» Be (not) nice to Rick day – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
“If this race does come down to who can run the most negative ads … and beat them into submission with those negative ads,” [Santorum senior strategist John] Brabender said, “we can stop the campaign now. It’s Mitt Romney.”
Repeat after me:
Newt’s third surge will be the charm
I still believe Newt is a viable candidate for the GOP nomination. Between him and Santorum, they could knock Mittens out of several major primaries. I wouldn’t mind seeing the race come down to Gingrich and Santorum, especially since the economy, despite all the statistical book cooking coming out of Washington, is about to head south so decisively that even the Bureau of Lies and Statistics won’t be able to cover up the Third Leg Down. We’re heading into recession right now. Interest rates have bottomed. Housing is still crashing, and will continue to do so, thanks to the recent corrupt deal between the states’ attorneys general and the banks, which will bring the foreclosure “overhang” into devastating reality for the market itself. Europe is mostly in recession, and the Euro is about to collapse. Most of this will be well underway by this November’s election, and it will be deadly for Obama’s chances of re-election. My long time analysis of the political tea leaves remains the same: there is no way Obama will be re-elected, so for conservatives the real race is in the GOP primary. A Gingrich-Santorum race would be a win-win for somebody like me, giving me somebody I could at least vote for (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) no matter how it turned out.
At the moment, conventional wisdom still has Mittens Romneycare as the front runner. But conventional wisdom is wrong. You heard it here first: Just as Barack Obama will not be re-elected President, Mitt Romney will not be the GOP nominee in November. Take it to the bank.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Newt should leave the social issues to Santorum and grab onto economic issues like a junkyard dog. There’s no shortage of job killing material to throw at Obama and make the case that Newt is better for the economy. Newt has to start running exclusively against Bambi, and ignore every attempt to steer the discussion away from economic issues. That’s the blueprint I’d recommend for Newt’s third resurrection.
I think he also needs to tag, regularly, the more unsavory aspects of “Uncle Rick’s” morally authoritarian leanings and his knee-jerk opposition to the libertarian/Tea-Party mindset.
Unlike Bill, my “two” are Newt first, “None-of-the-Above” second. I’d actually consider voting for Obama over Santorum. I’d rather take enemy fire than friendly fire.
No one will ever go broke underestimating the stupid party. In a year with unemployment high, the economy cratering and energy prices soaring, no Democrat should be able to get re-elected even with the MFM on its collective knees in front of Barry. And yet the GOP might manage to eff this one up. That, to me, is the final proof that the GOP needs to go the way of the Whigs.
I think Mitt, Newt and Rick are flawed. Seriously flawed. I agree Newt’s best chance is to grab onto economic issues and hope Santorum keeps up the rhetoric about libertarians being bad and the nuances of contraception. But if this goes to a brokered convention…I do not see any of these three being picked. I do know this, Newt has a very difficult position right now and Rick Santorum will not win as a nanny scold.
Seriously? Gingrich is a progressive in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. He’s in favor of big government, so long as it’s his kind of big government. Santorum is even worse; not only is he a big spender, he’s the kind of idiot who’s likely to start wars due to his utter lack of historical knowledge combined with his certainty. Add in his social conservatism, and you have the other end of the spectrum from Obama – you’ll still have stifling government, but it will have a different set of things it wants to keep you from doing. As squishy as Romney is, I don’t really fear him going out and attempting to control every aspect of my personal life. Gingrich and Santorum are fully down with the idea of controlling our lives. If you really are a small l libertarian, you should hate the idea of Gingrich or Santorum. A lot.
Right. Obamneycare, which is what Mittens will give us on a federal level, won’t touch any aspect of your personal life whatsoever.
Gingrich did more for conservatism than any of the other candidates who were, are, or might have run this year. You’re probably too young and ignorant to know anything about that, though.
As for Santorum, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. As President, his options on imposing socon beliefs are limited. If he cuts off federal funding for abortions, so what? The feds shouldn’t be funding them anyway. As for gay marriage, he’s not going to get a constitutional amendment, and it’s going to end up in the states anyhow, where it will eventually become law almost everywhere. What else is in your quiver? What horrors do you think he’ll be able to accomplish?
The guy I won’t, under any conditions whatsoever, vote for is Mittens Romneycare. Because he genuinely believes that the state has a right to impose an individual mandate to buy something on its citizens. And then he successfully implemented his beliefs, and he is proud of doing so. If that’s your guy, you aren’t smart enough to be reading this blog.
um, no, I’m 50. Gingrich was for cap and trade – at the federal level. Heck, he did ads with Pelosi for that policy. Nice attempt at talking down to me though, I enjoyed that.
Gingrich was also a pretty lousy speaker. He lost political battles with Clinton regularly, allowed the house to go on a jihad against Clinton that anyone could see he wasn’t going to win… and lost seats over it. He had some competent people around him back then, which is why he got some useful things done. I just don’t see any real leadership qualities in him. He’s the guy you want throwing bombs, not the guy you want setting policy.
As to what Santorum would and would not get – that’s a really bad way to bet. Back in 2009, it really looked like Obama wouldn’t get the health bill, and yet – here we are. Another thing – I barely trust a guy like Romney or Gingrich with the powers they tossed into the NDAA. Santorum? Not so much.
Good to hear, because I enjoyed talking down to you. It was really easy to do, and do quite effectively.
However, my memory – and that of quite a few others who aren’t, like yourself, Romney hacks – differs from the spin you’re trying to peddle.
Oh, and nice response to my cite of Obamneycare. Very impressive.
Very nice evasion of Gingrich’s stand on cap/trade climate change. You should run for office, Bill – that was downright professional.
Rick Santorums Nancy Pelosi Moment?
http://youtu.be/hCyU5I43_Hc
He boasts about working with Boxer and Clinton.
http://youtu.be/H4iTtNGjFY4
Romney and Ted Kennedy
There is nothing wrong with it, but the hypocrisy (which applies even more to Romney) is dripping, considering how Newt was raked over the coals for a video with Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, and calling people “too stupid to read this blog” – that’s the sort of thing that people who are out of intellectual ammunition run with. Having read you for years, I’m going to assume you had a fit of temper.
Liar. If you’d actually read me for years, you’d know I treated you to quite a mild response.
Moron.
hmm. I guess you have thin skin, sort of like the President. When all you have left is name calling, it’s a really good sign that you have no other arguments left.
By the way, let me know if you come up with any “intellectual ammunition to refute either my second response to you, or my first mention of Obamneycare.
So far I haven’t seen anything from you that even remotely resembles intellectual firepower. Or honesty.
I’m not fond of Romney; I consider him the least bad of a set of bad options I’m being confronted with. Santorum is an inflexible socon who would get shredded (fairly or not) over his stances on things like birth control. Never mind that he fell head first into a clear trap by continuing to talk about it. The entire issue is something of a side show, akin to arguing over leaving a light on in the kitchen while the house is burning down. Spending is the issue, and on that front, Santorum is as bad as anyone.
Massachusetts was going to get a healthcare bill with romney’s participation or without it. The legislature has a veto-proof dem majority and overrode Willard frequently. They were talking seriously about much more radical things (eg single-payer) at the start. As a state resident I feel as though Mitt toned it down somewhat. This was also a time when an individual mandate was far less disreputable than it is now. I think Mitt has plenty of flaws but Romneycare and Obamacare are not quite the same.
> This was also a time when an individual mandate was far less disreputable than it is now.
Yes, but Mittens hasn’t figured that out. He keeps defending Obamacare.
> I think Mitt has plenty of flaws but Romneycare and Obamacare are not quite the same.
I note that you didn’t bother to point out any relevant differences.
Obama white’s advisors are saying that he won’t push to repeal Obamacare.
You mean “limited” like Obama? No, as a “true believer” he will push the envelope on executive power for his own particular causes just as a Obama has done. The details will differ but the results will be the same. You are forgetting about Supreme Court picks he would get to make as well as aligning himself with socons in Congress to achieve all kinds of legislative goodies on their agenda. I will not under any circumstance vote for Santorum. He is “Big Brother” all in the name of God. No thanks.
Exactly. In a lot of ways that I’d be very unhappy with, Santorum would be a mirror image of Obama. He’d use the powers that Obama (and Bush, to be fair) arrogated to the Presidency with wild abandon – “for our own good”. The only reason I fear Romney less on those grounds is that he doesn’t seem to be much of an ideologue – he’d drift with the sentiment of the Congress and the public. Gingrich thinks he’s smarter than everyone else (a lot like Obama there), and would be willing to push stubbornly in fool directions. Santorum would be even more willing that way.
Also – on the electability front: 2006. Santorum got crushed, badly. He’s really not that good at this game.
If the answer’s Santorum, I’m not sure what the question is. For better or worse, so-con stuff just shows that you’re a knuckle-dragging barbarian among anyone younger than 40. The economy’s in the twa-lette , and S talks about contraception?
Newt sounds great on the stump, but he’s too old, too white, too Southern, and too Congress to actually beat O.
So, even though I’d vote for a ham sandwich over O in the next election, I have to grudgingly go with Mitt for now, unless the Draft Daniels or Draft Ryan movement gets going.
Actually, I believe it was Barack Obama who started the shrieking about contraception.
This particular election-cycle perhaps, and one which he will be smacked down in the courts for as he should be. I may not be a socon but I can spot a clear violation of the First Amendment when I see one. Regardless of whom actually brought up contraception first, Santorum sure has said a heckuva lot about it lately that won’t endear him to many.
Requiring churches to provide the same benefits for the employees of any auto body or dry cleaning shops they happen to own as any other such businesses are required to exactly?
Actual churches and church folks are exempted from the requirements, you know. As for the courts, they’ve upheld similar requirements many times.
And yet we are not talking about auto body or dry cleaning shops. I seriously doubt that requiring Catholic hospitals to provide contraception and/or abortion services (you know that’s coming) contrary to their religious beliefs will stand in court. Oh sure, proponents will find a district judge that will side with them (look hard enough and you can always find one no matter what the issue), and maybe an Appeals Court will agree. Yet SCOTUS is a different matter. I don’t see 5 Justices siding with the government on this. I should note that I find Obamacare to be unconstitutional and also am in the interesting position of disagreeing with the Church on their teaching about contraception at least, while at the same time agreeing with them that the government forcing them to pay for it is a violation of the First Amendment.
If it goes to a brokered convention, we’re screwed. There is no way on earth to start and run a credible campaign in two short months. We have 4 candidates and only one of these 4 can win the general election.
You don’t go to the prom hoping to find a date when you get there.
Don’t worry. We’re not going to a brokered convention. Either Mittens Romneycare, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum is going to be the GOP nominee this year – and one of them will be the next President. The only thing I can add to that prediction is the personal observation that if the answer is Romney, he will arrive in the White House without my vote.
I think we can all agree that no one at all, or a block of cheese, or Bill’s dog, or a steaming clump of Bill’s dog’s metabolic byproduct would be better than any of the leading contenders. Rather than squabble about which heinous fucktard is better or worse than the others, let’s work on how to keep them all out of office. I’m thinking bloody revolution. Anyone got any other ideas?
Regardless of who’s voted in there’s something that won’t change. Over half of the voters in this country voted the current fucktard into office. Voting a new fucktard in isn’t going to change them or the state of the voting populace.
That’s what needs to change. That’s why I believe strongly if we haven’t hit something that’s recognizable to the majority of this nation as “bottom” we might actually be better off if we get to something we can all truly agree is “bottom”…and that conservative thought and policies can’t rationally be blamed for getting us there.
1) Elect Ron Paul, then stand back and watch the fur fly?
2) Organize a massive write-in effort for None Of The Above?
3) Take up a huge collection, and bribe a majority of the Electoral College into casting their votes for A Party To Be Named Later?
(Remember – you said “…any other ideas”, not “…any good ideas”)
Well, IMHO, if Bill’s right about there being no “brokered” convention (and I sincerely hope and trust that’s true; that’s only one of the principal ways the Greasy Old Party can blow this thing, giving us Four More Years of Li’l Flap-Ears, but it’s about the strongest one going), you should all hope that Newt gets to carry the Rethuglican standard. He’s already made some clear statements about pretty solid genuinely-conservative stuff he says he’ll do if and when elected, and he’e the only guy who’s done that.
Elect him, then hold him to those statements, and you’ve got a pretty good start on the desperately-needed direction this tattered old Republic should be headed, and damn soon.
That’s pretty much the point I’m making. Of the three standing, Newt’s the only one who’s laid out a game plan detailing exactly what he’s going to do starting from BEFORE getting to the White House. Unlike any of the rest, he’s done this before…said what he’s going to do…and did it.
If we can’t get this…I don’t want to see someone get into office that does for the “conservative” brand what Obama has done for the “liberal” brand.
Leaving electability aside for a moment, is there *anybody* in their heart of hearts who believes that Newt Gingrich has the temperament to be a good president, or even a non-scary one? There is nothing in his history to suggest that he would. He has many great strengths, including a very fertile mind and the legislator’s skill at rhetorical boxing. But he also has a longstanding history of interposing his own ego between himself and the best decision once he is in a position of actual power. Now, anybody who runs for president has a huge ego, but some people can manage it to make good decisions, and others cannot. Reagan could. Clinton could unless his sexual impulses were in play. So could Dubya and his father. Nixon’s ego exposed his insecurity and paranoia and transformed a potentially great man in to a disaster for the country and the Republican Party. Carter thought he was smart enough to micromanage a complex military operation in a hostile country. Newt’s obvious infatuation with his own genius and his track record of impulsivity make me extremely nervous.
I like Newt’s fiction books, he’s a good “ideas man”, would make an interesting history teacher and isn’t too bad of a debator, yet as president? Not a chance.
One argument against Romney is the recent string of Republican presidential candidates, starting with HW Bush.
Maybe HW was the least-bad of the bunch but with him, Reagan let the Republican establishment, which is “progressive”, back into the game.
Nominating Romney keeps them in charge.
Yea, me. I think the newt scares the shit out of the “progressives”. If he scares them, well, it works for me.
Me, too. He has the ego, intellect, drive, and knowledge sufficient to become the greatest president of our time. He had me worried for a while. But after examining everything I can, he is the only one in the field that has a chance of changing the direction this country is headed. He is ruthless enough to make it happen. And his ego is such that he will be driven to make real change in America.
The rest are pond scum by comparison.
I’m depending upon Newt’s ego more than what anyone chooses to define as temperament. If anything defines his temperament more than some ephemeral label as “egotistical”, it’s his willingness to fight for what he believes is right.
Right now, I’m more willing to entrust in what he believes is right than the other two choices.
Fact is…there’s three choices. Discounting “none-of-the-above” (which I’m not), one is better.
If Bill’s wrong and Mittens does get the nomination, it would then be best for Obama to be re-elected. I expect Romney & Obama to both drive the country over a cliff differing only in speed. In that case, four years is better than eight.
Further, while I accept that Bill’s Pomeranian can beat the Won, Romney is easily as capable as McCain of losing to Obama.
Nah. McCain lost to “that nice black man who speaks well and who is going to end the notion that we are a racist country.”
Now he’s “that black guy who destroyed the economy and put me, my family members, or people I know out of work.”
Lot harder for anybody to lose to that guy.
What you say sounds reasonable, but
1) Never underestimate the ability of the Stupid Party to sabotage itself, and
2) If the election is close enough to steal, it will be stolen.
But I’m pessimistic by policy. Maybe the Party of Stupid will manage not to lose.
Steve, it’s more a matter of this time around, the Evil Party will be unable to find a way to win.