November 18, 2011
Gingrich and Hypocrisy

So the left is hammering Gingrich over his "hypocrisy." But I can't figure out what they are talking about. Keep in mind that I do not really like Gingrich as a politician, and while I would vote for him over Obama, I would never nominate him for pretty much any federal elective office, and maybe not a state office either. So it's not like I am defending My Guy here.

But what did Gingrich do that was so wrong? After he was no longer in office, he was paid by Freddie Mac for a service, presumably performed it. There's no evidence of any kind that he lobbied, or that he made any decisions. So he criticizes the people who made the decisions, and people who took money from them while in office. So ... where's the hypocrisy? He criticized A and B, but he did neither A nor B.

Carl Bernstein, Boy Reporter, actually brought up the Clinton impeachment today as "another" Gingrich hypocrisy. You see, Gingrich went after Clinton for having an affair, and Gingrich had an affair, too! Small problem, though: Gingrich went after Clinton for perjury, not having an affair.

Now, I generally despise cries of "hypocrisy" substituting for actual criticisms. But in this case, if Gingrich were trying to make a campaign off attacking people for doing thing he himself did, that would certainly be worthy of comment. But so far, there is no evidence of any kind that he has done that. It's like if I criticized Tim Tebow for not having a good arm, and then someone said, "well, you're a hypocrite because YOU don't have a good arm either!" Yes, I don't have a good arm ... but that's completely beside the point, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite. Gingrich didn't criticize people for consulting for, or being employed by, Freddie Mac, and as best we can tell, all he did was offer them advice.

And this "hypocrisy" thing has become such an article of faith, despite evidence of actual hypocrisy, that anything Gingrich says is by definition hypocritical, apparently. On Morning Joe, they noted that Gingrich worked with an organization for health reform, that didn't fully agree with conservative views on health reform. But Gingrich has always worked with people and organizations -- from Nancy Pelosi to Ted Kennedy -- that he doesn't fully agree with, if he thinks they can help push an issue in the right direction. But to the leftists, this is just more "evidence" that he is a hypocrite.

And this is, by the way, at the same time that they complain that the right doesn't work enough with people "across the aisle." Yet when Gingrich does precisely that, he is a "hypocrite," or in the words of one of the panelists, "a terrible human being."

The saddest thing to me is that these people pretend to be rational, stating quite clearly that logic and reason are on their side, but then they abandon it to go after someone they decide to dislike.

If I am missing something here, by all means, let me know. I did leave out the amount of money Gingrich was paid -- somewhere around $1.5 million to his company, much of that going to himself, certainly -- but unless you can explain rationally why the size of money reflects poorly on him, instead of positively, I won't really care. I wish I could get paid that much money to give my opinions, and I see no reason to demonize anyone for it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at November 18, 2011 08:56 AM | Email This
Comments
1. '...and as best we can tell, all he did was offer them advice.

With key on operative part 'as best we can tell'.
Like you, I'm NO FAN of this guy. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 18, 2011 09:05 AM
2. Duffman: all you are doing is noting where there is room to question, not room to assert. Yes, it is possible he is lying or covering up. But until he does, you cannot reasonably assert he is a hypocrite. If he is proven to be lying, then he will be a hypocrite AND a liar. Until then, he's not.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 09:10 AM
3. I am 'asserting' nothing, except doubt. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 18, 2011 09:22 AM
4. My favorite Gingrich myth is the one about him having an affair while his second (?)wife was on her death bed. She's STILL ALIVE! And while we're at it, Gingrich was hounded out as Speaker for writing and being paid for a text book while he was Speaker. Not long after, Senator Hillary herself wrote a book and made, I think, about $5M and was praised for it. Go figure. What I wish is that everyone would evaluate candidates based on their principles, ideas, and proposed solutions to the enormous problems we have today. We don't have time for petty smearing. We're in grave trouble, and we need to get serious about who will lead our recuperation. It is certainly not Obama.

Posted by: katomar on November 18, 2011 09:31 AM
5. #4 I totally agree, and in my opinion the best person for this job is Mitt Romney. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 18, 2011 09:40 AM
6. Yes, Duffman, it appears fairly certain it will be either Romney or Gingrich as the nominee, and I will be content with either of them.

Posted by: katomar on November 18, 2011 09:46 AM
7. All of the viable GOP candidates have consistency issues, and if we're choosing between the two frontrunners right now - Romney or Gingrich - like Duffman, I'd probably go with Romney because it just looks like he can beat Obama. Gingrich is going to have a hard time with women voters, and may have trouble with independents too.

Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2011 09:48 AM
8. Duffman, I know you aren't asserting. But THEY are, and they are full of it.

I dislike Gingrich because while he is a very smart guy with a lot of insights, he's also inherently a big-government guy. He believes that government should solve many of our problems. He believes in things like cap and trade and other government "markets" (such as in health care).

One of the biggest ways in which "ObamaCare" is unike "RomneyCare" is that Romney's bill didn't create and control a new health insurance market. Gingrich has many times agreed with such government markets.

Add to the policy differences I have with Newt the fact that he would have a massively difficult time with independents, and yeah, I can't support him for the nomination.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 10:04 AM
9. Well, the hypocrite Ginrich brags about the '94 contract with American and Gingrich's bonafides as a reformer. But, if truth be told- he's not a conservative as he claims by a long shot.

Well, after the Contract was passed, the freshmen were called to the tool shed and giving a whipping and told to lay low. After that, it was all downhill for the Republicans.

Posted by: swatter on November 18, 2011 10:13 AM
10. swatter: I am not, of course, arguing that Gingrich is not hypocritical or dishonest in any way. Just not in the ways the left wants to frame him.

I do disagree with some of your characterization of what happened in '94. Yes, Gingrich did hold some of the "Republican Revolution" down, but there's no denying that he was a major architect of it, too. I think he held it down because he didn't want it to overextend itself before the country was ready, as the Democrats did after 2006/2008.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 10:21 AM
11. Can't say I disagree with anything you scribed about Newt. He is the smartest guy in the room and is impressive in the debates, but he has some imposing skeletons. I'd like to see him come clean on the rest of the story about him serving divorce papers to his 1st wife in the hospital being treated for cancer - I suspect media misinformation. I just heard this week that she is still alive today. That being said, he would still have a difficult time getting to woman vote and is not the strongest candidate vs. Mr. Obama, even though I'd say he would do the best in a debate against him. Even though Newt talks the conservative line, he has shown his inner progressive stripes (big government) from time to time and no reason to suspect he won't do it again.

Right now, the candidate with the least amount of dirt is Romney. He also does better vs. the incumbent than any other candidate. I have an issue with him not distancing himself or fessing up an error in judgment on Romneycare. However, the best that the Demos can come up with is that he is a flip-flopper and that he is wierd because he is Mormon. From the previous track record, Gingrich is no less big government than Mitt Romney. I am a pragmatist here and at this point I am for the candidate who has the best chance to defeat this President and by all indications that is Mr. Romney, but that may change in 6 months.

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2011 10:25 AM
12. I'm not one to criticize Romney for Romneycare as many conservatives are. I have little issue with states doing whatever they want on the state level. That's how entitlements like that should work, if a state wants it, have at it. Romney has done a decent job distinguishing that during debates too, while he's been very clear about not being for it on a federal level.

Both Romney and Gingrich can speak well on jobs and fiscal issues. Gingrich especially since his Congress was the last to have a balanced budget. Gingrich has the best breadth and depth of understanding when it comes to virtually any issue. That's why he would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. But I don't think debates are enough to convince casual voters.

Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2011 10:38 AM
13. Palouse, I have lots of problems with "RomneyCare," but yes, it is certainly far less offensive than "ObamaCare." The government-run "market," the federal force, the price controls ... "ObamaCare" is just far, far, worse.

And yes, Gingrich would destroy Obama in a debate. Obviously, of course, debating skill is not the best qualification for President.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 10:52 AM
14. Telegenics will undoubtedly play a part in this as it usually does. Refer back to Nixon'ian days; if you put a picture up of each candidate (Romney -v- Gingrich) and asked 'would you buy a used car from this guy', well...enough said. :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 18, 2011 10:53 AM
15. Correcting a typo:

Re: Newt, That being said, he would still have a difficult time getting the woman vote and is not the strongest candidate vs. Mr. Obama, even though I'd say he would do the best in a debate against him.

Posted by: KDS on November 18, 2011 11:09 AM
16. While I would vote for Newt if he becomes the candidate, I do not think he is the best man for the job, and frankly think he is part of the overall problem with DC.

I like Cain and, unless he can't recover from the Axelrod (or was it Mitt?) sh*t-slinging assault, will vote for him in primary.

My reason for not abandoning Cain? He's the only conservative candidate with a chance of winning who is both an outsider to DC and won't be tarred as a racist.

Posted by: deadwood on November 18, 2011 11:12 AM
17. Duffman: you realize that Nixon won the presidency in 1972 with over 60 percent of the "popular vote," right?

It's a myth that Nixon lost (in part) because he JFK was more attractive. It was because Nixon didn't wear makeup, which made him appear sweaty and sinister and so on.

It's not like Nixon's appearance suddenly improved when he won in 1968, and again in 1972 ... by one of the greatest margins in history. He just learned how to use the cameras to better effect, and Gingrich is quite good at that.

No one is going to vote in significant numbers for Obama or Romney, or against Gingrich, because of attractiveness. This sort of thing can play a role when you don't know the people involved, but everyone knows Gingrich (as everyone knew Nixon), so it won't. Now granted, everyone knew Nixon in 1960, too, but not through the television, only through the papers and magazines and so on.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 11:13 AM
18. deadwood: from the very beginning I have known Cain has no chance simply because he is very weak on policy, especially foreign policy, but also pretty much all domestic policy, too.

Some people might like that, but most people don't. Setting aside the harassment allegations (which, being unsubstantiated to this point, I have no opinion about whatsoever), he just isn't -- to my mind, and to the mind of most voters -- a capable candidate for President. I don't need him to know everything about Libya, but I do need him to know -- without having to sit and try to recall a shallow talking point -- SOMETHING about Libya. And he doesn't.

And my view on this is unchanged from when he first entered the race, so it has nothing to do with any slime hurled by any other candidates. He just isn't good.

I agree with you on most of what you said, though. Newt exemplifies much of the problems of DC, to my mind, not about corruption and so on but about a "government class" of people who come up with grand plans to run the nation, instead of freeing us to run it ourselves.

And I agree that Cain is a strong conservative, and I do like Cain. I always have.

I just don't like him for President, and I don't think he stands a chance.

I also don't give a damn who gets called a racist. Well, no, I take that back: I hope that people who are prone to using the race card call the Repubican nominee a racist every day, all day, to expose them for the malicious American-hating liars they are. BRING IT ON, I say.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 11:27 AM
19. I like Cain too, but I agree with pudge and others, he's just not ready for prime time. Even Obama would expose him in a debate on foreign policy.

I'm just hoping whomever gets the nomination can convince Rubio to get on the ticket as VP. If they GOP can get him, look out.

Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2011 01:47 PM
20. Pudge, what have foreign entanglements have given us since WWII? Beyond protecting our trade and smacking down anyone who would attack us, what purpose do you see for our military?

I am sick of spreading democracy. Who cares what Iraqis or Afghanis think or how they wish run their afairs so long as they learn not to mess with us. Flatten them if they attack us here and leave them to pick up the pieces when we are done. If they haven't learned their lesson, we do it again until they do. But we don't stay and try to make them like us.

Now what does that have to do with Cain? It says I don't give a damn whether he knows or cares about foreign affairs. If it needs an expert when he is elected, I trust him to pick someone who is better qualified than either him or me.

Cain's greatest strength is knowing how to pick his people and to motivate those he picks. He has done this in industry and I have faith he can do so as president.

As the insider trading reports have shown us the problems in DC are deep. I do not see any of the insiders, including Newt, as being capable of fixing that. Newt did not fix it when he was speaker and took advantage of his position after serving by taking money from us through Freddy Mac.

Cronyism infects all of the people in DC, from the President to congressional staffers. Electing another insider is just perpetuating the problem.

Posted by: deadwood on November 18, 2011 01:48 PM
21. If Romney would take a stand - on anything - I might be able to support him. But it seems as though his strategy is to lie low and hope not to be noticed.

Gingrich has opinions and is willing to be heard for them. As a conservative who absolutely despises a media willingly and blatantly pushing a liberal agenda, a big mouth guy with opinions might be exactly what we need to have our ideas and message 'forced' into the media.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 18, 2011 01:49 PM
22. Ditto, Ragnar! And no matter how much Cain is to be admired for his conservative principles and business acumen, I just don't believe he's ready for prime time. Gotta love the guy, but he is just not ready.

Posted by: katomar on November 18, 2011 02:46 PM
23. Oh, and by the way, those who think Newt just cannot attract the female vote? Think again. We all know that smart women, faced with choosing between "cute" and "smart and capable of providing a comfortable life" will go for the smart, not so cute guy every time. Bill Gates, anyone?

Posted by: katomar on November 18, 2011 02:52 PM
24. This whole "lobbyist" thread on Gingrich is a case of making up whatever definition you want at the moment to throw some dirt on an opponent (or in Democrat's case potential 2012 general election opponent). Lobbyist has a specific meaning and why he may have performed informal "lobbying" discussions, he wasn't a paid lobbyist. The Left (and whoever else is throwing out this bone) need to get over it. Which reminds me, why would the left be afraid of Gingrich getting the nomination? He has so many skeletons and such a rich history, I am sure they should be licking their chops. Its not like he is plain, vanilla, good-guy Romney who real issues appear to be more with the base than general election (same with Huntsman).

Posted by: tc on November 18, 2011 03:17 PM
25. Its not like he is plain, vanilla, good-guy Romney who real issues appear to be more with the base than general election (same with Huntsman).

I agree. The base's main problem with him is Romneycare I think, and that's Obama's signature achievement on the federal level, so it's tough to denigrate him on it in the general election without looking foolish. He's also flipped on abortion and other issues as well, but Gingrich is no better in this regard. Either guy is going to get hammered on flip flops, and Gingrich has more baggage as you stated.

Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2011 03:27 PM
26. deadwood: I don't give a damn whether he knows or cares about foreign affairs. If it needs an expert when he is elected, I trust him to pick someone who is better qualified than either him or me.

First, foreign affairs is a hell of a lot more than wars. Not if you look at the budget, sure. But there's a lot more to it.

Second, I don't want an expert necessarily, although it would be nice, but I want someone reasonably well-educated on those matters. And in my opinion, he isn't. And in my opinion, most people in and out of the GOP also want someone reasonably well-educated on those matters, and also believe he isn't. So I don't want him, and I think he has no chance.


As the insider trading reports have shown us the problems in DC are deep. I do not see any of the insiders, including Newt, as being capable of fixing that. Newt did not fix it when he was speaker and took advantage of his position after serving by taking money from us through Freddy Mac.

What money from us did he take? I think you're confused. Freddie Mac does get some money from government, but it's mostly private dollars Freddie Mac has. Most of what they get from government is special deals, not direct funding.


Cronyism infects all of the people in DC, from the President to congressional staffers. Electing another insider is just perpetuating the problem.

I agree this is a downside to Newt, which is part of why I don't support him. But that's no reason to support Cain.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 04:27 PM
27. Rags: If Romney would take a stand - on anything - I might be able to support him. But it seems as though his strategy is to lie low and hope not to be noticed.

He takes stands on the most important thing to me: economic matters. And I like the stands he takes. Dagny Taggart would vote for Romney. ;-)


Gingrich has opinions and is willing to be heard for them. As a conservative who absolutely despises a media willingly and blatantly pushing a liberal agenda, a big mouth guy with opinions might be exactly what we need to have our ideas and message 'forced' into the media.

It would be fun. Cain would be fun too. But I am more interested in good economic policy, so right now I am for Romney. The "top tier" can't match him, including Gingrich (who is too big-government), Cain (who doesn't know what he is doing), and Perry (who sometimes, I think, isn't much better than Cain).

Santorum and Bachmann and Paul and Johnson would all have good economic policies too, but right now none of them had a chance. I'd totally vote for Johnson, and if we had a WA primary, I might have voted for him in it.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 04:32 PM
28. tc: Lobbyist has a specific meaning and why he may have performed informal "lobbying" discussions, he wasn't a paid lobbyist. The Left (and whoever else is throwing out this bone) need to get over it.

I think you are giving the left way too much credit. There is not even any evidence he 'performed informal "lobbying" discussions,' whatever that means. The bottom line is that if he spoke to government people on behalf of Freddie Mac, or helped along those discussions in any direct way, that could be lobbying, whether official or not. If he merely gave them some advice about lobbying, that isn't. It's not mere semantics. It's like saying I am a quarterback because I talked about Tim Tebow (to reuse the analogy).


Which reminds me, why would the left be afraid of Gingrich getting the nomination? He has so many skeletons and such a rich history, I am sure they should be licking their chops. Its not like he is plain, vanilla, good-guy Romney who real issues appear to be more with the base than general election (same with Huntsman).

See, you don't get the left, even though you are one of them. ;-) They can't help themselves. They hate Gingrich so much they just attack him blindly, no matter whether there's better reasons to attack him or not.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2011 04:40 PM
29. pudge, you wrote: "Small problem, though: Gingrich went after Clinton for perjury, not having an affair."

Maybe you are just too young to remember, or maybe your google machine was broken when you wrote this post.

Gingrich did not only go after Clinton for the perjury he committed, Gingrich actively led the campaign to impugn Clinton's character as a result of his infidelity.

In October 1998, prior to any congressional impeachment hearings (which the Speaker and the Republican majority in the House could have convened) and many months after Ken Starr's report with the evidence of perjury was public, Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, and the NRCC concocted a multi-million dollar ad campaign that had nothing to do with perjury and everything to do with extra-marital sex.

Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair

The GOP's multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

Gingrich is most certainly a hypocrite, but that should not disqualify him from being selected as the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2011 06:09 AM
30. Gingrich is a flash in the pan as has been every candidate except Romney. Gingrich was embarrassing to the GOP while leader of the House. Besides his escapades with women, he is yet to be vetted on monetary issues with Freddy and consulting fees. The American public will never buy the so-called repent of this charlatan.He is the ultimate insider.There is only one reason he is going up in the polls in Iowa, look at the flat earth mentality of the far right who have taken over the GOP at the precinct level(they are composed of the bible thumping religious fanatics and or tea bagging lunatics), this is the same crowd that was calling for Clinton's impeachment. The same hypocrites are willing to over look character flaws as long as it is a means to the end and the individual is on their side of the aisle. What these flat earth folks can't seem to grasp is that Newt cannot carry the Independents (needed to win), they live in their own cultist vacuum unable to comprehend how others think. Romney is the only solid candidate that can carry the Independents. Run Newt and the GOP will go down to a worse defeat than Goldwater in 1964 and lose the House.We Independents will help defeat any far right candidate. Vote Romney!

Posted by: packeryman on November 19, 2011 07:20 AM
31. MikeBS: do you ever get tired of baldfaced lies? From YOUR OWN STORY:

"The harshest attack ad, which hits Clinton for not telling the truth ..."

Yes, as I said.


"A second spot, in which two mothers discuss 'What did you tell your kids' ..."

Perhaps you don't understand the point of this ad, which is not "Clinton had an affair" but "it's Clinton's fault that his affair is all over the news," and the reason it was all over the news was because he committed perjury about it.


"The final commercial, which uses the infamous video clip of Clinton wagging his finger as he denied the Lewinsky affair ..."

Yes, an example of his perjury.


So you dishonestly claim that Gingrich went after Clinton for having an affair by giving examples of ads that all went after him for lying about his affair.


Now granted, some people did go after Clinton also just for having an affair, btu Gingrich was not one of them, and you have no evidence demonstrating otherwise. Maybe he went after Clinton for having sex with an intern, or for having his affair in the Oval Office, but ... Gingrich did none of those things.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2011 08:00 AM
32. packeryman: wow, are YOU a nutjob!

Calling someone who has been at the forefront of Republican politics almost nonstop for 15 years a "flash in the pan" just makes you look completely ignorant.

You think the public won't "buy" his "repent," yet they will "buy" it from Romney? Who do you think you're kidding?

And if you think the way to hurt Gingrich is to attack the Republicans who will nominate you, you're far less intelligent than the "flat earth" people you mindlessly attack. You think people who believe in God are "fanatics" and people who want smaller government are "lunatics." You don't understand anything whatsoever about the Repubican Party or its driving philosophies, let alone religion, conservatism, or basic grammar. You're a moron.

Yes, morons like you are needed to win the election, but that face alone doesn't justify any of your other idiotic claims. And no, Romney is not the only "solid candidate" who can carry independents: Huntsman clearly can, and I'd bet Gary Johnson could too.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2011 08:08 AM
33. There's a real important debate going on today. Tune in at 2 PM for most important debate of the Presidential primary season.

Posted by: Jill on November 19, 2011 08:50 AM
34. @31 pudge on November 19, 2011 08:00 AM,

"some people did go after Clinton also just for having an affair, btu Gingrich was not one of them, and you have no evidence demonstrating otherwise"

From the lying liberal National Review

Gingrich went beyond a legalistic critique of perjury when he wrote in the May 22, 1998, Human Events that Clinton's handling of the Lewinsky mess had lowered the presidency to "a level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American." He added that the presidency now appeared around the world as a "rough equivalent of the Jerry Springer show." References to "decadence" and Jerry Springer seem to surpass disapproval of lying under oath.


Gingrich is most certainly a hypocrite, but that should not disqualify him from being selected as the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2011 09:10 AM
35. MikeBS: I defy you to look at what Gingrich said, the criticisms he actually made of Clinton, and see if they apply to Gingrich himself.

You won't, because while you're stupid and a liar, even you aren't THAT stupid.

The disrespect and decadence Gingrich was referring to was about lying under oath, and having sex with an intern in the White House, two things Gingrich didn't do. The 'Jerry Springer' comment was about the fact that, through Clinton's perjury, Clinton made the whole thing front-page news.

You provide no evidence of hypocrisy whatsoever. You're a liar, as usual.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2011 09:57 AM
36. Last man standing is no longer good enough for me. Nor should it be for you.

Will I support our nominee? Of course.
That dangerously ignorant ideologue currently jetting around for re-election must go.

Yes, Romney has the economic credentials, but if he can't make some noise and courageously take positions, then he's no leader.

I find it so frustrating that there are so many great conservatives out there and NONE of them are currently running for president.

I find it frustrating that the ever self serving Ron Paul who has publicly stated that he hasn't decided to support the GOP candidate is now making third party noises. Way to selfishly re-elect that dangerously ignorant and incompetent ideologue, Dr Paul.

What Iowa Voters Want in a Republican Nominee

Mr. Romney take note: Voter sentiments about health care are a potential roadblock on your road to the White House. More than eight-in-10 (82%) Iowa caucus-goers say they will oppose any candidate willing to implement a state-level individual mandate requiring health insurance like the one championed by Mr. Romney as governor of Massachusetts. More than half (55%) of voters say they will definitely vote against such a candidate. This suggests there is a low ceiling of potential support for the GOP establishment's designated front runner, and an opening for a new leader to emerge


Evitable
It might not be Mitt. It could be Newt. It could be someone else.

Should Mitt Romney be the nominee of the Republican party for president in 2012? Perhaps. Should voters support him because he's the "inevitable" nominee? No.
Gingrich Newt

For one thing, his nomination is evitable--perhaps all too evitable (see below). For another, we are a proud, self-governing people. We're sometimes even an obstreperous bunch--and a good thing it is for the cause of liberty. We often balk at yielding meekly to claims of inevitability. Here in America, we the people rule by electing. We don't bow to those anointed by pundits.

And Republicans in particular will be especially wary of proclamations of inevitability that come from a media who do not have conservatives' best interests at heart. Conservatives will resist declarations from a political class who have an interest in diminishing their range of choice. And wouldn't the GOP nominee--whether Mitt Romney or someone else--end up a stronger candidate if he doesn't coast to a supposedly inevitable nomination, but has to earn it (viz. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000)?

But really, you might ask--isn't Romney inevitable? And the answer is, really, no.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 19, 2011 01:09 PM
37. Rags: Last man standing is no longer good enough for me. Nor should it be for you.

It's not. But to me, by far, the most important thing is fixing our fiscal situation, and the two people I can see doing that the best, who are running, are Mitt and Gary. I may in the end vote for Gary. But it certainly won't be Newt or Jon or Ron or Michele or Herman (some of these have good small-govt principles, but would have no chance of effecting change because they would not work well with Congress ... like it or not, we still need to work with Congress to get things done).

I like Mitt, and I really don't know what you are talking about when you say he is no leader. I see him take positions all the time.

I've also never heard Paul mention running for a third party ... maybe you heard something I didn't, but I see no reason to think he would do it.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2011 03:06 PM
38. Swatter @9 is correct. Part of the contract with America was that funding for congressional committees was to be cut, and it was, by about 33 percent.

In 1997 Gingrich wanted that funding restored. A bill went to the floor, but failed by 3 votes because a 'gang of 11' conservatives had joined dems to vote against it. These were people like Largent, Tom Coburn, etc.

Gingrich called a mandatory meeting of the R caucus and took the unusual step of demanding that the 11 step forward and explain their votes. Steve Largent went first. An account of the meeting can be read here .

Don't want to make this post too long, but suffice to say, I don't know how any conservative could support Gingrich after reading a few pages at the above link.

Posted by: travis t on November 20, 2011 04:09 PM
39. Why Newt Very Well Might Be President
To rally behind Gingrich, Repub-licans wouldn't have to forgive his past sins, just treat them as irrelevant. They already talk about how sweet it would be to see Gingrich crush Obama in presidential debates. They don't see Romney that way.


Saturday's Republican debate showed that former bad boy Newt Gingrich is a born again front-runner

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 20, 2011 04:54 PM
40. Mitt is the one candidate who will cause me not to vote for a Republican for President in the General election for the first time other.

Mitt should never have been allowed to be a Governor in the United States, his inclinations are more suited to be a dictator in some third world communist country.

Imagine even considering to vote for someone who has the gall to think it is okay for the governor of a state to force his citizens to purchase something as expensive as health insurance.

Truly ANTI-AMERICAN in all aspects. Sure, throw the state vs. federal stuff out there, that isn't the point....the point is the moral degradation of a person (in his case an entity) who thinks they could use their power to do such a thing, unimaginable.

Pudge, you may like Mitt Romney, to me the thought of voting for such a deplorable character as someone who thinks it is okay to do what he did, is just disgusting.

Posted by: doug on November 20, 2011 07:42 PM
41. #40 - as deplorable as you insist that he is, I would vote for Romneyin a heartbeat over the incumbent, who may well be a double-agent - since he has kept his past so secretive.

How do I know you aren't a progressive in disguise ?

Posted by: KDS on November 20, 2011 08:59 PM
42. A progressive could vote for Romney.

I cannot.

Posted by: doug on November 20, 2011 10:20 PM
43. @41 - Point of clarification - If Romney ran vs. Obama, would you vote for Obama ?

Posted by: KDS on November 21, 2011 10:01 PM
44. Paul has not mentioned running third party. It is the media trying to promote that idea to make people dislike him that is frustrating. Do not fall for it.

Posted by: Lysander on November 21, 2011 10:02 PM
45. KDS,

Voting for Obama would be equally bad. Best case scenario would be a Republican controlled house and senate and someone other than Romney, worst case scenario would be Obama and a democrat controlled congress.

I am expecting a Republican controlled congress in which case the order of preference would be: A non-Mitt Republican President, a democrat president, Mitt.

If you think the republican congress under Bush was bad and hurt conservativism, that would be nothing compared with the same thing under Mitt...conservatism would be killed off.

A republican controlled congress would be very effective blocking Obama, mainly because Obama is no Clinton so wouldn't even think of trying to compromise, hence, he wouldn't get anything done.

A republican controlled congress under Mitt would no doubt bring even more government control of our lives, only in a way that the GOP says is good for the GOP, which of course it wouldn't be.

Posted by: doug on November 22, 2011 09:23 AM
46. doug - with all due respect your theory is out there in la la land. Romney would exempt us from Obamacare by Executive Order and that alone is good enough for me. If Ovomit is reelected Obamacare will be implemented and at that point, we will kiss much of our freedom goodbye forever, in favor of the state.

Furthermore, part of your theory does not play out;

A republican controlled congress would be able to do nothing about repealing Obamacare or what is left of it after the SCOTUS rules on it. They would have to be able to override his veto of a repeal by a 2/3 majority of the Senate and there is a slim to no chance that would happen and slim just left the room.

Your other theories about more government control by a GOP controlled congress were true during the reign of Bush, but not likely that will occur whoever the POTUS is, as the Tea party will be a check against that occurring.

Posted by: KDS on November 23, 2011 07:53 PM
47. Doug almost completely overstates his case with Romney. Conservatism killed off, while he is reforming the tax code and eliminating bad regulations, balancing the budget, appointing conservative justices to the court, and, as KDS said, killing "Obamacare"?

In many ways, Romney would give us the best parts of conservatism, on the most important type of conservatism: economic conservatism, and secondarily, judicial conservatism.

I've interviewed a lot of people for jobs. Sometimes you don't get the ideal candidates applying. Sometimes you take some bad with the good. I see very little bad with Mitt, and a lot of good.

Posted by: pudge on November 25, 2011 09:33 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?