December 14, 2011

Gingrich's "character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas..."

"... made him a poor Speaker of the House. Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public."
He says, and his defenders say, that time, reflection, and religious conversion have conquered his dark side. If he is the nominee, a campaign that should be about whether the country will continue on the path to social democracy would inevitably become to a large extent a referendum on Gingrich instead. And there is reason to doubt that he has changed. Each week we see the same traits that weakened Republicans from 1995 through 1998: I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how stupid they were. Enough. Gingrich has always said he wants to transform the country. He appears unable to transform, or even govern, himself. He should be an adviser to the Republican party, but not again its head.
So say the editors of The National Review.

115 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

Romney said Gingrich should give back the money Freddie Mac paid Gingrich to not-lobby, and Newt's knee-jerk response was to say he'll do that if Romney gives back the money Romney made at Bain.

We know all we need to know about Gingrich.

chuck said...

I think this is a valid point. As a rule, people don't change much. Religious conversion is one of the few things that has that power, but I don't know if it really took in Gingrich's case.

Dane County Taxpayer said...

Half of NRO's writers supported Obama last time, including Peggy Noonan. So, don't be surprised if I don't swoon over their establishment dribble.

Moose said...

Wow. Its going to be a fuckin' interesting election.

phx said...

Religious conversion doesn't always have that power for change. It might be an interesting study. What are the recidivism rates for religious converts?

rhhardin said...

The crab of debauchery, the octopus of weakness of character, the shark of individual abasement, the boa of absent morals and the snail of idiocy.

Lautreamont

phx said...

So Obama knows it's all going to crack wide open sooner rather than later. He wishes that he would lose this election.

Except one part of him feels almost spiritually responsible for the American people, a sense of destiny.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Except one part of him feels almost spiritually responsible for the American people, a sense of destiny.

No one said being a lightworker was easy.

Writ Small said...

Cain was sunk because of an apparent messy personal life. Gingrich?

Perry was hurt because he said people who don't support his immigration policies have no heart. Gingrich said much the same.

Romney's Achilles heel is his previous support of the health care individual mandate. Gingrich supported it, too.

Michelle Bachmann lost support after several moon-batty utterances. See Ann’s post above.

Gingrich was the single most successfully demonized politician in the 90's. Fair? no. Successful? Wildly. The press has his number.

He has almost no current support from his former colleagues of that era. His history of getting elected has all been from the same heavily gerrymandered suburban Atlanta congressional district. He has never won a state-wide office. He has run a disorganized campaign, suffered a staff walkout, has raised precious little money and has almost no boots on the ground.

Newt is the guy we all love to listen to. His analysis is always interesting, and he has a great mind. He helped engineer the first takeover of congress by Republicans in a generation. He helped enact welfare reform and brought us the contract with America. He is a great conservative who has absolutely no business being the Republican nominee.

That is, if we want to win.

richard mcenroe said...

Newt is the epitome of the politics of the last century that got us into this mess, the 'conservative' who cosponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi. He needs to go away.

richard mcenroe said...

phx said...
Religious conversion doesn't always have that power for change. It might be an interesting study. What are the recidivism rates for religious converts?

Oh, come on... look what it did for the Borgias... And Larry Flynt had an affair with a lady evangelist in the 80's and now he's a changed man...

rcocean said...

Sadly NRO has zero credibility as a Conservative magazine. I doubt many Republican voters care.

On the bright side, if Gingrich is nominated NRO will fall in line and tell everyone to support Newt or the Republic will die.

Freeman Hunt said...

Half of NRO's writers supported Obama last time, including Peggy Noonan.

(1) No they didn't.

(2) Peggy Noonan is not a writer for NRO. She is a WSJ columnist.

gadfly said...

We have known for some time that most NRO writers favor Romney. What amazes me is that all political factions on both the right and left are blind to what is happening with the GOP Presidential Primary candidates.

Every time a "Not Romney" candidate makes it to the top of the polls, the all out attack begins from media and opposing politicos. After a while, I began seeing (in my mind, at least) unmarked black helicopters.

The absolute insanity going on inside the hallowed halls of government are make me worry about the water we drink.

Time to "Wake Up Amurica," draft an honest and forthright candidate like Sarah Palin and vote only for conservatives and libertarians (with the possible exception of nutcase Ron Paul).

ricpic said...

Gingrich won't seal the border. One way or the other he'll push through amnesty. As far as the many bien pensants on this site are concerned what could be better? In his anti-whiteness he's joined at the hip with the ruling class, Dems and Pubbies.

rcocean said...

And compared to Mitt, McCain, Dole and Bush I, Newt is a Conservative.

As for his character, don't make me laugh. Compared to who? Clinton? Obama? JFK? FDR? Nixon?

rcocean said...

"Gingrich won't seal the border."

And neither will Perry, Mitt or Paul. McCain and Bush II wanted Amnesty and the Republicans loved them.

If being against "Amnesty" was a core conservative value they would never have nominated and supported McCain.

urpower said...

I didn't get the 'right wing social engineering' line. Gingrich was just saying you have to convince the country of a major change, before making it. That sounds right to me.

Freeman Hunt said...

And compared to Mitt, McCain, Dole and Bush I, Newt is a Conservative.

Evidence? On what issue has he been more conservative?

rcocean said...

"Evidence? On what issue has he been more conservative?"

Gingrich called Dole "tax collector for the Welfare State". He constantly battled Bush I to implement conservative legislation. As for McCain - I don't remember Newt going on TV and attacking conservatives while Speaker or "reaching across the aisle" to Jim Wright.

A better question. How were McCain, Bush I, Bush II, and Dole any more conservative than Newt?

Joe Schmoe said...

DCT said:
Half of NRO's writers supported Obama last time, including Peggy Noonan.

Freeman Hunt said:
(1) No they didn't.


I have to emphatically reiterate no. 1 above. NRO wasn't high on McCain, but none of them endorsed Obama. Never. Ever. Not one.

rcocean said:
Sadly NRO has zero credibility as a Conservative magazine. I doubt many Republican voters care.

Whah? Methinks you folks don't read it. These claims are nonsense on stilts. National Review has never had a gigantic circulation and has always been a money loser, but it has some of the best conservative commentary in print or in pixels. Yes, I'm an unabashed fan of it because of the quality of its content.

rcocean said...

Has Newt ever favored abortion?

I don't think so.

phx said...

This seems like a rare opportunity for Republicans who aren't complete ideologues to reach out and talk with one another about what the options really are.

There's going to be two Republicans: those who can reach out to their opponents, and those who can't.

Joe Schmoe said...

Having said that, I have been amused at NR's anti-Newt campaign of late. I've noticed it; usually at least 3 or 4 of the headlines on their homepage raise some issue about Newt.

I'm more of the mind to let the nomination process play out.

rcocean said...

"National Review has never had a gigantic circulation and has always been a money loser, but it has some of the best conservative commentary in print or in pixels. Yes, I'm an unabashed fan of it because of the quality of its content."

Well good for you. Anyone who's old -and conservative enough- knows NR lost its fastball about 15 years ago. Its irrelevant and has been ever since the "girly men" fired Coulter.

So its a quality magazine, so what, some think the New Republic and the New Yorker are quality too. They just aren't conservative and neither is NR.

Patrick said...

Freeman Hunt.

Evidence? On what issue has he been more conservative?

In the last debate he was the most conservative on the existence of Israel and the Evils of Hamas

IF he hire John Bolton he will be the most conservative person on foreign affairs.

Spread Eagle said...

The problem is, as bad as Newt appears to be, Romney is worse.

Patrick said...

Palin was popular because she bashed Obama.
Trump was popular because he bashed Obama.
Cain was popular because he bashed Obama.

Mitt is popular why? He's not an Obama basher. Salutations to Mitt are ignoring a lot of voters. They are assuming they can media slam everyone but Mitt.

Obama prefers to run against Mitt Romney. Mitt will play nice with OBama like McCain did while Obama does the bad behavior and blames the negatives on Mitt.

Maguro said...

So who are the "true conservatives", rcocean, if the NRO editorial staff doesn't qualify? Must be a pretty exclusive group.

phx said...

that's the perfect avatar next to Maguro's comment and question.

Writ Small said...

"If being against "Amnesty" was a core conservative value they would never have nominated and supported McCain."

McCain's nomination had zero to do with his stance on immigration. It was another case of being the last man standing when the votes were taken. Like Newt, McCain was initially ignored since he wasn't perceived as credible. After the more serious candidates destroyed each other, the ignored McCain was the least damaged when the voting got underway.

I didn't support McCain in the primaries but voted for him in the general. I'll do the same with Newt if that's where the party wants to go.

Let's not pretend McCain's nomination had anything to do with immigration.

wv: losedle - That's what Newtdle do.

Cedarford said...

Dane County Taxpayer said...
Half of NRO's writers supported Obama last time, including Peggy Noonan. So, don't be surprised if I don't swoon over their establishment dribble
========================
You lie like a rug.

No one at NRO supported Obama, though many said that McCain was a treacherous backstabber of Republicans and conservatives and would be almost as awful a President as Obama.

As for Noonan, she is a writer at the Wall Street Jou.

Bender said...

And what do the establishment hacks at NRO -- in the tank for the Weasel last time and in the tank now -- have to say about all of the Republicans who have served in Congress since Newt left??

Spineless, weak, ineffectual disasters. Yeah, they've really done a bang-up job -- just look at where the country is today. And they did nothing to stop it.

Titus said...

I love katey jo lopez.

So sad the family values fatty is surrounded by all those men there and still can't bag one.

shiloh said...

Obviously the conservative hierarchy/national committees/Fox News/conservative talk radio minus Limbaugh and a few others are trying really, really hard to help mittens defeat Gingrich.

Much like the Rep hierarchy helped McCain before and after he won NH in 2008, putting him over the top in, winner take all, FL and helping big time on Super Tuesday.

Reps fall in line and most believe Gingrich will lead them to Armageddon. Let the games begin.

It is somewhat amusing knowing RINO mittens has now been deemed the Republican savior ...

Bender said...

And what I just said applies to Ryan as well. If Newt is so bad, then why the hell are Ryan's lips glued to Boehner's butt?

Boehner, a go-along-get-along, business-as-usual guy like Romney, is an improvement over Pelosi, but that ain't saying much. Time and again the Republican leadership -- including Ryan, who has encouraged folks to go along with Boehner -- has thrown away victory and even Ryan's budget plans are piss-poor, doing only a fraction of what really needs to be done.

Joe Schmoe said...

NR lost its fastball because it fired Coulter, huh? That's pretty weak evidence for your claim considering she basically behaved like a nutjob.

I'm still not sure why you don't think it's a conservative magazine. Since I doubt you'll explain yourself further, can you at least tell me what the best conservative magazine/website is now?

Cedarford said...

Maguro said...
So who are the "true conservatives", rcocean, if the NRO editorial staff doesn't qualify? Must be a pretty exclusive group.
====================
People like rcocean, edutcher, and bender have latched on to an incoherent rage as "real conservatism" - and the adoration of the latest cynical right wing bombthrower du jour delivering red meat to the rubes as the "true litmus test conservative".

The closest analogy on the Left are the stupid rubes that fed on Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's cynical anger.

They want a Al Sharpton on the Right. Preferably another Alan Keyes, but a white person will do, even a Lifetime DC Insider that makes millions a year from bloviating as he tosses them scraps of red meat and who "is sooooo smart, being a Perfessor and all...and he bashes the Elites!!"

Ken Pidcock said...

Conservatives long ago co-opted the leftist Question Authority on any number of issues, not the least those beloved of this commentariat.

Now, on Gingrich, the elite urge Republican voters to cede to their judgment. Good luck with that.

Steve Koch said...

Dane County Taxpayer said...
"Half of NRO's writers supported Obama last time, including Peggy Noonan. So, don't be surprised if I don't swoon over their establishment dribble."

Noonan works for WSJ, not NR. Do you have a link supporting your claim that half of NRO writers supported Obama? It seems extremely dubious.

Jose_K said...

He defeated Bill Clinton.
Paul an antisemitic ands a racist.Check his letter at the Mises Institute
Backman, againt vaccines and believe in sorcery.I wont tell what I really think..
Rommey,too to the left to be a republican too to the right to be a democrat.
Perry is a good option. Of course the best is Christie.
Newt- Christie

Jose_K said...

Perry was hurt because he said people who don't support his immigration policies have no heart. Gingrich said much the same. Reagan added a amnesty to the inmigration reform. Conservatives must read Julien Simon , the Ultimate Resource,to avoid causing another lost like in 1992 when they supported the extreme right fanatic causing the Bush´s defeat

David said...

It's always a good idea to remember what the objective is.

The objective is to get Obama out of office, and replace him with a President who will confront issues and lead us with sense and skill out of the fiscal mess we are in.

The danger of our government's fiscal disorder is still greatly underestimated, even by many so called conservatives.

Find the person who has the best chance to defeat Obama, and then work like hell to elect that person.

That person is not Newt Gingrich.

Writ Small said...

"Now, on Gingrich, the elite urge Republican voters to cede to their judgment. Good luck with that. "

It's more like, Use your judgment.

Look. Presidential candidates who have succuessfully dispatched the incumbent did so by embodying personal characteristics that countered perceived weaknesses in the incumbent or prior regime.

For instance, Reagan's optimism countered sad-sack Carter. Clinton's "feel your pain" approach nicely contrasted Bush the Father's aloofness. Boy Scout GWB swept out the slimy Clinton years. Smooth talking intellectual Obama was the apparent antidote to the black-and-white, verbally-challenged Bush years.

So now we're trying to unseat the glib, rotten-leadership, no-accomplisihment-outside-of-politics Obama. The contrast to that we're choosing is. . . Newt Gingrich!

The mind boggles.

edutcher said...

This is why I've said Newt will fade in the stretch. The big reason he's on top now is because the people who support him want to see him tear GodZero to shreds in a debate.

And that's all.

The reasons he has very few friends among those who knew him back when are the ones I think will lay him low eventually.

rcocean said...

"Gingrich won't seal the border."

And neither will Perry, Mitt or Paul. McCain and Bush II wanted Amnesty and the Republicans loved them.


Wrong.

It was a very unpopular issue in the Republican Party and one of the reasons 7 million Conservatives stayed home last election and 1% of the electorate voted for Bob Barr.

Cedarford said...

People like rcocean, edutcher, and bender have latched on to an incoherent rage as "real conservatism"

No, it's called wanting to win and put in place a real Conservative agenda.

Why get the top spot just to put in somebody who won't repeal the Demos' mess, but will only try to fix it?

Of course, Cedar says these things because he's a closet Ronulan.

America's Politico said...

Just returned from a super K-street shindig with one too many hotties from WH, DNC, and Center for American Progress. It was awesome. They are all so happy that the GOP is login' Newt. They just do what I say. I am in heaven. I thank GOP with all my heart.

GOP, please don't change. Please give money, time, energy, and your lives to Newt and Perry. That's the ticket for you.

GOP, reject everyone who even mentions Romney. He is bad. When his name comes up, the hotties just walk away from me. I cannot stand it. So, avoid Romney, at least for my happiness. Sounds good, GOP?

Freeman Hunt said...

Gingrich supported cap and trade, the individual mandate, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

He's not more conservative than Romney.

rcocean said...

"I'm still not sure why you don't think it's a conservative magazine. Since I doubt you'll explain yourself further"

You got that one right. in the future, why don't you spend more time explaining why someone else is wrong -as opposed to making insincere demands that they "explain it" or "Convince" you?

Anyhoo, I have to run, real life awaits.

Saint Croix said...

I like National Review. In fact I read it a lot more now than I did when Buckley was running it. I read it quite a bit.

Having said that, they are violating Reagan's 11th Commandment. And they are doing it really early in this process. I haven't heard any newspapers make an endorsement this early in the campaign.

In fact, it's not an endorsement at all. It's just an attack.

Boooooo.

Compare the talk radio guys, Rush and Hannity, who have been utterly fair and open-minded, and giving access to most of the Republican candidates.

What is NR going to do if Newt is our candidate, and Obama quotes them in his attack ads?

They can't even bother to endorse a candidate, it's just a straight out attack? Bizarre.

Browndog said...

The powers that want to give you Romney gave you George W. Bush.

The powers that gave you George W Bush are still in power...

And seek to remain...hence, enjoy your full helping of Mitty Boy.

Phil 3:14 said...

DANE County;
Be a man and admit you were wrong.

Peter Hoh said...

So say the editors of The National Review.

These would be the media elites that we've so often been warned about, eh?

Browndog said...

There is nothing wrong with NRO....except for Rich Lowrey-

There is nothing wrong with the current President, except for Barack Hussein Obama.

Paul said...

Well a half-baked conservative is still better than a liberal in sheep's clothing (Mitt that is.)

And that half-baked is also miles ahead of a hard-core socialist president like the one we have.

Bob Ellison said...

Freeman Hunt, I agree with you: Newt's not more conservative than Romney. That seems like an easy test.

But the problem is that Newt's not conservative at all. He loves government solutions. He liked cap'n'trade. He sat on that couch with Pelosi, pimping AGW. He thought the individual mandate was a clever way around HillaryCare (that's Newt's explanation). He lately thinks riffing on Romney's wealth-gathering is cool.

He's very unpredictable! We've had a few POTI like this. Clinton and Nixon come to mind. POTI who don't adhere to principles of governance but to those of power. Would Gingrich be different?

Browndog said...

Gingrich supported cap and trade, the individual mandate, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Has he, or has he not said he has learned since, like with cap and trade, and other things-

And admitted his error, now the wiser?

Are we not, as a people, a country, in a far different place now than we were then?

Just askin'

Saint Croix said...

And this is why I read National Review.

master cylinder said...

All I can say is Newt was replaced by the more competent Tom Delay. Nuff
.

timmaguire42 said...

bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one.

That's a brilliant summation of Gingrich's tenure as speaker. He was great as opposition leader, a disaster as majority leader.

What evidence do we have that he's changed?

I Callahan said...

Gingrich supported cap and trade, the individual mandate, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

And which of those items is Romney against?

tw: spense, as in let's di-spense with the nonsense about either candidate - BOTH are big government conservatives

edutcher said...

Milton can't get more than 25% support because of the trust issue.

That's Newt's Achilles heel, as well.

PS The day never dawned DeLay was more competent than Gingrich.

WV "menconf" Huddle

Tim said...

Spread Eagle said...

"The problem is, as bad as Newt appears to be, Romney is worse."

Ideologically, absolutely, Romney is worse than Gingrich. Not by much, but the distinction is still discernible.

But Gingrich is not electable. He just isn't.

Romney is.

He isn't what we need, but he does one thing we do need - he ends Obama's miserable, failed term.

So here are the questions: Does Romney fall so short of what we want, what we need, that we basically doom the nation to four more years of Obama? Can the nation recover from four more years of Obama? Will a Republican president repeal ObamaCare once it's fully operational? Will a Republican president even have a Republican Congress in 2017 to help him/her do so?

What chances are you willing to take?

Tim said...

PS: I detest Romney on the basis of his implementing "health care reform" in Massachusetts. He'll be an awful president - but likely better than Obama, and electable, unlike Gingrich.

Sorun said...

Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action...

Gawd, I've worked for people like that. No way I'm voting for him.

Browndog said...

And this is why I read National Review.

Like I said....

Many called for Jonah to replace Lowrey as editor a couple years ago-

And I don't want to hear people don't change-

They do. They grow, and they digress.

All of us do.

Henry said...

Whichever one of Gingrich or Romney is the Republican Clinton is the one I want to vote for.

Since it looks like Gingrich is the Republican Clinton on glibness and character, I'll take Romney as the Republican Clinton on economics.

Conservatives obsessed with tax rates forget how superb Clinton was on other economic policies. He was the best free trade president this country has ever had -- better than Reagan and many times better than W. He actually understood the economics and was unafraid to defend them. The Clinton Treasury was actually relatively professional and informed compared to the meddling-as-policy approach started by W and increased 10-fold by Obama.

Clinton was greatly assisted by a conservative Congress led by Gingrich, both as a foil and ideological backstop. Score one for Gingrich. But after that, what else did Gingrich accomplish?

Everything important that could start in 2013 will start with fiscally conservative majorities in Congress. A Romney in the White House will be hugely important as a leader for reform begun at the legislative level. A Gingrich in the White House will hamstring a Republican congress with inconsistency, ego, and spite.

A Gingrich in the White House with Democratic majorities in Congress would be entertaining, and a Gingrich candidacy might make that happen.

traditionalguy said...

The two week blitzkreig of sharp charges from every side is a lot like the attack waives that hit Herman Cain.

They first say that no it is not persona, but it is all about who is more conservative...and then they launch hours upon hours personal character slander taken from every nuance of everything the man is or was.

But what if Newt, unlike that good man Herman, turns out to be immune? Will they then have to assassinate him?

Romney says Newt is a liberal. And also that Newt is Zany, whatever defect that actually might be.

The establishment connected GOP talking heads double down and profoundly say that Newt is against capitalism and is generally cukoo.

The truth is that Newt is just plain mean. But to the extant that he can hold that in, like Dr Strangelove had to hold back his right arm that kept raising to give the salute to Mein Fuhrer, then Newt will clean house in DC..

After he cleans house, then voters can chuck him out in 2016 like the English did to Churchill in 1946.

I Callahan said...

And this is why I read National Review.

That was a great piece. We DO live in dangerous, crazy times, and maybe the sensible, middle-of-the-road type is not what we need now (Romney). Maybe we need a bombastic, in-your-face guy to upset the apple cart (Gingrich).

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I wouldn't say that the carpet bombing of Newt is a vast right wing conspiracy.

It's more of a vast right wing Gingrich Obliteration Party, w/o any hidden conspiracy.


Ryan Lizza was on Hewitt's show today. He said that the x-mass party circuit in DC is packed w/ Rs who can't stop freaking out about Newt.

Funny how the R establishment played nice as all the other Romney alternatives took their turns at the top of the pack. If Gingrich's polling wasn't scaring them, I'm sure the establishment would have resorted to less obvious tactics.

Browndog said...

Fuck it.

Nobody is electable but Obama.

nobody

So, after we bring out our dead, Let's dance!

I Callahan said...

But Gingrich is not electable. He just isn't.

Says who? I'd like to know some of these "Independents" who'd vote for Obama over Gingrich. If they do, they're idiots after these last three years.

Either Romney or Gingrich could beat Obama like a rented mule. Yes, I have just enough faith in our populace to make the right decision.

Peter Hoh said...

I kinda expected to see SevenMachos posting on this thread. Did he give up or move on?

Tim said...

I Callahan said...

"Says who? I'd like to know some of these "Independents" who'd vote for Obama over Gingrich. If they do, they're idiots after these last three years."

Says me and, I fear, the election results. But I'm not authority, just an experienced observer.

And yes, I've long stipulated that anyone who voted for Obama is an idiot - either because one is a Democrat who believes the idiocy Democrats believe, or because one is an independent who was too idiotic to see that Obama was the worst of both worlds - the most liberal candidate for president since Roosevelt, and the least experienced candidate ever nominated for president, hands down. It took a special form of idiocy to think Obama was ever remotely qualified for the office - yet there he is.

Don't think for a moment I believe the idiots who put him there the first time won't do so again. Some forms of idiocy are uncorrectable, and no amount of experience will prove effective.

Tim said...

PS: I will vote for whomever the Republican nominee is, just as I did last time. But I fear Gingrich is a sure-bang loser.

Peter Hoh said...

Tim, in 2008, Democrats had the choice between a freshman Senator who had never run anything other than a campaign and a two-term senator who had never run anything other than a campaign. There may be an argument that Clinton had more experience, but for some, the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton was too great a hurdle to overcome.

As for the idea that no reasonable independent could vote to re-elect Obama, remember that in 2004, most Democrats believed that no reasonable independent could vote to re-elect Bush.

garage mahal said...

Gingrich supported cap and trade, the individual mandate, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Cap and trade and the individual mandate are/were Republican ideas. Now Obama is Hitler because he supports them. Tells you everything you need to know how far the right has gone.

I Callahan said...

Tells you everything you need to know how far the right has gone.

Not a bug, but a feature. Those were ALL terrible ideas, and need to be treated as such.

tw: repol. Yes, we need to repol this country by removing the current ones.

Bob Ellison said...

Garage, try to keep up. Cap and trade and the individual mandate were both non-conservative concepts. Look into history; you might find that a Republican President, Richard Nixon, instituted wage and price controls, and that a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, cut taxes big-time in order to spur economic growth. A Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act; a Republican President killed slavery. Really, try to keep up.

MadisonMan said...

I read this thread and think: No way can a Republican win.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"[Gingrich won't seal the border?] And neither will Perry, Mitt or Paul. McCain and Bush II wanted Amnesty and the Republicans loved them. If being against 'Amnesty' was a core conservative value they would never have nominated and supported McCain."

Immigration is a dead issue. No electable candidate from either party is going to seal the border or indulge in a mass deportation, so the only questions left are how long we drag out this ridiculous tug of war and who will get the credit for aligning policy with reality. On balance, I'd prefer it was us. Even if one happens to disagree with the bishops, one must simply get over it.

Just as at Virginia Tech and the refusal of liberal policymakers to accept the reality of guns in society, so also immigration. when dogmatic policy goes to war with reality, nothing happens save a piling up of bodies until policy waves the white flag.

Browndog said...

None of those were put into law-

No, Garage, Obama is hitler because...well, he's hitler...in a new,fresh, generic sort of way-

His choice.

MadisonMan said...

remember that in 2004, most Democrats believed that no reasonable independent could vote to re-elect Bush.

So they nominated Kerry.

Who is more like Kerry -- Gingrich or Romney? Romney and Kerry both were elected in MA, but Gingrich and Kerry are both career politicians.

shiloh said...

Still have fond memories when Lowry was smitten by mama grizzly at the 2008 Rep convention.

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
~~~~~


Harold Robbins er William F. Buckley, Jr. would have been soooo proud!

America's Politico said...

Also, forgot, ran into my ex-GF (and her Daddy) tonight at the steakhouse grill with my hot date from K-street. My GF said that she will vote for Newt all the way. If no Newt, then she will not vote at all.

I like her. I really like her. No wonder we are not together.

GOP, be like my GF. Go all the way for Newt. All. The. Way. Please, I am begging you.

Peter Hoh said...

MadisonMan, consider this analogy:

Gingrich is Howard Dean -- the guy who excites the base with his attacks on the incumbent.

Romney is Kerry -- the guy who can't excite the base but is supposed to draw the votes of independents.

Browndog said...

shiloh said...

Still have fond memories when Lowry was smitten by mama grizzly at the 2008 Rep convention.


You're point being it was only Lowrey "smitten"-

No, I think most conservatives were. It was a heck of a speech-

So was Obama's Iowa's speech.

Trying to mock Palin, Lowrey, or yourself?

Beta Rube said...

Newt reminds me of Brett Favre. We all criticize Brett now, but let us not forget that he made the Packers relevant and fun again. Two Super Bowls and one win, and lots of playoff games, national recognition, etc.

The GOP took over the House after a 40 year drought because of Newt. They were a force to be reckoned with, welfare reform and balanced budgets happened, and many of us were big fans of The Contract With America.

It seems in both case most are eager to inter the good and remember the flaws. Such is life, but Newt did more for the conservative cause in America than all the rest of the candidates combined.

William said...

Can anyone point to an issue or a matter of conscience when Gingrich, for the principle of the thing, passed up the chance to act in his own self interest or aggrandizement?....You want to know who wil vote for Obama over Gingrich? Althouse and just about every other woman in America who previously voted for Obama. Women will forgive a philanderer with a twinkling eye, but not one with a fat ass. Trump, Cain, and Clinton can all get away with it, but not Newt. It's so unfair the way women treat adulterers.....In my lifetime there have been two genuinely unlikable men as President: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Not coincidentally they had the most spectacluarly unsuccessful Presidencies of modern times. A President needs a reservoir of good will and trust in order to succeed. If Gingrich inspires this much dislike in people who agree with him, how will he fare with those who despise Republicans of truly exemplary character.

Freeman Hunt said...

Has he, or has he not said he has learned since, like with cap and trade, and other things-

And admitted his error, now the wiser?


And then he made the unforced error or undercutting Paul Ryan.

(1) He's not more conservative than Romney.

(2) He's demonstrably a less competent executive than Romney.

The conservatism having no fundamental difference between them, you go for the competent guy who knows how to work with people and get things done. Congress is going to be very conservative after the next election. Romney is perfect to work with that. Gingrich is not.

Tim said...

"Tim, in 2008, Democrats had the choice between a freshman Senator who had never run anything other than a campaign and a two-term senator who had never run anything other than a campaign. There may be an argument that Clinton had more experience, but for some, the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton was too great a hurdle to overcome."

Peter, I see that, but in the end, given Hillary's indirect exposure to executive office, both in Arkansas and the White House, and her real world (as favored as it may have been) experience as a heavy hitter at a real law firm, and her workman-like tenure in the Senate as opposed to Obama's, she was clearly the much better choice for responsible Democrats to make. As an American, I wish the Democrats had nominated her instead of the current disaster. Things might have not worked out much better, but I suspect they wouldn't be quite so bad.

"As for the idea that no reasonable independent could vote to re-elect Obama, remember that in 2004, most Democrats believed that no reasonable independent could vote to re-elect Bush."

Right, I get it, except it isn't exactly the same, is it? I think, by any reasonable measure, Obama is significantly worse, and worse off, than Bush was going into his re-elect. Take whichever you wish - poll numbers, contrast with the stated promise of his presidency, contrast between each presidency, contrast to the job each confronted - and I think Bush, objectively, was in better shape than Obama is. That said, Republicans like me have a pitiful group of candidates to chose from, and I genuinely believe Romney to be a better candidate than Gingrich - even though Gingrich may be more conservative (on some issue, if inconstant, but so too is Romney) than Romney. I say this, as I indicated above, desperately wishing there was a better candidate than Romney.

In the end, I think all the issues highlighted by the crew at NR are accurate; I think they will resonate against Gingrich, and ultimately make him unelectable.

Allison said...

Who says Gingrich isn't electable?

Those RINOs Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Tom Coburn, Mark Steyn, and a few others.

For a very entertaining takedown of Gingrich the historian/writer, read this piece in the NYT mag by Andrew Ferguson, editor at Weekly Standar:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/what-does-newt-gingrich-know.html

It's hard to not throw up at his comparisons to himself as Churchill after reading Ferguson's piece.

Beta Rube said...

This apparently terrible candidate has been wiping the floor with these other guys, including the prissy and proper Mittens, in the debates.

He's so flawed that he came from nowhere this summer to the top of the heap. How is this possible in one so unable to win?

Tim said...

"This apparently terrible candidate has been wiping the floor with these other guys, including the prissy and proper Mittens, in the debates."

Because the glib candidate always makes the best president...

And his record as Speaker is, uh, best ignored.

Beta Rube said...

Mittens v. Romney will be as exciting as two CPA's explaining the depreciation schedule on my copier.

Newt adds fire and interest to the proceedings. I look forward to the campaign.

JohnJ said...

“(1) (Gingrich is) not more conservative than Romney.”

Not a major consideration in the long run. With a Republican Congress and an evenly divided Senate, Romney likely would *accomplish* a more conservative agenda than Gingrich.


“(2) (Gingrich is) demonstrably a less competent executive than Romney.”

THAT is the major consideration. And I’d add that it seems fairly obvious that a Romney administration would return an understated dignity to the presidency that we don’t have now and probably wouldn’t have under Gingrich.

Cedarford said...

William - "In my lifetime there have been two genuinely unlikable men as President: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Not coincidentally they had the most spectacluarly unsuccessful Presidencies of modern times. A President needs a reservoir of good will and trust in order to succeed."

Both LBJ and Nixon were enormously consequential Presidents. They got stuff done. Most of what they did was good enough it not only lasted, but became permanent. That makes them successful Presidents.

To my thinking, there are 3 Presidents that left America in far worse shape than what is was, when they took office.

Jimmy Carter, Dubya Bush, and Barack Obama.
Nixon and LBJ were Titans compared to those 3.

===============
Beta Rube said...
This apparently terrible candidate has been wiping the floor with these other guys, including the prissy and proper Mittens, in the debates.

He's so flawed that he came from nowhere this summer to the top of the heap. How is this possible in one so unable to win?


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but sometimes the left-wing and right-wing cretins of their respective parties vote some true believer into the nomination that utterly fails in the general election.
Hint: The Republican and Democrat Party primaries SKEW! and what is loved by the ideological rubes and cretins (Goldwater, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry) fails badly in the general election.

Sometimes the Party comes to it's senses and doesn't elect a once high-flying voiciferous act loved by the extremists...Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean..

Beta Rube said...

We need ideas and leadership. Bold and unafraid, and you guys want to hand the country to a dull administrator with great hair.

I am not a member of the virtue police, and never will be. I have many flawed friends, none more so than myself, who have hung around long enough to learn and change and live very good lives. They are the best people I know, but I doubt any of them would make the grade with this crowd.

Beta Rube said...

And sometimes the true believers get elected and we get 4 years of the first post-modern American President. And the oceans don't really recede and the unemployed are not given good jobs.

Ralph L said...

Romney is Kerry -- the guy who can't excite the base but is supposed to draw the votes of independents
The Democrats convinced themselves Kerry was the electable one, because he'd served in Vietnam and because they all said so. No one mentioned he was a traitorous SOB until the Swiftboaters. Coddling of Dems by the media doesn't always help them.

A. Shmendrik said...

Yeah. I've read NR for about 40 years. But, let's face it, they are not driving this bus. Nice to hear that they have differences with Newt as Speaker. Except that without Newt, you don't have a GOP majority in the House after the 1994 elections, so what, you'd be talking about the finer points of Gephardt's speakership?

You have to take the good and the bad. Newt is a rough ride for a lot of folks, I understand. So be it. If Romney is nominated we will be analyzing his failure late on November 6th/early November 7th.

Beta Rube said...

Thank you Shmendrik. I think the fix is in for Mitt and I can look forward to some tiny amount of "I told you so" redemption while wondering where my country will be after 4 more years of huge deficits and class warfare.

At least that woman in Florida won't have to worry about gas for her car or paying her mortgage.

sonicfrog said...

When National Review is not “Conservative Enough”… Uhm… Houston… We have a problem! I’m thinking this is a pretty good Conservative “Jump The Shark” moment!

Ralph L said...

I'll agree LBJ and Nixon were consequential--but much of what they did was harmful to the country. Likewise FDR domestically.

Peter Hoh said...

Beta Rube: Mittens v. Romney will be as exciting as two CPA's explaining the depreciation schedule on my copier.

Nice Freudian slip.

james conrad said...

Likes Newt but my view is, if he is the nominee, he offers a path for Obama to win & thats just not acceptable to me.

br549 said...

For the love of God, people, let's get Obama out of office. That is job number 1. Newt would make a good adviser, but not a good president.

Tom from Virginia said...

Look, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like to have or the one you'll have some day in the future. Sure, I wish we had Palin or Haley or Ryan or Rubio as candidates. But they're all sitting this one out. And if they were in, I don't doubt for one minute they would be subject to an unrelenting assault from the MSM. But if my imperfect choices are Romney or Gingrich, I'm all in with Newt. There's a chance he'll govern as a conservative on at least some important issues. If you think that about Romney, the wish is father to the hope. Except for one brief shining moment against McCain in 2008, in every race he's ever had, he's been Chuck Percy.

cokaygne said...

Here are some things to worry about:

the "doc fix" will be extended sine die;
the AMT fix will be extended sine die;
the "Bush tax cuts" for the "middle class" (used to be <$250,000, now it is <$1,000,000, soon to be <$1,000,000,000) will be extended sine dies;
the "debt ceiling" will be raised every year.

That's all bad enough, now there is bipartizan agreement and poll support for continuing a "temporary" cut in FICA. Let us not discuss that this is a DIRECT REDUCTION in Social Security trust fund revenue at a time when benefits will soon have to be paid out of general fund revenue - borrowing.

There is not hope. They will never never change. WE ARE DOOMED.

viator said...

It's get Newt time!

Unfortunately, Republican rank and file don't seem to be cooperating.

WSJ

Question: How many ordinary voters even know who Newt Gingrich is?

rsb said...

Religious conversion only shows stupidity in action.

shiloh said...

"Sure, I wish we had Palin or Haley or Ryan or Rubio as candidates."

As WS said ~ The mind boggles.

palin's ratings are subterranean, Haley is a joke, Ryan wants to get rid of SS/Medicare and teabagger boy wonder, Rubio, is below 50% in FL.

btw, currently the highest rated politician in FL is Crist, not exactly a TP'er, eh.

Indeed, Rep's crrent reality: Newt and mittens are actually the best you got.

Joe Schmoe said...

rcocean:
You got that one right. in the future, why don't you spend more time explaining why someone else is wrong -as opposed to making insincere demands that they "explain it" or "Convince" you?

Because NR is a conservative magazine, and you say it's not. I don't need to explain it. It's the same as you claiming water isn't wet. That's on you.

If your whole foundation for conservative is based on a throwaway line from Ann Coulter, God help us. Next time read NR and form your own opinion. Don't regurgitate crap from someone else.

Simon said...

james conrad said...
"Likes Newt but my view is, if he is the nominee, he offers a path for Obama to win & thats just not acceptable to me."

That argument can be made against every potential nominee—including those not in the race—which means it's not a very good criticism of any of them.

MarkD said...

Even if it were all true, he's not Obama. You can beat nothing with anything.

shiloh said...

"Nothing" got 69.5 million votes in 2008. 7.5 million more votes than cheney/bush in 2004.

Teabaggers have been whining about "nothing" for (3+) years.

Take care