Newt Gingrich

[Peter]

I was listening to local, conservative talk radio today as I was running errands and they were discussing the primaries. Ron Paul was held in high esteem except for his isolationism which they thought naïve. One caller disagreed and said if we minded our own business we could be a war free country like Brazil which has not had a war since 1850. Nobody threatens Brazil. Nobody hates Brazil. Their trade is free and they are a democracy.

I looked the country up on wikipedia and they disagree about the date of 1850 as their last conflict. They abolished the international trade in slaves in 1850 and abolished slavery entirely in 1888.

Here is what Wikipedia said:

The Paraguayan War (Spanish: Guerra del Paraguay; Portuguese: Guerra do Paraguai), also known as War of the Triple Alliance (Spanish: Guerra de la Triple Alianza; Portuguese: Guerra da Tríplice Aliança), was a military conflict in South America fought from 1864 to 1870 between Paraguay and the Triple Alliance of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. It caused more deaths proportionally than any other war in modern history, and particularly devastated Paraguay, killing most of its male population.

end quote

So 1870 is the year of their last conflict except for the drunken fist fights at Carnival. Can you imagine killing most of a country's male population? That’s on a par with the Nazis.

Ron Paul needs to marginalize Bachmann and Santorum if he wants to win Iowa. I just saw Ron Paul on The Jay Leno show replayed on Fox as I was typing this and he took two cheap shots, the first was at Bachmann. “She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” Then he took a shot at Santorum. “He hates Muslims and gays.”

One talk show radio caller said Perry is on some commission like the Trilateral Commission and not to be trusted. And if you aren’t on these commissions you will never be nominated in conspiratorial Amerika.

Generally the callers preferred Newt to Romney but were not happy with either of them. There was the usual talk radio gossip like Palin or Jeb Bush will enter the race. I don’t think so.

Peter

[Selene]

Tony Blankley is an analyst that I truly respect. Full disclosure, as he mentions in this article, Mr. Newt was his boss.

Blankley makes a compelling argument for the value of Mr. Newt to intelligently approach the muti-level number of mortal crises that we are facing globally, nationally, morally, ethically, economically and socially.

Here is the case:

Newt's Past and Future Leadership

by: Tony Blankley

Townhall.com

Almost all political commentators agree on one thing. The Republican presidential campaign is unlike any we have experienced. It is not a campaign of steady trends and continuities, but rather of emotional reversals and discontinuities. Perhaps this is so because the last 3 to 4 years have been a shocking time of discontinuities and reversals for America. Really, America has been bewildered, shocked and disoriented since Sept. 11, 2001. The economic collapse and the unprecedentedly statist policies of the last three years have just compounded the anxiety. The rise of China, the fall of Europe and the chaos in the Middle East have been startling in their swiftness -- and the lack of American leadership as these dramatic events unfold is sending a shudder throughout the world.

We don't know what to make of events. We have not been convinced that either President George W. Bush or incumbent President Obama have had a clue about how to make things right.

The GOP primary voters reflect this helter-skelter search for leadership. And I predict that when the general electorate is engaged in the general election campaign next year, the independents and some Democrats will reflect the same desperate confusion and search for the right kind of leadership for these treacherous times. But what kind of candidate is most likely to make sense of the terrible events and forces that weigh down our country; be capable of vividly describing our plight and what needs to be done; and convince the public that he or she has the intelligence, courage, experience and sheer willful capacity to force events favorably to America's historic interests and needs?

As I have chosen to phrase that question, the question answers itself. It is the GOP candidate currently at the top of the polls -- my former boss, Newt Gingrich.

But most Washington politicians don't see it that way. They see a conventional, close election -- not a bold, historic lunge by the voters to save the country. They suggest Mitt Romney may be better positioned to stitch together a safe campaign that noses out Obama by a point or two, or comes up short by a point or two. He might be that candidate.

Thus, Romney received the endorsement of the GOP political types -- congressmen and former congressmen. Now they are doubling down on their early bet and are out telling reporters that Gingrich was never much of a leader and never got much done.

Curious. I remember most of them enthusiastically following his leadership year after year as the Republican whip from 1989-1994. It was the most successful congressional opposition movement since Benjamin Disraeli formed the modern Conservative Party in Britain in the mid-19th century. And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.

Just who the heck do all these wizard political pros think managed all that? It wasn't us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd. We helped, but Gingrich led. I admit Gingrich's methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled.

One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power -- we didn't have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.

This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic on his part. No, it was a necessary, calculated maneuver. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If Gingrich hadn't kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leadership.

But when it came to fundamental conservative principles and the political strategies necessary to protect them, Gingrich saw the threats to them and never wavered. I was amused to see Gov. John Sununu, President George H. W. Bush's chief of staff and a current Romney supporter, criticize Gingrich last week.

I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater (Bush and Sununu's loyal, shrewd White House press secretary -- and no fan of Gingrich's at the time) later wrote in his memoirs, "As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap (the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit) was Newt Gingrich. ... Newt had ... recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations (with the Democrats), keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."

Years later, when Gingrich was speaker, he followed his own advice. He refused to raise taxes, he made a political fight of spending cuts with Bill Clinton (paying a big price in personal smears run against him), but we won the historic balanced budgets.

In dangerous times, the safer choice for president is not the candidate who has always played it safe, nor is it the candidate who has not already faced and defeated adversity.

Original Article: Newt's Past and Future Leadership

Gingrich is a natural leader. I am currently reading The Mask of Command by John Kegan which deals with leadership. He ponts out that:

The leader of men in warfare can show himself to his followers only through a mask, a mask that he must make for himself,

but a mask that made in such form as it will mark him to men of his time and place as the leader they want and need.

Substitute "a national time of crisis" for warfare and that is why Gingrich is the right person for this nation today.

Adam

Post Script: The underlining in the Blankley article is mine and was done to emphasize key points and phrases.

[Selene]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151634/Romney-Gingrich-Tie-Obama-2012-Ballot.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20USA

Both Romney and Gingrich Tie Obama on 2012 Ballot

Negative voting more a factor against Obama than against either Republican

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich essentially tie President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election preferences of registered voters nationwide. Fifty percent of registered voters would support Obama in each hypothetical matchup, while 48% would give their vote to Gingrich or Romney.

[Peter]

Thanks for the link to the Blankley article on his old boss, Mr. Newt. I also respect Tony’s opinion – a lot!

Like Mitt I think Newt’s potential first four years as President would be ruled by SURVIVALIST, rational, conservative actions. We are in a deep hole. Australian News is trumpeting a “further, deep, economic contraction” in the European Union which will spread across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It’s happening now and 2012 will be a year of dread.

If I were Newt and I won the primaries I would consider Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Mitt Romney in that order, as Vice Presidential material. Honorable mentions go to Mitch Daniels and the rest of the candidates in the primaries. Traditionally a candidate from the house and from the South, might pick someone who is a governor or general from a different region, but Rubio, also from the South is fine demographically.

I would love to see a “last five years,” side by side, comparison of what Newt and Mitt have stood for. Newt’s age, influence peddling, and infidelity will be in the news every day if he is nominated.

Mitt’s religion will be criticized from everyone else on the left but the President and his handlers. It will be a stealth attack using an evangelical Christian group who seek celebrity status, and paid to rabble rouse by the likes of George Soros.

Peter

The campaign continues -

NEW YORK (AP) — What would Mitt Romney like to say to the American people? How about this: "Newt Gingrich? Really?"

That's one of the playful messages Romney announced to laughter Monday night on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman." The Republican presidential hopeful delivered the nightly "Top Ten" list in khakis, shirt and a blue blazer without a tie. Letterman asked the casually dressed candidate, "How'd you do on the back nine?"

While Romney took a gentle dig at Gingrich, his main rival for the GOP nomination, he poked fun at himself too. "Isn't it time," he asked, "for a president who looks like a 1970s game show host?"

And: "I can do a lot, but even I can't fix the Indianapolis Colts."

Romney's No. 1 thing to tell Americans? "It's a hair piece."

Letterman's "Top Ten Things Mitt Romney Would Like to Say to the American People":

No. 10 — "Isn't it time for a president who looks like a 1970s game show host?"

No. 9 — "What's up, gangstas? It's the M-I-Double Tizzle."

No. 8 — "I have no proof, but I have a feeling Canada is planning something."

No. 7 — "Actually, I'm only here to meet Tom Cruise."

No. 6 — "Live from New York, it's Saturday night!"

No. 5 — "My new cologne is now available at Macy's. It's Mittstified."

No. 4 — "I just used all my campaign money to buy a zoo with Matt Damon."

No. 3 — "I can do a lot, but even I can't fix the Indianapolis Colts."

No. 2 — "Newt Gingrich? Really?"

No. 1 — "It's a hair piece."

[Selene]

Peter:

I posted the Gallop/USA Today for you to illustrate two factors that are critical when looking at any of the polling data that we will be innundated by over the next three hundred (300) odd days;

1) the poll is of registered voters, the better polling is of prime voters amongst the registered voters; and

2) the folks voting for Mr. Newt, or the Catcher's Mitt are

voting against O'biwan

.

Frankly, if this election is about O'biwan, we win, if it is about what the Republican stands for we could lose, unless it is clearly and simply laid out in no more than three (3), or, four (4) points.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Frankly, if this election is about O'biwan, we win, if it is about what the Republican stands for we could lose, unless it is clearly and simply laid out in no more than three (3), or, four (4) points.

end quote

Well said – you sound like Karl Rove.

Here are some potentials for your four points.

One The economy. Freedom grows the economy.

Two The debt. Entitlement reform. Stronger, but a leaner, cheaper military. With China’s naval ascendancy we have a potential problem with too few aircraft carriers or their alternative. Ron Paul’s solutions are naïve.

Three Perhaps point three could be: Socialists like Obama will destroy America. Repeal Obamacare and other socialist programs before we go bankrupt.

A call to a return to the Constitution and to rebalance the three branches of government might be too esoteric for a general campaign. But I still like Romney who said he will roll back government using the power of the Presidency in his first sixty days and then go to a Republican lead congress to address, lessen, and stop the power creep in the executive branch. As we have seen and dreaded with O’bama, we are close to losing our liberties to the first tyrant who is elected.

Now, I am off to get my eyes dilated and checked. Surprising I see better at night since I got new glasses last year with real glass in them instead of high-tech plastic lenses. Ah, the life of the retired gentry is so hard . . .

Peter

[blackhorse]

Gingrich appears to be slipping in the polls. The frustrating part of this whole thing is the lack of genuine candidates who are ardent defenders of liberty and laissez-faire capitalism (other than Paul, even though he supports 10th amendment tyranny, not too mention his insane foreign policy). I like what Gingrich has had to say, but after the Beck interview I have found myself questioning the authenticity of his remarks of the last couple months. Romney is a RINO. Perry is diet Romney. Huntsman who? As of now I am most impressed with Bachmann and Santorum. They may be a little to "religious" for many Objectivists, but that is a non issue for me. It appears that after all of this smoke has settled of late, that Santorum and Bachmann are the two candidates who have a real leg to stand on.-based on their voting record and what they have said, now and in the past, they are the most consistent.

[Peter]

Blackhorse wrote:

It appears that after all of this smoke has settled of late, that Santorum and Bachmann are the two candidates who have a real leg to stand on.-based on their voting record and what they have said, now and in the past, they are the most consistent.

end quote

I agree. If Ron Paul just had a decent foreign policy and if he were younger he would have a better time of it too.

Bachmann is fine, though too religious as you mention, and she is a Zealous Woman which would seriously hurt her general election chances. It is sexism, as with Sarah Palin, but it is what it is with Miss Palin, who I would really like to hump.

Santorum just cannot get any traction, but I could definitely vote for him. He seems very honest and trustworthy. I like him.

The religious issue is relevant to their reasoning ability. If they are praying for divine guidance they are not considering rational alternatives. Overt political religionists are behaving as if America had a union of church and state.

Which brings up my own *faith* in Israel, which is similar to Ron Paul’s. It should exist as a representative government and not as a religious state. There should be a separation of church and state there even though, or should I say especially because, there is a strident religious minority. We would not be America if we had a state religion. Israel cannot be a legitimate government if it is a Jewish, Islamic or Christian theocracy.

Peter

[Selene]

This is being proposed by certain folks that I know as a poster for Mr. Newt's campaign...

[caroljane]

Angry White Guy .

[Selene]

Angry White Guy .

Yep...and they vote.

[caroljane]

Angry White Guy .

Yep...and they vote.

Exactly. I guess the wagging finger signifies schoolmarmishness intellectual argument from authority.Carefully calculated to appeal to the base. Needless to state I don't like it.

[Selene]

Angry White Guy .

Yep...and they vote.

Exactly. I guess the wagging finger signifies schoolmarmishness intellectual argument from authority.Carefully calculated to appeal to the base. Needless to state I don't like it.

Understandable, but this kind of red meat messaging gets the targeted voter to the polls with three friends.

[Selene]

It's beginning to look a lot like 1980 again!

Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson told Sean Hannity on Fox News Monday night that he is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.

Thompson declared that he likes Gingrich's low-tax approach which will grow the economy.

Thompson said Newt is "not afraid, he's tough," and added that his federal experience gives him a unique advantage of reforming Washington.

The former Tennessee senator added that the country is in a "colossal mess" and that the current political situation suggests that "normal rules don't apply."

In discussing his endorsement, Thompson said Gingrich was a strong man who "led a revolution in American politics" during his time as House speaker. He credited Gingrich with working across the aisle with both parties, particularly in passing welfare reform. "Newt has done his own tough, gritty work" to get things done in American politics, Thompson said.

Thompson said politicians must "stop apologizing" and stand up to the establishment of both parties and the news media to get things done.

"People are frightened," he said. "They want answers."

Thompson said he got into politics to improve things and "leave things a little better" and now he is "ashamed and embarrassed by what our generation is leaving behind."

Fred Thompson Endorses Newt Gingrich

[Selene]

In this photo, Reagen must have been thinking...

Yo, dude, what the f _ _ _ is up with that hairdo?

[Selene]

But who will read the retraction? Like the retractions the NY Times prints on page 52...lol

After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.

"Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday," King said on tonight's edition of John King USA. "Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage."

An important victory for John King in his ongoing effort to justify last Thursday's confrontation.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html

[Selene]

Shark Tank: Herman Cain to endorse Newt Gingrich

The conservative Shark Tank blog says Herman Cain could endorse Newt Gingrich tonight in Palm Beach County during a Lincoln Day dinner there. There has been buzz for a month Cain might do it, Gingrich's campaign said to expect a big endorsement tonight and earlier this evening GOP operative Roger Stone suggested Can might be the man.

Whether this makes a difference at all is a good question. Perhaps we should ask Craig Miller. Who's that? He's the guy in single-digits in the Florida Senate race primary polls who was endorsed by Cain recently.

But who knows, to the degree there's an untapped reservoir of tea-party-like supporters who will be swayed by Cain, this could account for a few votes for Gingrich. But will it be enough to overcome Mitt Romney's ever-widening lead in the polls? Probably not.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/01/shark-tank-herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich.html#storylink=cpy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck Blues

As I already mentioned on another thread, Sarah Palin is now saying, "Rage against the machine, vote for Newt." As of this posting, you don't see this on The Blaze. But you can see it on Real Clear Politics (see here).

If that were my only gripe, I could see this plausibly as an oversight. But it is constant. Here is an example I just caught red-handed. On Glenn's own site (the one that bears his name in the URL), here is a headline:

Frantic caller complains about Newt bashing

The transcript is published.

But...

If you view the video, it is not the one belonging to the transcript. It is nothing but 10 minutes of Newt-bashing, using audio clips of Newt and a portion where Glenn dissects historical progressives with the subtext that these are the people Newt wants to emulate.

In other words, a person who is perplexed about Glenn's Newt-bashing starts the video with the intent of seeing how he handles it, and all he gets is one more chance for Glenn to present a ham-handed presentation against Newt. I'm sure this was just an error. Yeah, right. Funny how this never works in the opposite direction. I'm sure that's only an unfortunate coincidence. Blah...

This kind of "error" is getting more and more common with Glenn (including delays in getting balanced news up, highlighting outdated polls that disfavor Newt as if they are current but giving a disclaimer near the end, and things like that). All this as he drones on and on about what a devil Newt is.

And he wonders why his influence is slipping. He's even perplexed that the Tea Party is coming out for Newt--as he expresses in the video below.

But he's doing the same sleazy crap he bashes in others. So who does he think he's fooling?

If Glenn doesn't watch out, he's going to get roasted on the same bonfire he helped kindle in the Tea Party. Honesty means something important to these people. They're not going to go for the slogan of "The truth lives here except when it doesn't."

Here is the video you will find under that headline at the very moment of this posting. I'm embedding it because I'm sure this "error" will be detected and corrected after the "error" has had a good run. (My guess is right after the primary vote on Tuesday, or right before.)

<object width="400" height="254"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20074585&property=gbtv" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="tl" /><embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20074585&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object>

I don't mind Glenn bashing Newt and having an opinion. That's what he should do if that's where his heart and mind are.

I do mind the sleaze.

You don't beat hypocrisy with more hypocrisy.

Michael

[Mark]

"Honesty means something important to these [Tea Party] people."

If it did they wouldn't want Gingrich, one of the most dishonest politicos ever.

I'm not surprised the Tea Party would support Gingrich. The Tea Party started right then went off the rails. From the ARIwatch/links page:

The Tea Party

The Politics of the Tea Partyers

No wonder the Ayn Rand Institute / Ayn Rand Center supports them. By James Bovard.

A message to the Tea Party

A Karl Denninger interview with an original Tea Party founder Dylan Ratigan (contains vulgar language).

The Tea Party’s “small government” fraud

“... the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to ... co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction ... .”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Honesty means something important to these [Tea Party] people."

If it did they they wouldn't want Gingrich, one of the most dishonest politicos ever.

Mark,

You didn't understand my point and transferred one meaning to another with honesty.

You're also treating the Tea Party as if it were a political party when it is many, many independent organizations. (And Ratigan? Soros funded Christian Science Monitor? Salon? These are your sources about the Tea Party? Really? Dayaamm!)

When I said the Tea Party, my meaning is the kind of people who gravitate around a small-government agenda and loosely identify that as the Tea Party. These people tend to like honesty a lot. I know the folks I saw at Beck's Restoring Honor rally in Washington were of the finest kind. It was no accident that we left the grounds cleaner than what we found when we arrived. Not one arrest. No nastiness. No hatred to be found. And so on. Everybody was nice to each other and the speeches did not spit venom. I simply felt good among those folks.

(After all the online bickering in O-Land I had lived for a few years, I can't tell you how good that felt.)

Beck's popularity with this kind or person grew because he was telling the truth, owning up to when he was wrong, connecting dots where others were deceiving and spinning, and so on. They responded by giving him a huge fan base. And yes, they do like honesty.

With respect to Newt, I don't believe any of these folks think he's a saint. (I don't.) They think they can control him, though, better than they could any of the other candidates. Part of that is because there is a side to Newt that resonates with Founding Father values. And part is because he has had a major change of heart in his personal beliefs. There are other sides and that's what we have to keep an eye on. But Newt's doable. Tough, maybe, but doable.

Someone like Romney isn't. He has Wall Street and crony capitalist masters. He has a long-standing reputation for playing dirty pool and his present demeanor is identical to that reputation. So the conclusion is that personal destruction dirty pool to promote crony capitalism is what he will do as his main style of governing if he gets power. I know that's what I think.

The other two candidates have other issues, but feasibility is a big factor.

The transfer of meaning I mentioned is this. Beck's honesty attracted the Tea Party people (the type I am talking about). They liked the honesty. But are they stupid? Hell no. Not one of them I know of believes any politician is honest.

So it's an error to say Tea Party people don't think honesty is important because many of them are now backing a politician. You have to back a politician because politicians are all there are in politics. And there is also a situation called Obama that sets one hell of a context where feasibility takes on major importance. The stakes and threats are pretty high at this moment.

As an analogy, just because you have a chicken coop and keep it clean, meaning you are constantly in contact with chicken feces, that doesn't mean you like the chicken feces. But then people go around and start saying you like chicken feces or you wouldn't mess with it. It's a logic error to claim that.

My point with Beck is that the honesty that attracted people to him is precisely the same honesty he is now betraying. He's now appealing to underhanded manipulation and trying to intimidate anyone who even asks him what's going on. There will be a cost unless he cleans this crap up.

But he can clean it up. These people, my kind of people, also believe in forgiveness and redemption where there are signs of honest remorse and intent to do better. I'm not Christian, but I hold a very similar position to them on this. I realize that's complicated to understand for people who like to harbor grudges, especially when it moves from just words to actual reality. And I don't mean that in a snarky manner. I think it really is complicated for them.

Michael

[Mark]

From a distance the Tea Party looks like the better sort of conservative so it attracts many of that kind. But they soon discover the Tea Party is a mixed bag, and a lot of the mixture is neoconservative. (See the articles in my previous post.)

Nobody, but nobody, says that Gingrich is a "saint." That’s a straw man. He’s not merely less than saintly he’s extremely dishonest, one of the worst politicians in that regard in recent memory, on the level of Obama. The Founders would be proud of him? When and how did Gingrich redeem himself?

Though it’s a long shot for Ron Paul to win the nomination we should support his candidacy simply to "make a statement" in the number of delegates he gathers, the more the better. Even if he doesn’t win we don’t want the winner -- Romney or Gingrich (little difference in what they advocate) -- saying with truth that practically everyone supports their policies.

Romney or Gingrich will say it anyway without truth, but that’s their problem.

I gather from what Michael wrote that Beck should take the following advice to heart: the truth about Gingrich is bad enough without exaggerating it. All he needs to do is harp on the Gingrich clips I linked to in another thread ...

"FDR is the greatest practitioner of self-government, certainly in the 20th century, and maybe in American history":

FDR’s "four freedom’s" and World War II isn’t enough, he’s a Wilsonian too:

The Constituion doesn’t apply when the president declares war, a la Lincoln and FDR:

When a judge in Texas -- Fred Biery -- granted a family’s request for a temporary order barring organized public prayer at their daughter’s public high school graduation, Gingrich had this to say (about 1:10 into video):

Health insurance, Climate change, Libya War -- says one thing then just the opposite:

In the same flip-flopping line see:

A glib liar on Freddie Mac (clips about halfway through):

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I gather from what Michael wrote that Beck should take this advice to heart: the truth about Gingrich is bad enough without exaggerating it.

Mark,

Absolutely.

All he needs to do his harp on the Gingrich clips I linked to in another thread ...

Nope.

In my way you look at both good and bad.

When the weight tips to the bad and you have done that rigorously, you have enormous credibility when you blast.

Being one more lopsided attacker doesn't do anything except add to the churn. And nobody is swayed by the churn unless you have a butt-load of money for gazillions of ads. Even then, any gains gotten like that are short-lived.

This used to work more long-term, but it depends on disinformation as a structural element. There are too many communication vehicles for that now.

Michael

[Selene]

Someone like Romney isn't. He has Wall Street and crony capitalist masters. He has a long-standing reputation for playing dirty pool and his present demeanor is identical to that reputation. So the conclusion is that personal destruction dirty pool to promote crony capitalism is what he will do as his main style of governing if he gets power. I know that's what I think.

January 28, 2012

Facing Second Loss to Gingrich, Romney Went on Warpath

By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

MIAMI — Facing the unthinkable here just seven days ago — a second loss in a row to

Newt Gingrich

—

Mitt Romney

’s campaign team hatched a two-part plan to win in Florida: make Newt mad and Mitt meaner.

In a call last Sunday morning, just hours after Mr. Romney’s double-digit loss to Mr. Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, the Romney team outlined the new approach to the candidate. Put aside the more acute focus on President Obama and narrow in on Mr. Gingrich.

Find lines of attack that could goad Mr. Gingrich into angry responses and rally mainstream Republicans. Swarm Gingrich campaign events to rattle him. Have Mr. Romney drop his above-the-fray persona and carry the fight directly to his opponent, especially in two critical debates scheduled for the week.

The results of that strategy, carried out by a veteran squad of strategists and operatives assembled by Mr. Romney to deal with just this kind of moment, have been on striking display here.

By this weekend, Mr. Romney’s aides were on the offensive and increasingly confident, with some combination of their strategy and Mr. Gingrich’s own performance swinging polls in Mr. Romney’s direction. Even as it acknowledged the damage inflicted on Mr. Romney by the past several weeks, his team suggested that it had learned a lesson about never letting up on rivals, especially if Mr. Romney wins the nomination and confronts Mr. Obama in the general election.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11370&st=140&p=154138entry154138

Fred Thompson made some direct accusations about the Romney juggernaut and Matt Drudge:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) on Sunday attacked Mitt Romney for "unseemliness and overkill" in his aggressive campaign against Newt Gingrich, the candidate Thompson has endorsed.

Romney's "modus operandi, basically, is to play Mr. Nice Guy until somebody gets close to him," Thompson said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And then he unleashes his attack machine. And that's what happened in Iowa and it's what's happening in Florida."

Thompson said that a story in

Sunday's New York Times depicts

"Romney's staff ... patting themselves on the back, talking about how mean and down they are. How they've got Matt Drudge in their back pocket. And how Romney is in on all of it."

For months, Drudge has been running a steady stream of pro-Romney and anti-Gingrich stories on his website,

Drudge Report

.

I will probably have a post about Romney after he crushes Mr. Newt on Tuesday.

Adam

[caroljane]

Gingrich goons tromp on sandal-shod Paulian!!

Tsk, tsk.

[Selene]

Gingrich goons tromp on sandal-shod Paulian!!

Tsk, tsk.

OK - are you in possession of a news story that goes with the Gingrich Goons statement?