the “establishment” GOP RINOS and the complicit LSM absolutely had to get rid of Rick Perry… which they successfully achieved with what amounted to a total media blackout… way to go…FOX News is bought and paid for by the pound.
He actually WOULD have sent them home without pay till they passed a BBA and boyoboy they couldn’t have that. Ooooo noooo. Business as usual… perks as usual… govt health insurance as usual for all of them and screw all those who pay for said perks.
Meanwhile Liar Boehner… Mr. “If we can’t repeal o-care we’ll defund it” continues to send BILLIONS in every stupid CR for the implementation of o-care.
Wake up Ohio 8… your “boy” is a spinless sap. Primary his miserable butt.

That actually makes some sense of it. Their talk of losing Congress doesn’t ring true at all.
More losing control of it.
We need to send some more Tea Party type in, and burn a few of the last bunch who failed to even attempt to do the work they were sent for.

The near-total de-construction of Washington DC, dividing the ”
Central Committee” political cancer into 50 additional parts (57 for Obama). The closer the government, the better the government. Conservatives, watch out, beware. Leftists will and are duplicating Alinsky and other socialist efforts in localities (eg, The Colorado Model).

Progressive unemployment among lobbyists, staffers, etc.

Re-employment to US Military so that it can fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee, only when provoked.

Let’s face it. The main reason Newt is doing well is because he is very good at debates. However, we as an intelligent electorate shouldn’t be so naive as to accept what people say rather than what they have done. Newt is much more of an establishment candidate than Romney, 30 years in Washington and Freddie Mac insider getting millions, but portrays Romney as the establishment candidate only because the establishment supports Romney. However, I hate the use of labels. Many of those establishment candidates are true conservatives and there is a reason they pick Romney over Newt. And it is essentially because Newt has much baggage and is an insincere Conservative willing to compromise to serve his legacy first. Hence, the recent Nancy Pelosi commercial while he was a “conservative”. Hence, the Paul Ryan “right wing social engineering in 2011 while he was a
“conservative”. These are recent actions of a man who on top of all this just this very campaign talks about the corruption of Bain capital and Romney and attacking free enterprise!!! And we’re supposed to rally behind the candidate who is putting forward Barack Obama’s campaign strategy!! If Republicans go forward with this failed strategy then they will have no one to blame but themselves.

the Witch of the East lost.

It’s called dumb, and dumber.

And today’s Sarah blast at Christie is dumbest.

Hey, I stood my ground defending these people when they were up against their opponents, but in my heart, I knew the criticisms were justified.

Tell me. Why is it we can’t have bright people representing our party.

Oh, and this: will someone please tell me why you think Newt is any more honest with you than you think Romney to be.

Newt is a talker Supreme, just like Obama. He knows what you want to hear. That’s all.

He has never once, in the three solid years I’ve seen him myriads of times on Greta’s show on Fox, never, ever once told me what even ONE of his BOLD SOLUTIONS is. Nor has he done that since he’s been a candidate.

Can anyone hear tell me where his beef is?

But that’s exactly what Newt has figured out how to do. It’s a little like watching Obama get solidly to McCain’s right during the 2008 Presidential Debates. Not logical, but it happened.

It astounds me that people think he is some right-wing stalwart. The guy is part of the establishment, except they kicked him out for unethical behavior.

The 5% approval rating of Congress indicates, to this cat, that both parties are pretty sick of “business as usual”.

Mew

It’s all relative.

Those complaining that Newt is an insider fail always fail to mention that Romney is an ultra-insider.

If this was baseball, Newt would be standing inside the fence–somewhere in the outfield.

Romney would be standing at home plate taking batting signs from the 1st base coach.

The Conservative Hand: a Manifesto to Achieve Conservative Political Goals

alt2p.org The American Legitimate Tax Second Party

Anyone who even hints that Ron Paul could become President presents himself as a fool worthy only of derision.

The latest polls show Newt with unfavorable ratings near 60% (and that is with near 100% name recognition). Even a “moderate” like Romney is unlikely to veto Republican passed legislation from Congress, but in order to even have that option we first have to you know, win the presidency.

Tell me how a guy who wrote The OKC Attack being an inside job is a way forward.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325963.php

Gallup’s latest Obama vs Romney and Obama vs Gingrich numbers are identical: 50-48 for both.

Gallup: Gingrich and Romney Are Faring Equally Well Versus Obama

The latest Gallup polling shows Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney each trailing President Obama by exactly the same tally — 50 to 48 percent. Across the months, Gallup has shown a slow decline in Romney’s level of support versus Obama: Romney led Obama by 2 percentage points in September, was tied in late October, trailed by 1 point in early December, and now trails by 2 points. Gallup hasn’t taken nearly so many polls on Gingrich versus Obama, but it showed Gingrich trailing Obama by 6 points in early December and now shows him trailing by 2 points. (It’s unclear whether any portion of Gallup’s latest polling was conducted after Gingrich’s win in South Carolina on Saturday.)

It’s perhaps a mild piece of good news for Obama that he’s currently edging both leading Republican contenders, but earlier Gallup polling showed Obama faring significantly worse versus both Romney and Gingrich in swing states than was faring against them nationally. Gingrich, in particular, improved versus Obama in the swing states: While he trailed Obama by 6 points overall at that time, he led Obama by 3 points in states that are likely to be hotly contested — a swing of 9 points. Meanwhile, Romney improved by 6 points versus Obama in the swing states.

I’ve previously made the case that the swing states, and in particular the three most crucial swing states, could potentially be friendlier territory for Gingrich than for Romney.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

is what is killing him. If Mitt really does control these people’s opinions as much as he is accused of, he might want to advise The Inner-Party Screech-Harpy to go have a gin and tonic instead of going near a live microphone on behalf of his campaign.

I’ll give peas a chance next time.

lap dog Graham, and others like them are out.

How apt a comment!

I’ll savor this for days.

There isn’t anyone in the race I’d pick BHO over.

seems a waste of time.

At the very least if this is going to be our guy that we should acknowledge him for who he is flaws and all.

I think the tea party should be reticent about giving him a full blown endorsement because he really doesn’t exemplify tea party ideals nor does his record show that as well.

I don’t want the tea party or conesrvative revival whatever to go down in flames with this unstable egomaniac (one thing he does have in common with BO).

Number 3.

I really don’t think I can bring myself to vote for Newt Gingrich. It’s moot though. The Republicans have already thrown the Presidential election away. The critical independents are already just shaking their heads.

So, exactly why do we have to vote Romney if he wins? Will you Newt haters vote for Newt over Obama?

We’ve learned from this phony lesson. Establishment says vote for us. But Conservative wins the primary, ” what? We’re not voting for him!”

Seriously.

We are not “one big happy”.

Mew

and the way McCain has at times, they become indecipherable from the enemy. They are exactly like them.

Look, Newt has spent a lot of time looking to be engaged and relevant, drifting with the DC currents. So he took a Freddie Mac contract, sat on the couch with Jezebel, er Pelosi, woefully misdirected his Republican loyalty to Scozafava(sp?). Newt IS a DC insider, no question. But Newt likes a fight and he loves doing the right thing especially to get away from irrelevance (not doing the right thing).

He now has a vision. Newt’s spent a lot of time gathering rust, but Obama has created a demand for a WARRIOR and Newt fits the bill.

We can debate back and forth on the worst risks. All of them have risks. Republican primogeniture has served the United States of America very badly. Romney looks absolutely perfect, but perfect looks have served us badly. Nominate a real conservative (Newt is one when he’s not fiddling around in irrelevance) and we’ll turn out in droves to vote for him.

Tea Partiers have a BIG chunk of electorate and why shouldn’t they want a serious candidate for serious reform. There’s no evidence they’ll get it from Romney and they’re saying accurately that if Romney were a practicing Morman, then he’d be MORE attractive to them. Romney’s wimpiness and weakness concerns conservatives. Valerie Jewett is not weak and she the puppeteer. Newt’s not weak either.

We’re in a tough place. Where is Daniels, Ryan, Jeb (kind of), etc when we need them?

* *
.
| o |

As for what it stands for, they will need to figure that out if they want to continue influencing politics in a consistant manner…

Moreover, Newt was advocating medicare reform since back when Ryan was a Congressional intern.

Newt has discussed SS reform on the stump, unlike Romney’s throw away one liners that he only says when asked … “I like the Ryan plan”.

“I like the Ryan plan” is not advocacy. Newt talking about Chile’s retirement system is advocacy.

At least the large number of shills in it who are calling anyone that doesn’t vote for Romney an idiot.

Barry was not vetted. Democrats cannot get elected by saying what they really want. It always has to be translated into language that appeals to independents and moderate conservatives. Moderate is really another word for liberalish.

Obama’s coup d’ etat is REALLY scaring a lot of people. 2nd Amendmenters are alarmed at efforts to disarm Americans because that is viewed as high risk for tyrants. What might Obama and Valerie Jewett be wanting to do that they need to disarm Americans? Christians are convinced by Obama actions that he is NOT one of them. His words and actions reveal that his sympathies are greater for Muslims and their accompanying political culture.

Social Justice is viewed by conservatives as one man’s or one woman’s idea of what justice is. Social Justice is a system for denying liberty to those you don’t like: Christians, free-market light-regulation capitalists, etc.

So we’re really at war and Newt is getting the nod in SC for being a warrior. Who knows how long he can last before some explosion occurs? Romney is a little better than McCain and he lost bt 7pts? All the candidates are electable for the simple reason that there are enough Americans that are scared s-less.

They see Obama tactics and propaganda, czars and radical left wing s it spread everywhere. Conservative realize that our younger citizens generally do not know what socialism is. We’re a pretty soft country these days and are not acutely aware of what evil lurks. Some of the young people will be the revolutionaries of the future if Obama’s transformation succeeds and age gives them better insight and wisdom.

We really don’t know what to do, but are forced to guess. History tells the story. Newt better be disciplined to the record if he somehow prevails. Romney and the Elites better be forgiving of the not-Romney-yet voters if he gets the nod. Failure by elites to accomodate TeaParty will definitely give rise to a 3rd party eventually.

In final analysis, it seems that the last 50 years of the communist / socialist effort to undermine the exceptional nature of the American experience has succeeded. The defense mechanisms have been destroyed: Judeo-Christian value system, belief in a loving creator-God, strong standards of right and wrong and morality, ruggedness and independence, etc. etc. We have not gone down the tube yet by God’s grace and His concern for the prayerful remnant.

Willard as George H.W. Bush “41″ Redux

…so long as you do listen to the moderators (those with red names) and be very careful about getting involved in intraparty controversies, keeping in mind that RedState is primarily a site for committed conservatives as opposed to dialog/debate with the left.

And in particular, I would advise that you try to avoid arguing against interest until you develop a track record, as people will find it difficult to trust you as being sincere.

That is since you have honestly stated that you’re an Obama supporter, it really isn’t too helpful to advise us as to what Republican would attract “others” to vote for him. If there were something that could sway your mind, that would be worth mentioning (if realistic) — but trying to “help us out” with advice as to how we can sway “others” is really a non-starter.

Put the shoe on the other foot and I think you’ll see what I mean.

As far as Newt, I think at this point we do have a classic situation of support of Newt being a mile wide and six inches deep. It’s really in his hands, we all know Newt’s record – especially those of us who were adults back in the 90s – and we all know his weaknesses and his strengths, and are aware that he could self-destruct. But if he’s gained maturity and listens/respects the right people, he could hold it together. We’ll have to see.

But at this point, he’s the only candidate left standing who at least is willing to push back against the further centralizing of power in Washington and trying to reframe the media narrative that’s in lockstep with the Democratic/left narrative.

Will it work – don’t know, he’s got to reduce the high negatives he has, but at least he has a narrative to tell.

Romney has no narrative, which means the media will consign him to a losing box, as they did with McCain. It’s really hard to make a compelling case to be president against an incumbent when your main reason for running seems to be getting elected because you’ve been working at it for years and you think it’s your turn. That’s not going to give people a reason to switch brands, which is what’s going to have to happen if Obama is going to be defeated.

This is not the thread to discuss this, but I think you will find that today’s Democratic Party is not the post-war Democratic Party of my parents’ generation. The irony I’ve come to see is that left’s language of freedom and tolerance translates in practice to coercion and repression of opposing views; whereas the right (which comes across to coastal folks as being repressive and authoritarian) actually contains the intellectual framework for protecting and advancing individual freedom. Just a seed for you to think about.

Just watch the FL primary. Maybe you will expand your perception of the American people.

Just kidding. That was a pretty reasonable post, and I agree with (almost) all of it. I don’t think that Romney has any strong preferences on most left-right issues as they stand today — however, it seems unlikely to me that Romney is spending millions of his own money to essentially sit by and take his cues from Boehner or Harry Reid. I imagine that he’ll come into office and pursue 1) his own ends as an executive mostly apart from domestic politics, and 2) find himself doing something stupid on foreign policy for posterity’s sake (perhaps bomb Iran). The problem I have with Mitt Romney is that I don’t trust him or the “conservative” legislature to do squat about the drivers of our debt — which conservatives and liberals alike should be opposed to in its general structure — and because I don’t find his proposals to be all that impactful in any way.

Newt wasn’t my first choice (or my second, or my third, or my fourth, or my… you get the picture). I do, however, have a lot of confidence in his ability to be a polarizing, arrogant, narcissistic jackass if and when he finds a scrap of power, and I think it’s likely that he will attempt major changes when he gets up there. He’s been beating the drum of entitlement reform since forever, and I bet it would give him a heck of a lot of satisfaction to achieve it once he’s up there. In this case, his narcissism can be used in conservatives’ favor. On almost all other issues, I find him to be utterly terrifying and unpredictable, but I think (hope?) that his entitlement reform will make him unpopular enough to inspire a legislative revolt against any other significant changes to Washington.

As for Barack Obama’s re-election chances, watch that unemployment number (U6 in particular). That, rather than whatever candidate he faces up against, will determine his chances. That’s not particularly fair, since there is little that a President or Congress can do to alleviate unemployment in a consistent and foolproof way, but them’s the breaks.

Your fight reminds me of the fight for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Progressives were essentially told by the Democratic elite that Hillary was an inevitability. The DNC was aghast when BO threw in, and Bill was livid. But BO ran a spirited campaign, drew momentum and that tidal wave overcame Hillary’s forces and eventually won the White House.

Now I’m sure you don’t want to have Newt analogized to BO necessarily, but there are some analogies. The problem for Newt’s supporters is that I don’t think he really galvanizes conservatives on the issues the way BO did for progressives, and while he may be the most viable Not-Mitt, that won’t be enough in the end.

Of course, as I said above, if I were purely mercenary (from a liberal perspective), I’d rather have Newt as the Republican nominee because of his negatives than Mitt, who I think will be more formidable in the general election with independent voters.

From a principled standpoint, people should support the candidate they most believe in on the issues, and then, if that candidate loses, support the candidate in the general election they most believe in on the issues. For me, that candidate will certainly be Obama. For conservatives, you may have to grit your teeth and vote for Mitt but I don’t doubt that you will.

Unreal.

CNN is countering Gingrich’s messages about Alinsky radicals.

CNN painted Alinsky as an innocent community organizer like obama who didn’t espouse any political ideology. Just wanted to fix neighborhoods.

LOL, now Gingrich needs to bring up William Ayers. CNN even mentioned Ayers in the piece and didn’t mention anything about his terrorism.

I think. I feel much the same way. I’m ready to ‘kill’ for Newt – just to hear him slam the BO socialists and the lamesteam media.
(O’Reilly is talking about Newt “the avenger” tonight)
I’m pumped!

First, Gingrich is not analogous, having won elections and being Speaker of the House.

But the bigger point is that we miss with a few candidates and we moan and groan. Yes recruit better folks next time, but the message we sent (with O’Donnell) is that incumbents are not safe. Angle was just overlooking a stronger conservative.

The point is that in pushing to the right, we’re not going to win every battle, but if we win several contests then we build a base for the next election round.

The left has practiced this for 60 years and look over time how they’ve managed to shift the center – and how many defeats they suffered along the way that didn’t keep them from pushing the next election.

So maybe Newt will implode – if so hopefully before the nomination – but he’s the only one who can credible push the country to the right. If we don’t push, then we can’t complain when the country doesn’t move (or continues to slide left).

considering the lack of party support.

Would welcome your recommended course of action.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill

The conflict is between those who want to substantitvely reduce the size, power, and financial takings of the Federal government versus those who are fine with the default trend of increasing power and size of the Federal government.

Behind this is a philosophy of the role of government in our lives.

This divide does not divide entirely along party lines. However, the argument on the Democratic side seems to be mostly over how quickly to expand government; on the Republican side, too many of those who have power don’t want to take actions that will reduce their personal power, which means that they tend to view those who want smaller government as hostile forces.

Your discussion confuses strategy and tactics. Elected officials do have to deal with what is achievable, especially dealing with a fractious electorate – and that may lead to “compromise” – but too often the Republican leadership has negotiated against themselves and unnecessarily surrendered winning positions.

And when we see a pattern of behavior, then we have to start thinking that the leaders really aren’t interested in shrinking government but just say what they think they need to so that they can get votes.

it’s about prioritization an unwillingness to listen to the base on issues that they have made themselves clear on time and again, and a tendency to run off into the weeds to promote a government expansion that is neither welcome nor anticipated (this is related to the problem of prioritization).

In the case of prioritization, the GOP has been playing bait-and-switch for many years with most of the GOP base, but especially fiscal conservatives. They promise fiscal reform, smaller government, and a change to the status quo, and when they get up there they start beating the war drum, talking up social issues that they don’t care about and can’t do anything about even if they did care, and all manner of nonsense. It has gotten to the point where even low-information voters can see the trend. This has frustrated the base, and given that the most logical explanations for this phenomena are also those that paint the GOP in a negative light, there’s bound to be annoyance on the part of the base wrt their elected leadership’s failure or lack of prioritization.

In many cases, it is very clear what the base wants, and has been for some time. School choice, low taxes//spending/regulation, opening up of ANWR, and more state discretion in policies have been among the longstanding goals of the movement, and none are particularly unreasonable. The (accurate) perception is that “conservative” politicians often go to Washington being perfectly cognizant of the base’s general philosophy and desired outcome, and then emerge a few years later with nary a valiant effort or even apparent desire to effect these changes. No, Congressman Bigshot seems much more intent on getting chummy with the K Street, naming federal buildings after himself, and his own pet projects. Again, the logical interpretations of this tend to be uncharitable.

Then, there are those laws that nobody wants, which there is no desire for in the body politic, which do not seem to resolve any problems but the ones that politicians personally have, and which seem to be supported by everyone on the Hill for reasons that likely involve Beelzebub. No one sent GWB to Washington to sign CFR, an online gambling ban, McCain-Kennedy, or any number of things into law which he ended up signing. Very few conservatives and independents (or liberals, for that matter) were satisfied with what emerged from the desire for healthcare reform in the ’08 Presidential election. Automaker bailouts were, and continue to be, unpopular. SOPA came out of nowhere to emerge as an enormous threat to liberty. General bailouts to connected corps or industries are still ongoing and supported by our leading Presidential candidates. It adds up, and again, there aren’t too many explanations that make Congress look all that angelic.

Yes, some of the “establishment” rhetoric is stupid, confusing, emotional, and misplaced. Yes, Newt Gingrich is an improbable and intemperate champion of the anti-”establishment” movement. However, it didn’t come out of nowhere: there is plenty of reason to be dissatisfied with the status quo, and good reason to think that the factors which caused the status quo were not concern on the part of politicians for the common weal.

but is actually the GOP debate.

also being livestreamed online

but is actually the GOP debate.

also being livestreamed online

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Florida-primary-GOP-debate/2012/01/23/id/425218

Pawlenty and Perry. And for some reason our party killed them. Perry had far more potential pitfalls with the easy comparison to Bush given their Texas history, but that was a general election issue. Why he failed to get traction in the primary, aside from the fact that his campaign was terrible, I won’t understand.

Pawlenty was eviscerated for attacking Romney once and failing to go all out immediately. That was also illogical to me.

So now we’re stuck with Romney or two not-credible not-Romneys. Gingrich himself revealed his general election strategy last night: Win the debates. Well that’s great Newt but the debate format for the general is going to be what you saw last night. No cheap applause lines, no audience participation and no easy targets.

The guy has no ground game, few dollars and a strategy that banks totally on his ability as a debater. You know what that is? An invitation to make the race about Gingrich, not Obama. And that’s insane.

is a medicare fraudster who will be P’owned by Obama and he received Fed bailout funds……..all will anger the base and encourage people to vote 75% aka Not-Romney. Hell Mitts dirty laundry list is long and fresh.

Clinton openly advocated for welfare reform in 1992 and proclaimed “the era of big government is over” in one of his own SOTU addresses. It’s not like Gingrich drew a line in the sand on it. There was bipartisan agreement to change the welfare system.

As for the surpluses, they were a product of an unsustainable bubble in the economy and higher taxes. Yes, higher taxes did indeed help balance the budget because they were not nearly onerous enough to stop the crazy expansion of our economy. Coffers from the federal to state to local levels filled up during the tech boom of the late 1990s. You can’t credit Gingrich or Clinton for that. But if you do, just realize that you’re now OK with a budget balanced on the backs of higher taxes.

Again, you’re projecting that Gingrich was kicked out due to his fiery conservatism. That’s just not true. He’s sucked a bunch of people in with demagoguery but there’s just no there there. He’s good at pushing the right buttons during a debate and that’s about it.

I don’t have a soft spot for Romney, I just hate the rest of the field more. I supported him in 2008 of course, but who was I going to jump on board with? McCain? Huckster? Giuliani? No way. I was a Thompson fan until I saw him in person in Florida and realized the guy had zero chance.

I praise Pawlenty for his record and for being the best possible option out there. Generic Republican with a good, conservative record who would be able to make this a referendum on Obama. But he ran a terrible campaign. Perry was also a great candidate but again, ran a terrible campaign.

The general is just going to be painful, regardless of the outcome of the primary.