30, 2012 at 5:02 PM

On Rush’s last point, though, I’ll disagree. Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too. He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

Rush is right. Romney will do very little against Obama because the moderate “gotta win those independents” prevents that. And McCain could go for the jugular quite often as well — against Republicans. Just ask J. D. Hayworth.

The main reason though that Romney won’t go hard after Obama is that Romney’s only real gripe against Obama is that O is president and Romney is not. There’s no indignation or passion against Dem policies with Romney. Otherwise he would’ve been doing something over the past 3 years besides trying to collect political IOUs to cash in in primaries. Romney won’t win the general election.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

What are you talking about… I’m referring to the parties operatives SHILLING for a liberal establishment wall street Republican in both 2008 and 2011… explain your post here…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

A heavy dose of sarcasm.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I don’t get along with dudes who think they owe a debt of gratitude to the establishment for tearing down Huckabee and Bachmann…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Reagan could not have stopped the Obie machine in 2008, or the wall st. meltdown or the unpopularity of GW Bush – Obama the Uniter was a done deal. Its amazing how smart people cannot remember 3-4 yrs ago

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

If McCain had come out against TARP and hadn’t suspended his campaign, he could’ve pulled it off. But then he wouldn’t have been the moderate darling of the pollsters and media that got him the nomination in the first place.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Aight I’m done posting for now….Peace

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Reagan could not have stopped the Obie machine in 2008, or the wall st. meltdown or the unpopularity of GW Bush – Obama the Uniter was a done deal. Its amazing how smart people cannot remember 3-4 yrs ago

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

McCain/Palin were beating the Obie machine right up to Wall Street meltdown, when McCain suspended his campaign to run off to Washington… which had caused the meltdown in the first place.

We’ll never know how it might have gone had McCain stayed on the campaign, railed against Washington, and specifically blamed the Congressional Democrats (you used to be allowed to do that in election campaigns) for causing the mess, and rallied the voters to deny them any more destructive power. Even with the Bush fatigue, Wall Street, record high Dem constituency turnout, and the worst GOP presidential campaign since Bob Dole’s, McCain lost the popular vote by 7%– solid win for Obama but not a landslide.

Who knows, possibly McCain’s encomium to Obama is what lost it for him:“He is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.”

No one wants to hear “just in over his head” about Obama this time around.

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

It thought the whole goal of the anti-Romney crowd was to get someone to kick Obama’s arse?

We now have a guy who is ruthlessly destroying Newt with his criticisms and beat him badly in debates. Yet the Newtron’s are still convinced Newt is the only one tough enough to handle Obama?

Tater Salad on January 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It thought the whole goal of the anti-Romney crowd was to get someone to kick Obama’s arse?

We now have a guy who is ruthlessly destroying Newt with his criticisms and beat him badly in debates. Yet the Newtron’s are still convinced Newt is the only one tough enough to handle Obama?

Tater Salad on January 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM

So far Romney’s hard-hitting criticism of Obama has consisted of “He’s a nice guy in over his head”. And Romney won’t be any tougher on Obama. It’s the fatal moderate disease: you can’t criticize libs TOO heavily if at all for fear of alienating “moderates” and “independents” who won’t vote for you anyway.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If McCain had come out against TARP and hadn’t suspended his campaign, he could’ve pulled it off. But then he wouldn’t have been the moderate darling of the pollsters and media that got him the nomination in the first place.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Some conservatives still don’t grasp what happened in 2008. McCain lost because he was a fiscal illiterate. He was every bit as much at a loss to know what to do as Obama. Had Rudy been our nominee he would have sprung into action. The crisis was right up his alley. Ditto for Romney. But both were knocked out of contention by a base that has scant regard for real fiscal conservatism. That McCain got as far as he did was owing to a process that screens only for purity on social issues but lets pass a host of candidates who are fiscal moderates or worse. It’s why, except for Goldwater and Reagan, we keep nominating Democrats lite.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I don’t get along with dudes who think they owe a debt of gratitude to the establishment for tearing down Huckabee and Bachmann…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Who said anything about Bachmann?

Mike Huckabee is in essence a devoutly religious Democrat (a phrase I admit I stole from Allah because it’s brilliant) and whoever it was that torpedoed his candidacy did the Republican Party a great service. Whether it was an establishment, talk radio or just a wide swath of conservative voters who rejected economic populism is up for debate but I do clearly recall Rush even let slip once in a moment of exasperation that at the time McCain seemed to be a better option than the Huckster.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Rush is jumping Newt’s ship.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

You’re not listening.

sloopy on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree…Rush is not jumping ship, he knows people hate whiners and he’s trying to warn Newt, IMO…and I don’t think Rush is so much in the tank for Newt as his is firmly anti-Mitt…he’s obviously going to vote for Newt IMO, but I think his first Not-Romney choice was Perry.

ellifint on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I agree also. Rush is anti-Mitt/anti-Establishment. He’s got his own mind and advises Newt and the other candidates quite often.

But, I have to say, all of these talkers give their advice to the candidates constantly and they all have differing opinions on the strategies the rivals should follow.

Newt is right about the Romney establishment machine; Sarah is right about them crucifying Gingrich ie the Romney staffer saying this isn’t about winning, this is about destroying Gingrich. I heard Romney going after Gingrich on a news clip today; something to the effect of it’s really sad what’s happening to Newt. Oh please. Romney is evil incarnate.

IndeCon on January 30, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Some conservatives still don’t grasp what happened in 2008. McCain lost because he was a fiscal illiterate. He was every bit as much at a loss to know what to do as Obama. Had Rudy been our nominee he would have sprung into action. The crisis was right up his alley. Ditto for Romney.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Really? So why didn’t Rudy and Romney come out strongly against TARP?

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM

But both were knocked out of contention by a base that has scant regard for real fiscal conservatism. That McCain got as far as he did was owing to a process that screens only for purity on social issues but lets pass a host of candidates who are fiscal moderates or worse. It’s why, except for Goldwater and Reagan, we keep nominating Democrats lite.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Prove, by the way, that Romney and Rudy are more “fiscally conservative” than McCain.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too. He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

Here’s the thing: ruthlessness in fighting for the presidency does not necessarily mean attacking Obama. Based on his political history, it’s more likely (I think) that his ruthlessness will take the form of distancing himself from conservatives and trying to win over borderline Dems/Independents. If he were serious about doing anything else, he would have made himself the leading voice in opposing Obama’s failed policies BEFORE the primary season kicked off. He’s had three years. (And even after the primary season kicked off, he still didn’t become a leading voice in opposing Obama–despite having now and then pointed out the president’s obvious flaws.)

So he probably won’t try to please the media like McCain did, but he probably will take it easy on Obama to please Dems/Indies…so he doesn’t come across as too extreme for them. (I think that’s why he qualifies his “repealing Obamacare” talk with “let’s keep the good parts” comments–to appeal to the Dems/Indies.)

butterflies and puppies on January 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM

angryed

The American people aren’t going to elect a trigamist whiner who dreams of putting dinosaurs on the Moon either.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Really? So why didn’t Rudy and Romney come out strongly against TARP?

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Why should they have come out “against” it? They should have voted “FOR” it, like Tea Party favorite and solid fiscal conservative, Paul Ryan, did.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Newt is right about the Romney establishment machine; Sarah is right about them crucifying Gingrich ie the Romney staffer saying this isn’t about winning, this is about destroying Gingrich. I heard Romney going after Gingrich on a news clip today; something to the effect of it’s really sad what’s happening to Newt. Oh please. Romney is evil incarnate.

Mitt is evil incarnate . Next you’ll have him taking candy from babies.

gerry-moderate republican-mittbot-looking for candy

gerrym51 on January 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I am TIRED of the talking heads carrying water for Newt Gingrich. Yeah, yeah, yeah…. we get it, he’s been a regular on the AM radio circuit for YEARS so they’re all good buddies. But these guys are out of their minds if they think people can’t see that there are two opposing Newt Gingrich’s for every issue.

At this point, cynical as it might be, I have to wonder if they’re not seeing dollar signs in another Obama term. Certainly, business is better for pundits when they’re with the minority party, and let’s face it… Obama makes their job EASY.

In this one little clip, while Limbaugh is supposedly telling Gingrich to stop whining like a little girl, he manages to 1)provide an excuse for Gingrich whining like a little girl, and 2)come up with a baseless accusation that Romney won’t take it to Obama in the general.

My advice to radio guys like Limbaugh… remember that your audience is divided, and probably more than HALF of us aren’t buying the spin on Newt. It never makes sense to alienate half your audience when what you’re selling is basically Yourself. Actors and musicians can’t seem to get that little fact when they take up politicking, but hey… most of them are so right brained they’re leaning. I’d have thought these radio pundits were using at least some of the left hemisphere.

Murf76 on January 30, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Many people ignore all the good that can come out of putting Dinosaurs on the moon. Unfortunately I can’t enumerate the positive benefits because it would crash the server.

/Jurassic snark

SparkPlug on January 30, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Newtron blows the anti-Mormon dog whistle,

Gingrich escalated the attack in his remarks in an airplane hangar, saying Americans deserve a “government that respects our religions.”

“I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every … religion on the planet, I would like him to respect our religion,” he said. A campaign spokesman confirmed Gingrich was referring to Romney.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-says-mitt-hostile-to-religious-liberty-112839.html

Desperation, thy name is Newtron.

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

He’s [Romney] a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was

Thank you Ed.

Romney is a fighter. If you people want to see Obama unceremoniously booted out in November, we’ve got the right man to do it.

scotash on January 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Rush is right. Romney will do very little against Obama because the moderate “gotta win those independents” prevents that. And McCain could go for the jugular quite often as well — against Republicans. Just ask J. D. Hayworth.

The main reason though that Romney won’t go hard after Obama is that Romney’s only real gripe against Obama is that O is president and Romney is not. There’s no indignation or passion against Dem policies with Romney. Otherwise he would’ve been doing something over the past 3 years besides trying to collect political IOUs to cash in in primaries. Romney won’t win the general election.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Both Limbaugh and Levin are already climbing down from their all-out assaults on Romney. Levin is quibbling now about “character” rather than principle. Now the problem is Romney’s character, not his lack of conservative credentials. It’s a weak argument, given Newt’s abysmal lack of character–and history of jettisoning conservative principles.

Rush is just as bad, positing assumptions that are demonstrably false. He says now that Mitt won’t be mean enough against Obama. But he already is being mean. His ads in FL attacking Obama’s policies are powerful and compelling. He doesn’t need to get particularly nasty, he just needs to skewer Obama by telling the truth.

And there’s this great difference this time around. In 2008 Obama was a blank slate–there was scant record to attack. And the idea of electing our first African-American was terrifically appealing to a lot of Americans. That’s over with this time around and there’s enough on the record to damn Obama’s tenure. Romney doesn’t have to assassinate Obama’s character to be tough. He just has to go after his administration the way he’s already doing so effectively in FL.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM

The main reason though that Romney won’t go hard after Obama is that Romney’s only real gripe against Obama is that O is president and Romney is not. There’s no indignation or passion against Dem policies with Romney. Otherwise he would’ve been doing something over the past 3 years besides trying to collect political IOUs to cash in in primaries. Romney won’t win the general election.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Yes, nicely said! And to support your idea, George Soros says that there is little difference between Romney and Obama.
read the story here.

Here are a couple of quotes:

“Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in,” Soros told Reuters in a videotaped interview.

If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.

JeffVader on January 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Romney is evil incarnate.

IndeCon on January 30, 2012 at 5:46 PM

LOL. Take a walk, dude.

haner on January 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Willard is electoral poison.

Electorally he is the equivalent of Michelle in a nightie

wraithby on January 30, 2012 at 7:29 PM

If Romney gets the nod and goes after Barack as ruthlessly as he has conservatives, I’ll eat my shorts.

SouthernGent on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

…. and … bookmarked. :)
Axe on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I’ll chip in for the bar-b-q sauce (raspberry vinaigrette?) to help that snack go down.

profitsbeard on January 30, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Where do they sell these crystal balls everyone has ?

FlaMurph on January 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Tiffany’s.

profitsbeard on January 30, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I don’t get along with dudes who think they owe a debt of gratitude to the establishment for tearing down Huckabee and Bachmann…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Who said anything about Bachmann?

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee are true conservative Christians with grassroots support. They’re on the same page politically and share mutual respect for one another. Now Mike Huckabee, the candidate that I was supporting is not part of the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment hates him. They hate him! They went after him in 2008. That’s why he didn’t run again, this year, because if he does they’re gonna go after him again. They don’t want him or Michele Bachmann to be the candidate who I supported in 2012. The candidate of the Republican establishment as everyone knows is Willard Romney. Willard “Mitt” Romney who would be a disasterous Republican opponent to Barack Hussein Obama. He’s another stuck up, super rich, arrogant individual who can’t relate to average people and who’s a complete flip flopping phony on every issue. He’s.. ah nevermind… in any event, the traitor, anti-Christian, sick, fifth collumnist garbage Republican establishment supports Willard Romney.

Mike Huckabee is in essence a devoutly religious Democrat (a phrase I admit I stole from Allah because it’s brilliant)

I am a John 3:3 born again Christian about as far right as you’re gonna see around here and I know the Bible fairly well and I can tell you that Mike Huckabee is not a devoutly religious Democrat. That is a ridiculous statement… it’s not brilliant and if allahpundit said it in the past I don’t think he believe that now. I changed my opinion on a couple candidates since 2007-2008 myself so why can’t he…

and whoever it was that torpedoed his candidacy did the Republican Party a great service. Whether it was an establishment….

If you support the establishment your opinions are useless to me..

I do clearly recall Rush even let slip once in a moment of exasperation that at the time McCain seemed to be a better option than the Huckster.

Go back listening to your Rush Limbo idol and don’t talk to me anymore…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

my my my. when newt’s lost rush….

Rush, Ingraham, Malkin, Coulter, etc. etc.
Who woulda known they were part of the dirty establishment all these years…/sarc

Bradky on January 30, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Both Limbaugh and Levin are already climbing down from their all-out assaults on Romney.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM

What “all-out assualts”? Good grief, to you Mittbots if someone isn’t gaga over Romney they’re assaulting him.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Romney is a fighter. If you people want to see Obama unceremoniously booted out in November, we’ve got the right man to do it.

scotash on January 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM

He’s a fighter against Gingrich because there’s really no downside to it for Romney. Against Obama he’ll be no better than McCain, since even if Romney WERE inclined to take it to Obama (which he isn’t) he wouldn’t want to ruin that moderate strategy of courting those “crucial” independents by being rude to Teh One. Romney will be playing defense throughout, and I’ll be loving it.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Prove, by the way, that Romney and Rudy are more “fiscally conservative” than McCain.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Nobody should have to prove Rudy’s fiscal credentials. Only someone really ignorant about his achievements would think to doubt them. But just for the record, he was a self-admitted Reganite who ran a budget bigger than most states. He lowered taxes 22 times, consolidated agencies, fired deadwood bureaucrats, privatized public properties, fought the race hustlers, the unions, the media, introduced workfare before it was ever heard of, and put NYC in the black for the first time in decades when pundits said it could never be done. All this while revolutionizing crime-fighting and drastically lowering the rate of violent crime, then going around the country showing other big cities how it’s done. All this after–as US Attorney–he sent corrupt Wall Street billionaires (Milkin and Boesky) and the heads of the five NY Mafia families to prison–and before he became a hero on 9/11. Here’s what American Thinker writer Gary Jason said of Rudy:

In my lifetime, I have witnessed only three cases of what I consider masterful governance: Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Rudy Giuliani’s mayoralty, and Margaret Thatcher’s prime-ministership. I have certainly witnessed other prominent historical figures — great moral figures such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul all come readily to mind here. But for taking an unwieldy government, in the midst of crisis, in the face of massive resistance by rent-seeking special interests and ideologically opposed elites, and forcing major economic and social improvements in the body politic over which one has been given executive power, those three were peerless.

As for Romney, he followed a similar path, though less successfully, doing what Christie is now doing in NJ, trying his best on a liberal terrain to apply conservative principles. Here’s what Club for Growth had to say about him:

While it is true that Governor Romney did not impose any broad-based tax hikes despite pressure from liberal special interests and an inherited budget deficit, he imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax “loophole” closures, together with spending cuts, in order to eliminate the budget gap…

That said, Governor Romney’s single term contained some solid efforts to promote pro-growth tax policy. In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%—a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002. Governor Romney also signed legislation that provided property tax relief to seniors in 2005, along with a gimmicky two-day sales tax-free shopping holiday…

Governor Romney receives credit for reducing actual spending unilaterally in Fiscal Year FY2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislature’s throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash “nearly every part of state government” to close a $3 billion deficit…

As governor, Romney pushed for important changes to Massachusetts expansive welfare system. Although federal welfare reform passed in 1995, Massachusetts was woefully behind, relying on a waiver to bypass many of the legislation’s important requirements. Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts’ welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.

The blemish on his record as a conservative is, of course, Romneycare.

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 10:56 PM

The main reason though that Romney won’t go hard after Obama is that Romney’s only real gripe against Obama is that O is president and Romney is not. There’s no indignation or passion against Dem policies with Romney. Otherwise he would’ve been doing something over the past 3 years besides trying to collect political IOUs to cash in in primaries. Romney won’t win the general election.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

You obviously haven’t seen his ads attacking Obama. They have been called powerful and hard-hitting by some pundits. You need to check them out. Here are a couple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBcwBF96OsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3zCWZHQTw&feature=related

writeblock on January 30, 2012 at 11:16 PM

What “all-out assualts”? Good grief, to you Mittbots if someone isn’t gaga over Romney they’re assaulting him.

ddrintn on January 30, 2012 at 9:31 PM

You do realize that every post you make like this is hypocritical when you go back and look at your never ending defense/assault on palin critics?

Bradky on January 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Looks like the fat man has sung. So sorry Newt supporters.

Bradky on January 30, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee are true conservative Christians with grassroots support. They’re on the same page politically and share mutual respect for one another. Now Mike Huckabee, the candidate that I was supporting is not part of the Republican establishment.

You do realize that besides being woefully ignorant about foreign affairs, Huckabee as governor raised taxes and increased spending, don’t you? No? Could it be you didn’t know this because you just weren’t interested? Over and over so-called “conservatives” like yourself show a surprising lack of interest in fiscal conservatism or foreign policy. Yet you don’t consider yourselves moderates but “true conservatives”–and reserve the term “moderate” for NE Republicans like Giuliani and Romney and Christie. You don’t seem to realize–or care–that Huckabee is actually an old-fashioned tax-and-spend politician, a fiscal moderate–and that’s putting it mildly. He’s actually indistinguishable economically from any Democrat.

writeblock on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

So now the Newtists have discovered another RINO – Rush! Well, after Coulter, Bolton, and Rubio, why not?

They shed whatever integrity they had when they signed up with Newt (it’s required, you can’t look at his record and support him without lying about it).

The fact is the reason the hundreds of Republicans who served with Newt in Congress haven’t been lining up to endorse him is because they know him for what he is: a backstabbing self-promoter who was already throwing conservatives under the bus back when John McCain was still a 95%-er.

We didn’t throw him out of the Speaker’s chair for ethics (although only 28 Republicans voted against reprimand, so much for the lie they were all bogus), but for being a jerk and an ineffective one at that.

Adjoran on January 31, 2012 at 2:04 AM

As a Texan, I realize that I have little choice in who the Republican nominee is in the first place, thanks to the rather ridiculous way our party nominates candidates. But I think this year that might be a good thing. When this whole process started, I wasn’t terribly pleased with any of the candidates. Mitt isn’t terribly conservative and will likely keep the status quo in Washington, Newt can be brilliant but is wildly erratic sometimes and comes with not just one but SEVERAL skeletons in the closet, Santorum is a likeable enough guy, but couldn’t even win his OWN STATE in the last election campaign he ran. He doesn’t look or sound presidential.

The conservative pundits that I like to listen too, like Michelle and Ann, as well as many politicians I respect, like Christie, West, and Ryan, have either come down on opposite sides, or not endorsed anyone – and they’re closer to these people and their issues than I am!

Rush says vote for the most conservative. Buckley says vote for the most conservative who is electable. Well… damn. That’s just great folks. Thanks for the guidance.

eyesights on January 31, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee are true conservative Christians with grassroots support. They’re on the same page politically and share mutual respect for one another.

I still don’t know why you had to bring Michele Bachmann into this and yes, Huckabee had grassroots support but that doesn’t make him a conservative.

Now Mike Huckabee, the candidate that I was supporting is not part of the Republican establishment.

I never said he was.

The Republican establishment hates him. They hate him! They went after him in 2008. That’s why he didn’t run again, this year, because if he does they’re gonna go after him again.

That’s your opinion and you’re more than entitled to it. Kinda makes your guy look gutless if that’s really what the reason was but you probably know him a lot better than I do.

They don’t want him or Michele Bachmann to be the candidate who I supported in 2012. The candidate of the Republican establishment as everyone knows is Willard Romney. Willard “Mitt” Romney who would be a disasterous Republican opponent to Barack Hussein Obama. He’s another stuck up, super rich, arrogant individual who can’t relate to average people and who’s a complete flip flopping phony on every issue. He’s.. ah nevermind… in any event, the traitor, anti-Christian, sick, fifth collumnist garbage Republican establishment supports Willard Romney.

Lots of anger there which, again, you’re more than entitled to. I just hope you’re going somewhere with it.

I am a John 3:3 born again Christian about as far right as you’re gonna see around here and I know the Bible fairly well and I can tell you that Mike Huckabee is not a devoutly religious Democrat.

I don’t question that anyone is a born again Christian or their knowledge of the Bible. But that in and of itself doesn’t mean anything when it comes to trying to figure out who is and is not a Democrat. I know enough born again Christian devoutly religious liberal Democrats to know the two are not mutually exclusive.

That is a ridiculous statement… it’s not brilliant and if allahpundit said it in the past I don’t think he believe that now. I changed my opinion on a couple candidates since 2007-2008 myself so why can’t he…

If you think it’s ridiculous then take it up with Allahpundit. All I did was say I thought it was funny and that there was a great deal of truth to it. I don’t know if AP still feels that way but based on the response you already got above I’m not alone.

If you support the establishment your opinions are useless to me..

I never said that either. I said I was grateful for whoever took Huckabee out because in my opinion he would have been a disaster for the party. If “the establishment” (who I don’t think really exists in the first place but that is a whole other discussion) did it then I would give them a pat on the back and a hardy “Thank you!”, not that I’m in lockstep with them. And besides, as I alluded to I don’t buy into the fact that the Republican establishment exists. I think more than anything Huckabee was taken out by the Republican base getting to know him.

Go back listening to your Rush Limbo idol

I probably think a lot less of Rush than many on here. I enjoy his show (been listening since the 90′s and haven’t missed a show in almost eight years) but I recognize he’s an entertainer serving his own agenda. I listen because he’s entertaining in between his specious arguments.

and don’t talk to me anymore…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

How about we meet in the middle on this one? I’ll only talk to you when I have something worth saying. That sounds fair to me.

alchemist19 on January 31, 2012 at 4:59 AM

That’s rich. Take your own advice, Rush, and stop whining entirely.

Oh wait…you can’t or you’d be out of a job!

MelonCollie on January 31, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Elections are not Rush’s strong suit. Listen more to how the media will spin the political story when Rush speaks. His instincts are almost always right on that part, telling you how a certain political event will be spun. Choosing the GOP nominee has never been his forte.

Zomcon JEM on January 31, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee are true conservative Christians with grassroots support. They’re on the same page politically and share mutual respect for one another. Now Mike Huckabee, the candidate that I was supporting is not part of the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment hates him. They hate him! They went after him in 2008. That’s why he didn’t run again, this year, because if he does they’re gonna go after him again. They don’t want him or Michele Bachmann to be the candidate who I supported in 2012. The candidate of the Republican establishment as everyone knows is Willard Romney. Willard “Mitt” Romney who would be a disasterous Republican opponent to Barack Hussein Obama. He’s another stuck up, super rich, arrogant individual who can’t relate to average people and who’s a complete flip flopping phony on every issue. He’s.. ah nevermind… in any event, the traitor, anti-Christian, sick, fifth collumnist garbage Republican establishment supports Willard Romney.

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You do realize that besides being woefully ignorant about foreign affairs, Huckabee as governor raised taxes and increased spending, don’t you? No? Could it be you didn’t know this because you just weren’t interested? Over and over so-called “conservatives” like yourself show a surprising lack of interest in fiscal conservatism or foreign policy. Yet you don’t consider yourselves moderates but “true conservatives”–and reserve the term “moderate” for NE Republicans like Giuliani and Romney and Christie. You don’t seem to realize–or care–that Huckabee is actually an old-fashioned tax-and-spend politician, a fiscal moderate–and that’s putting it mildly. He’s actually indistinguishable economically from any Democrat.

writeblock on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

There’s no other way to explain it. There’s something mentally wrong with you people. Mike Huckabee governed a state for almost 11 years in the most HOSTILE environment where 90% of his legislature was Democratic and you are complaining about his fiscal track record which was pretty good considering??! Uh… it baffles me how people can hate on a guy who’s been the single GREATEST candidate for the Republican party since Ronald Reagan. There’s been nobody greater than Mike Huckabee. Nobody has handled themeselves with the grace, the humbleness, and the class, as this man has carried himself over the past 15 years of his political career. How can you hate on a man of faith? On a man, who like I said represents everything what this nation should be about. You guys are evil. You’re demons is what you are and you guys deserve to be slayed like Saint Michael slayed and defeated the Devil. How can you not like a man who’s always trying to bring people together at all times. How can you not like a man who goes into his oppositions best aspect of their argument with no fear. He went into every debate in 2008 and won more debates than anyone else with no fear and beat the others at their own game and that’s a fact! He has that Reaganesque type of sunny disposition. That sense of optimism that people like. That the American people like. He would have been by far the strongest Republican candidate in the 2012 election. We would have had the best chance of beating Obama with Huckabee so this is a very, very, dissapointing situation, very sad that he’s not running, but there’s always RINO ZOMBIES like you around to make it worse. You people make me sick. I just don’t trust you people. So don’t message me anymore you’re just another puppet with strings attached that Karl Rove, Ann Coulter and the establishment play with…

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM

and don’t talk to me anymore…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

How about we meet in the middle on this one? I’ll only talk to you when I have something worth saying. That sounds fair to me.

alchemist19 on January 31, 2012 at 4:59 AM

Like I said man, there’s something mentally wrong with you people. You suffer from a mental illness, OK. There’s no reason to hate a guy who’s humble, classy, and has represented the Republicans better. Nobody has represented the Republicans better than him. A guy who’s won almost every debate he is in. I can’t think of any other reason why you hate on him other than these bozo political celebrities, and you know, other people who are mad at him for not co-signing with the RINO establishment, whatever. Who cares. You people are just disgusting. You’re just horrible, horrible, human beings.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Rush to Newt: Stop whining about negative campaigning

I agree with Rush. I also think that Newt is just too damn thin-skinned to be President.

SC.Charlie on January 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’ll chip in for the bar-b-q sauce (raspberry vinaigrette?) to help that snack go down.

profitsbeard on January 30, 2012 at 7:41 PM

*shrug*

He knows the rules. :)

Axe on January 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Hate Response Team

There’s no other way to explain it. There’s something mentally wrong with you people. Mike Huckabee governed a state for almost 11 years in the most HOSTILE environment where 90% of his legislature was Democratic and you are complaining about his fiscal track record which was pretty good considering??! Uh… it baffles me how people can hate on a guy who’s been the single GREATEST candidate for the Republican party since Ronald Reagan. There’s been nobody greater than Mike Huckabee. Nobody has handled themeselves with the grace, the humbleness, and the class, as this man has carried himself over the past 15 years of his political career. How can you hate on a man of faith? On a man, who like I said represents everything what this nation should be about. You guys are evil. You’re demons is what you are and you guys deserve to be slayed like Saint Michael slayed and defeated the Devil. How can you not like a man who’s always trying to bring people together at all times. How can you not like a man who goes into his oppositions best aspect of their argument with no fear. He went into every debate in 2008 and won more debates than anyone else with no fear and beat the others at their own game and that’s a fact! He has that Reaganesque type of sunny disposition. That sense of optimism that people like. That the American people like. He would have been by far the strongest Republican candidate in the 2012 election. We would have had the best chance of beating Obama with Huckabee so this is a very, very, dissapointing situation, very sad that he’s not running, but there’s always RINO ZOMBIES like you around to make it worse. You people make me sick. I just don’t trust you people. So don’t message me anymore you’re just another puppet with strings attached that Karl Rove, Ann Coulter and the establishment play with.

apocalypse on March 7, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3