1 I'm First. Screw you. Oh yeah, Willard sucks.

2 Who the fuck is Jennifer Rubin?

3 Why is this potty-mouthed whore doing hit pieces on all the candidates except the one she favors? No but seriously she's obnoxious as hell.

4 Newt tied with Willard in NH. Funny how New England pubbies don't inspire confidence in of all places New England. What's up with that? But I am told by all the right people that Willard is the only one that can defeat Sparky.

5
If I follow you on twitter, will you point me to funny vids?

6 I think Rubin is more of Romney's Familiar than the Mouth of Sauron. (A familiar, like Renfeld was to Dracula.)

7
Granny gives birth to kittens?

8
Jack-O-Lantern robs bank?

9 Tommy Christopher and Jen Rubin would make a perfect couple. Can't tell who wears the pants, however. Thanks, rdbrewer, for this post. We're stuck with Romney, most likely. So beware. This horse will not stay broken. If Bush disappointed anyone with his compassionate conservatism, you have no idea what you will get with Romney. Standard disclaimer: Willard is still better than Dick Soetero.

10
Gingrich: The phony intellectual
By Jennifer Rubin

Andy Ferguson, a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and arguably the most dazzling writer on the right




Apparently she's a Dave Barry-like humor columnist....

11 Speaking of Romney-bots, got an up-close and personal look at Katrina Trinko from NR at a Rick Perry event in NYC this morning.  Girl is fugly.

12 Too bad nobody attacks Obama like this.

13 I think Rubin is more of Romney's Familiar than the Mouth of Sauron. (A familiar, like Renfeld was to Dracula.) I can see distinctly in my head a cowering Rubin in an asylum cell, mumbling "little bodies, little bodies."

14
Betcha $5.00 after the nominee is chosen, Rubin will declare support for OdipO.

15 OK, I looked her up...

Egads what an ugly scrunt.

She looks like the secret love child of Toby Maguire and Corporal Klinger.

16 Does that mean Newt is Theoden?

17
I bet them $5.00 Rubin would have a Newt bashing piece up by 10:00 a.m. the next day (today).

This is rich. Between you, brewski, and Ben, you put up anti-Romney stuff in the sidebar every single day.

You're doing exactly the same thing, but opposite, of Jennifer Rubin,

18 She's no Eric Boehlert.

19 Fuck Mitt Romney

Fuck him sideways with 4 feet of schedule 80.

20 BTW: Commentary has followed the same path as Rubin. Newt supported people getting an "advance directive".  Alana Goodman says that means Newt supports Death Panels. Nope. An advance directive is a living will, an individual's choice.  She follows with a snark that Newt is more liberal then Romney who "conservative reflexively push away".

There is some serious problems with the Right's punditry.

21 HOLD   FAST

22 OK I admit I had to google her. But hey how come we are attacking other conservatives instead of attacking obama? And that goes for Rubin also.

23 But hey how come we are attacking other conservatives instead of attacking obama? And that goes for Rubin also.
Posted by: nevergiveup

You are aware of what site you are on?

24 3 Why is this potty-mouthed whore doing hit pieces on all the candidates except the one she favors?

Yeah, who the hell would do that?

25 But hey how come we are attacking other conservatives instead of attacking obama? And that goes for Rubin also. Posted by: nevergiveup You are aware of what site you are on? Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at November 18, 2011 01:58 PM (0UQo Yeah but I really hate obama

26
The pot: Look at that stupid agenda-driven hack Jennifer Rubin!

The kettle: Yeah, haha, I know. brb, puttin an anti-Romney piece in the AoS sidebar.

27

After I read the Drudge headline yesterday about Gingrich going ahead in Iowa, I sent Ace and the co-, open-, and guest-bloggers a bet. I bet them $5.00 Rubin would have a Newt bashing piece up by 10:00 a.m. the next day (today).

 

God, I didn't get one.  Did I get fired??

28 This sounds like inside baseball to me..

Geez..  who the f*ck do you think is going to draw fire?  The guy in last place?  No.. someone becomes front runner and boom!  hit pieces...  and hit pieces from people rooting for one of the other top guys...

OMG.. must be the mouth of Sauron!

29 @ 22 BZZZZT! Assusmes fact not in evidence.

30 Mouth of Sauron? Come on, RD. I know you dislike Romney - and I get why - but Sauron? You want to go Lord of the Rings, maybe he is Denethor, twisted and confused by Sauron (the Left). But he is still a better choice than Obama (who strikes me as more of a Saruman - thinks he is so wise, definitely against freedom, but ultimately a SCOAMF at everything he tries...and also controlled by Sauron/The Left).

Fine to pitch, and hard, against Romney. But as George Orwell says, we are probably going to be stuck with him. And he IS a better choice than the alternative.

31 >>> We're stuck with Romney, most likely. We're not, unless we decide we are. I think there is some preference falsification going on. We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws. Why?

32 Let us credit rdbrewer with actually having worked on Romney's campaign in the past. Willard is likely the only stiff that can beat Dick Soetero, but be aware that he won't deliver leadership. That will have to come from the GOP House. And the only real leadership there has come from people like Paul Ryan. How much will it cost to keep Mitt bought? You won't get leadership from the Senate GOP. You can thank Mitch McConnell for the Super Duper Committee, the bestest deal ever™. About the only bright spot is the notion floating around that Rubio could be a VP pick. Grooming for the future.

33 11 Speaking of Romney-bots, got an up-close and personal look at Katrina Trinko from NR at a Rick Perry event in NYC this morning. Girl is fugly.

Posted by: chazmartel at November 18, 2011 01:52 PM (wlSqE)

?

Jeez, they can't all be S.E. Cupp.

34

We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws.

Why?

Jesus of Nazareth would be a flawed candidate to conservatives. 

We're wired to look at the glass as half empty and we hope the candidate will fill it up.

We're hopeless romantics who keep getting left at the altar.  Sooner or later, it does something to the mind.

 

 

35
I'm still trying to suss out why Pawlenty quit so early. I'm down to three possibilities.

Did he make a deal with Romney?

Did he just get sick of the process?

Or is there something in his past he doesn't want exposed?

36 Okay, but how is Rubin WRONG, rdbrewer?  Simply calling her a Romney-shill is ad hominem: yes, she's obviously decided that Romney is the best candidate, and the only electable one, but so fucking what?  What has she said about Newt Gingrich (or Herman Cain) that hasn't been echoed by Ace himself on this blog?  Or tons of other conservative bloggers and commentators?

I get it, I get it: this is really about Romney to you.  It always is.  It ALWAYS is with you.

I would love someone to make an intellectually coherent case for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney that isn't based on complete ignorance of Gingrich's political record.  At some point the whole "he's not Romney!" argument becomes a stupid tantrum when the guy you're elevating is actually MORE LIBERAL and LESS TRUSTWORTHY than Romney is.  Merely attacking anyone who points this out as a "shill" or waving your hands to dismiss it by saying "I don't care how bad Newt was, I like what he's saying now!" without noticing the hilarious irony of that claim makes it impossible to respect the position as anything other than a temper-tantrum.  

(Yes, a tantrum: so Newt-the-flip-flopper, who pushed for a national healthcare mandate vastly worse than what Romney did, and who cut friggin' ads with Nancy Pelosi in support of cap & trade, and who lobbied heavy for Medicare Part D, can be forgiven these things, but Romney's much less horrifying 'heresies' cannot?  Do you see now why some people suspect there's really just a "I fucking hate all Northeastern faggots!" animus lying underneath some of the opposition to Romney?  Because Newt Gingrich is a literally nothing more than a vastly more liberal and flip-flopping version of Romney, PLUS a disgusting personal life, PLUS a long track record of Beltway lobbying for anti-conservative interests...but he's from Georgia and he occasionally attacks the media.)

37

Or is there something in his past he doesn't want exposed?

I just have a problem imagining Pawlenty in a latex catsuit with a bit in his mouth.

Jus' sayin.

38

LOL.  Ah, yes, the circular firing squad rages on, unabated.  Good stuff. 

Honestly, it's reached the point where we really don't know whom to root for.  With Romney as your nominee we figure at least 4 million of y'all will stay home and not vote, thereby handing a 2nd term to Barack on a silver platter.  Gingrich couldn't have won a major election down in Georgia at the height of the Reagan years and then he became a retread over a decade ago.  The notion that now he suddenly can waltz back into the spotlight and then defeat Barack in a national general election is absurd.  With Cain as your nominee we might win all 50 states.  Seriously.  Check out the Swann vs. Rendell and Steele vs. Cardin elections.  Then factor in the reality that we're going to spend a billion dollars in attack ads, not including the value of media coverage.  Extrapolate.  Barack vs. Cain is our ultimate wet dream, no pun intended, rubes.

In any event, stay classy, conservatives.  Don't let those RINOs steer you wrong.  Prove your points.  Send your messages.  We'll send you a postcard from the White House, in January 2013.  Heh.  

39 We're hopeless romantics who keep getting left at the altar.  Sooner or later, it does something to the mind. Losers whine about being left at the altar. Winners go home and fuck the bride's spinster aunt.

40 And, just for a break from politics: "FAIRBANKS - A mid-November cold snap seems to have caught even seasoned Fairbanksans off guard. “I don’t think anybody was really expecting this,” 43-year-old Shawn Ross, a lifelong Fairbanksan, said. “This came out of the blue.” For the second time in three days, Fairbanks set a new low temperature record on Thursday. A temperature of 41 degrees below zero — the first 40 below temperature of the season — was recorded at Fairbanks International Airport at 6:29 a.m., according to the National Weather Service in Fairbanks. That broke the old record of 39 below set in 1969."

41

I just have a problem imagining Pawlenty in a latex catsuit with a bit in his mouth.

 

Why???

42 31 >>> We're stuck with Romney, most likely.

We're not, unless we decide we are.

I think there is some preference falsification going on.

We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws.

Why?   Jeebus Ace, elections are always about comparative analysis. So we are down to three comparative choices: (a) Newt, (b) Willard, or (3) Scary Sparky with absolutely no checks and balances for 4 years. I personally am okay with Newt, pimples and all, as compared to Willard. Option 3 is a non-starter either way. Why? Because that's life, that's why.

43

Jus' sayin.

For the record, YOU went there, bro.

44

Losers whine about being left at the altar. Winners go home and fuck the bride's spinster aunt.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 18, 2011 02:05 PM (XE2Oo)

I'm down with that.  Let's go.

45 We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws. Why? You're right, of course. Our destiny is in our own hands. However, if you have time or curiosity, listen to longtime GOP consultant Mike Murphy on the latest Ricochet podcast. He make a persuasive case that Willard is the most electable guy. If you truly want Anyone But Obama, you likely want the most electable guy. While there is much to question in Murphy's argument, the man has a real track record of getting Repubs elected. The problem is that among his electoral successes, Murphy counts: Mitt Romney Arnold Schwarzenegger Christine Todd Whitman If you know what I mean.

46 >>>I'm still trying to suss out why Pawlenty quit so early. I'm down to three possibilities.

Money.  He had none.  He was already fairly deep into debt.  And he didn't see a path to victory after Bachmann punked him.  Also, he probably was genuinely short-sighted and got out too early.

Even so, I kind of wonder whether he ever actually would have been a contender.  I suspect not.  He just never had the 'juice' with the base -- every single person they've elevated thus far has had major "red-meat" appeal, and Pawlenty's "I'm a more acceptable electable candidate than Romney" position wouldn't have gotten these folks' rocks off the way they're looking for.

47

We're hopeless romantics who keep getting left at the altar. Sooner or later, it does something to the mind.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 18, 2011 02:03 PM (sbV1u)

Good metaphor.

I think of us a little more like a groom who keeps hearing ugly rumors about his bride on the way up the aisle, and starts over with one of the bridesmaids every few minutes, then runs out of bridesmaids, takes the best man, and the whole church empties out.

48 " We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws. Why?" Because we're more willing to eliminate candidates more closely aligned with us based on their flaws. For all the arguments we get into here about purity and such you can see the shifts in support in the polls Gabe puts up as well as in the comments. Those shifts happen as candidates expose their weaknesses and flaws. The 20-25% that's dug in for Romney, however, is just that- dug in. For whatever reason they're convinced he's the most electable, reasonable, whatever and they're not budging no matter how many times others point out the problems inherent in his candidacy.

49 If she is a hack that is one thing, however I read the piece and I don't see anything there regarding Gingrich that isn't true.  Gingrich has tossed out dozens of half-baked ideas.  When the dumb ones are criticized, he throws out some more.  He has put forth more big government proposals than Romney ever has.  Romney's crime is that he actually got one implemented.  Newt has been saved by his failure to get his ideas into practice.

50 If I believed the Romney campaign would be as ruthless and Machiavellian against Obama as they are against rival Republicans, I would be much better disposed to support the guy.

51 We're not, unless we decide we are.

I think there is some preference falsification going on.

We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws.

Why? Posted by: ace
...........
There you go falling into the trap a bunch of other morons do..

WE?  WE?

We ain't the ones that decide.. we get a vote..a single vote.  And all the morons in the country, combined with the 33 people who regularly visit RedState don't mean jack shit, Ace.

Maybe I am too much a fatalist.. I like to think pragmatist.. and I still hold out hope for Perry.. not much, but some..

But, the grasping for any candidate.. some candidate that is not Romney, is rather pathetic..  Newt? Newt?  Really?  In their heart of hearts, do any of you really think this country would elect Newt to the Presidency???

52 while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws. Why? Cuz we want to flame -out- pretty?

53

From Moe Lane's piece at RedState:

>>>And a search for other Perry-related articles written by Ferguson havenÂ’t been exactly fruitful. SoÂ… could we get a link?

>>>I mean: extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, and all that.

I can't belive rdbrewer could link to that without drowning in the irony.

There's dislike of another candidate and then there's sick, pathological hate. Brewer crossed that line long ago.

Sea kelp.

54

I just have a problem imagining Pawlenty in a latex catsuit with a bit in his mouth.

Jus' sayin.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

55 If you liked my phenomenal success , you'll LOVE my boy Mitt!

56 "We're eliminating flawed candidates, like Perry, who are nonetheless better than Romney, due to their flaws, while resigning ourselves to the fact we'll have a candidate with SPECTACULAR flaws.

Why?"

Heh heh. Becaushe, my friend, we have to nominate the mosht electable candidate.  Ishn't that right, Meghan, honey?  Meghan?

Meghan!  Put down the cake batter, honey!  We've talked about thish!

I've gotta go.

57
What's weird is Pawlenty made one of the first web ads before anyone else. It seemed like he was in it for the long haul.

Then he suddenly called it quits after a couple of debates. I suppose money is key, but he did quit awful early for someone with no major gaffes and baggage.

58 If the other candidates are the dawrfs Romney is- Snow White... I'm uncomfortable with that.. What's Snow White going to do when he meets... The Bride of Axelrod?

59

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

It'll be OK.

Here, have a Margarita.

60 Losers whine about being left at the altar. Winners go home and fuck the bride's spinster aunt. I wish my family were as entertaining as yours.

61 50 If I believed the Romney campaign would be as ruthless and Machiavellian against Obama as they are against rival Republicans, I would be much better disposed to support the guy.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 18, 2011 02:09 PM (azHfB)

How can you not believe I will be ruthless against Obama?  I called him "well-intentioned" for goodness sake!

62 I just have a problem imagining Pawlenty in a latex catsuit with a bit in his mouth. Jus' sayin. Of course not. He's the one in the assless chaps wielding the whip.

63

Boooring.

 

Only interesting to people who (1) take Rubin seriously and (2) take Newt or Perry or Romney or whomever seriously.

 

In other words, stupid people.

64 Perry is the huntsman...

65 There's dislike of another candidate and then there's sick, pathological hate. Brewer crossed that line long ago.

Brewer's been crossing a lot of lines lately, sailor.

66 I really find stuff like this unpleasant and intellectually boorish and sould deadening.

However, we do desperately need a person with some concept of the power of coordinated messaging that will at least try to keep the heat on the lefts narratives.  I don't wish to become some repulsive beast big enough to beat the left at its own game... I also don't wish to have another 8 years like Bush where the left got to totally write perceived reality of every damn news cycle totally unchallenged.

67

Of course not. He's the one in the assless chaps wielding the whip.

Pawlenty?  Pawlenty?

Oh no, my man, he's a bottom if there ever was one.  He's a beta male's beta male

And no, Barney Frank, you cannot have his phone number.

68 Makes you wonder if the Romney people have a couple of strategic nukes set aside for Odumdum if he does get the GOP nomination.

Don't care to count on that as a payoff however.

69 Predictable like clockwork....Now, I like Rubin b/c the WaPo...oops I mean People's Daily finally found a "conservative" to write for them. However, trying to claim that Newt is not an intellectual is like trying to claim MSDNC is not a far left mouth piece ...that dog just don't hunt. Finally, I supported Romney in 2008 b/c of his expertise in business and understanding of the economy...but I fear that he lacks the backbone to really make the tough decisions required.

70 What Newt tying Mitt in NH tells me is that this guys support beyond the beltways boobs is a mile long and a millimeter thick. Seriously, how pathetic is that- that's what happens when you think it's "your turn". Except this time people remember Bob Dole and John McCain and how well that worked out.

71

48 "  Because we're more willing to eliminate candidates more closely aligned with us based on their flaws.

 

Nonsense. Perry is much closer to my personal desires politically, however he has demonstrated a fatal flaw in his inability to successfully campaign, debate or draw a broader vision for a national electorate. I will happily support Newt based on his ability to campaign, debate and draw a broad vision for a nation. That and the fact that he has done it before.

 

Methinks we waste time now navel gazing. Its either Willard or Newt now. Those are our choices. Pick one. I like the one who consistently aims his fire at Sparky rather than his allies. Just sayin. We are in a race against the MSM not the demos party (they are already defeated). Has Willard ever demonstrated an ability to defeat MSM? Just askin.

72 I'm glad Jeff B. finally had the courage to bring up Romney's biggest liability, since no one else here would: Northeastern Faggotry.

73 Why is this potty-mouthed whore doing hit pieces on all the candidates except the one she favors?

No but seriously she's obnoxious as hell.

Does anyone notice if Hugh Hewitt's lips move while Jennifer Rubin types?

74 61 50 If I believed the Romney campaign would be as ruthless and Machiavellian against Obama as they are against rival Republicans, I would be much better disposed to support the guy.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 18, 2011 02:09 PM (azHfB)

How can you not believe I will be ruthless against Obama?  I called him "well-intentioned" for goodness sake!

Hmm.  In the business and professional world, calling someone 'well-intentioned' is pretty nasty.  Nobody does deniable insults like us Mormons, baby!

OK, so now I have two good things in Romney's favor: knifing O, and wiping his hard-drives on leaving office.  It doesn't really balance Romneycare, the RINOishness, and the flipflops, but, hey, its a start!

 

75 The real Willard wouldn't allow the diseased Romney taint anywhere near Socrates.

76 Northeastern Faggotry.

Rockefeller Republican.

77 48 "  Because we're more willing to eliminate candidates more closely aligned with us based on their flaws.   Nonsense. Perry is much closer to my personal desires politically, however he has demonstrated a fatal flaw in his inability to successfully campaign, debate or draw a broader vision for a national electorate. I will happily support Newt based on his ability to campaign, debate and draw a broad vision for a nation. That and the fact that he has done it before." Wanna read that first sentence you quoted again? I was talking about the non-Romney contingent being willing to rule folks out that are closer to our own views. Like you just said you did with Perry. How's that nonsense?

78 Tommy Christopher and Jen Rubin would make a perfect couple.

Can't tell who wears the pants strap-on, however.

FIFY

79 >>>If she is a hack that is one thing, however I read the piece and I don't see anything there regarding Gingrich that isn't true.  Gingrich has tossed out dozens of half-baked ideas.  When the dumb ones are criticized, he throws out some more.  He has put forth more big government proposals than Romney ever has.  Romney's crime is that he actually got one implemented.  Newt has been saved by his failure to get his ideas into practice.

This. 

I will repeat again: rdbrewer's attack on Rubin here (and Ace's snarkery on Twitter) is intellectually bankrupt insofar as it's pure ad hominem, and never can actually argue with Rubin's points ON THE MERITS.  And I know that Ace, at least, is smart enough to realize this.  But I wish he'd man up and actually acknowledge it publicly. 

You want to say that Jen Rubin is in the tank for Romney?  Go ahead -- you're correct.  She is.  It is sort of funny, too. 

But unless you can tell me how and why ANY of what she's said here about Gingrich (or about Cain and Perry in the past) is actually WRONG, then whining about it like this just makes you look like a mewling loser, unhappy that all the hits against your serial non-Romney candidates are...well, are true.  And are effective because they're correct.  It really just comes across as cry of frustration that, yes, Romney really IS the only answer at this point.  And because you don't want to accept that yet, you're attacking the people who are pointing out that your latest non-Romney crush is really a corrupt phony-intellectual Beltway Insider (which cuts the irony ultra-thick, given the premise that all this anti-Romney stuff was theoretically supposed to be driven by a desire for an 'authentic' non-insider, non-politician, non-RINO candidate.  Turns out that principle has nothing to do with it at all.)

By the way, I'm kind of sad that Perry really seems out of the race now.  Because he actually could have been a legit non-Romney candidate.  Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann -- these guys are unacceptable.  Perry could've been the guy.  But he did it to himself.

80

Methinks we waste time now navel gazing. Its either Willard or Newt now. Those are our choices. Pick one. I like the one who consistently aims his fire at Sparky rather than his allies. Just sayin. We are in a race against the MSM not the demos party (they are already defeated). Has Willard ever demonstrated an ability to defeat MSM? Just askin.

Posted by: Sub-Tard
.........
Sorry.. Newt has no organization.  In Iowa that is a death sentence.. it's caucuses.. not a primary where you go in an fill in a bubble.. A caucus where the candidates with real organizations get you to vote for their guy.

So, if those are the only two choices (and it may be) then it's Mitt.  But, like I said.. I'm still hoping for a miracle from Perry.

81 the courage to bring up Romney's biggest liability, since no one else here would: Northeastern Faggotry. Oddly, I see this as an asset. Ahem.

82 This write-up is not receiving the outpouring of foaming idolatry that any respectable RedState.com conservative would be expected to respond with.  It has been determined you are all mobys and will be banned immediately.

G'bye.

83 72  Northeastern Faggotry.     Spot on EOJ. Spot on.

84 Sea kelp.


Excellent

85 This write-up is not receiving the outpouring of foaming idolatry that any respectable RedState.com conservative would be expected to respond with.  It has been determined you are all mobys and will be banned immediately.

G'bye.
Posted by: Moe H. Lane
..........
Hahaha.. You can't ban me!   I've been banned twice already!

Really.. for some pretty conservative stuff, too..  it just didn't follow the party line over there.. what a bunch of twits..  (twit that I think Ace et al try to impress for some reason)

86

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 18, 2011 02:18 PM (K+pvw)

You know, your smartass text walls stink of desperation.

87

I dunno. I kinda sorta like it that Mitt Romney is a Machiavellian schemer who never goes after his opponents directly, maintaining a wholesome, good-guy persona while orchestrating the downfall of his enemies from behind the scenes--and with plausible deniability, too. Guile and ruthlessness are good traits for a president.

Better Michael than Fredo.

88 >>>Northeastern Faggotry.

I've resisted the idea that this had anything substantive to do with the anti-Romney fervor for a long, long time.  But now, given the sudden Gingrich rise despite the fact that he is literally and absolutely irrefutably much more liberal, much more of a 'flip-flopper,' and has a genuine taint of corruption and Beltway-lobbying stink around him...I'm beginning to wonder if it really DOES play a role with a lot of people.  I wonder if some folks just think, on a sub-rational level  "I fucking hate those Northeasterners, they're the source of all my cultural resentment."

Because I defy you to explain to me what possible advantage Newt Gingrich has over Mitt Romney other than he once lived in Georgia.  (He doesn't anymore -- he's lived in Washington DC for the last 21 years.)

89

I recall a time when Newt's name was mud after he went negative on Paul Ryan's plans to save/reform sacred entitlements : ie: Mediscare. It was so bad, in fact, that Newt's campaign was considered dead, stick a fork in him.

90

80 Sorry.. Newt has no organization.  In Iowa that is a death sentence.. it's caucuses.. not a primary where you go in an fill in a bubble.. A caucus where the candidates with real organizations get you to vote for their guy.

Rule of politics 101, organizations go where the money goes. Money goes to the candidate that makes the best argument for their service.

 

So far, Romney has money and organization based on the fact that Romney has money. Lose the fundraising edge, lose the nomination. So what is Romney's argument for being Prez again? I seem to have forgotten what it is. Oh yeah, the NYT thinks he is the only inevitable and electable candidate on the pubbie side.  

91

My favorite rdbrewer lie was the sidebar piece that said something like, "Romney slams Perry for calling Obama 'socialist'."

The link takes you to Romney saying, "Well, I dunno. I haven't called him a socialist yet."

You're a legend in hackery, brewer. A hack's hack.

92 The cute young boy-king vs. the old man. McCain redux? I was not paid to say this.

93 >>>You know, your smartass text walls stink of desperation.

They reflect a degree of anger (and disbelief, I guess), that's true. 

But you know what really reeks of desperation?  Your failure to address a single point I made about Gingrich vs. Romney.  Go for it, self-proclaimed "Newtist."  I would love to see the case be made.  I'm ready to defend in detail.  Even Ace knows the case can't be made -- he's said it several times in just the last week, but often only in the comments -- which is why he still holds out hope for Perry.

94

>>>Because I defy you to explain to me what possible advantage Newt Gingrich has over Mitt Romney other than he once lived in Georgia

I have concluded--reluctantly--that it is the underwear.

95 I'll vote for Willard if he is the nominee.  What I won't do is get on my knees for him.  Bullshit.  It is Northeastern Faggotry and I'm sick of it.

96
"You have nothing to fear from an Obama  Romney presidency".

97 38 Posted by: David Axelrod at November 18, 2011 02:05 PM (f8XyF)

David Axelrod and Totally Irrational Political Malcontent '12 are comedy gold.  Bravo! 

98 I don't want Romney, and wish Perry could right his ship, but any rehabilitation of Newt at this point will lead to a disaster.

The man is the Wizard of Fucking Oz.

Ace and rdbrewer are correct on the origins and meaning of Rubin's attack, but in this case it's hard to argue with.
Anyone that mistakes Mitt's cynicism and underhandedness for lack of backbone is in for a rude awakening however.

99 Spongeworthy, I never claimed to be a journalist, dullard.

Jeff B, I could have written your responses for you.  In the future, for efficiency, just write "insert argument x" in your post, and we'll all know what you mean.  

100 By the way, I'm kind of sad that Perry really seems out of the race now.  Because he actually could have been a legit non-Romney candidate.  Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann -- these guys are unacceptable.  Perry could've been the guy.  But he did it to himself.

I'm sad that the Rick Perry of campaigning reality is a completely different guy from who we thought we were getting back during the summer.  Because I, too thought he'd be a strong, legitimate not-Romney candidate for a field that really needed one.  Because none of these other people were legitimate candidates against the JEF.  I was even willing to put aside prior dislike for Perry, so strong did I think he'd be.  But if you'd told me then that he'd implode into such a spectacular embarrassment (and yes, primarily of his own doing) I'd never have believed it.

Herman Cain was never going to get the nomination in any case, which was why the frenzied hit-jobs against him were as pointless as they were vile.  Newt now looks like he actually could -- and Obama will beat him by ten points.  Newt is the ultimate suicide candidate.  He could actually lose McCain states.

101 >>>I recall a time when Newt's name was mud after he went negative on Paul Ryan's plans to save/reform sacred entitlements : ie: Mediscare. It was so bad, in fact, that Newt's campaign was considered dead, stick a fork in him.

How about when Newt Gingrich declared, in 2003, that "every conservative should vote for Medicare Part D"? 

Or when he endorsed a NATIONAL healthcare mandate all the way up until...2009, when Obama rolled it out as part of his plan and Newt suddenly realized which way the wind was blowing?  (But he still was pimping it in his 2008 book -- can't wait until THOSE quotes are brought up.  I love how the same people who say that Romney can't criticize Obamacare because of Romneycare are now embracing Newt.  Hey, if you think that our advantage on Obamacare would be neutralized because of Romney's state-level mandate, you're gonna LOVE when Obama points out that Newt's "big idea" for the last 10 years was the EXACT SAME national-level mandate that he included in Obamacare. Not the very constitutionally-different state-level idea Romney had, but the actual exact same thing.)

Again: Newt-lovers, tell me why I'm wrong.

102

Its either Willard or Newt now. Those are our choices. Pick one. 

 Posted by: Sub-Tard

Look at the bank accounts.  Newt isn't in the ballpark.  Perry is, Cain might have been until last week.

103 >>>Jeff B, I could have written your responses for you.  In the future, for efficiency, just write "insert argument x" in your post, and we'll all know what you mean.

Okay, then -- how am I wrong?  And please, spare me the "I don't have TIME to argue with you" bullshit, because you obviously do.  Your refusal to even attempt to rebut any of my points will be taken for what it obviously is: a tacit concession that you can't back up your claims, and that you know you're wrong on the merits.

To restate: what has Rubin said here (or anywhere else) about Gingrich that substantively incorrect?  How is Gingrich in any way preferable to Romney, based on his political track record? 

104

Spongeworthy, Jeff B.,

your explanations overlap quite a bit.  The GOP constituencies that care about southern identity politics and macho posturing are also the ones who happen to know that I and my fellow Mormons sacrifice kittens to Satan.*

 

Anyway, my personal opposition to Romney and flirtation with other candidates is because I really don't like his politics much.  Yes, Newt is worse.  But Romney needs to earn it.  When polls are really volatile, you shouldn't interpret it as a cast-iron prediction of how people will vote.  Its an established fact that lots of times people answer polls in a way that reflects their overall discontent without necessarily meaning their actual answer on some level.   So the flavor of the month is partly a message to Romney that he needs to stop taking conservatives for granted.  If he expects the nomination, he needs to earn it.

His recent plan for reforming Medicare is a good down-payment, and I for one believe it probably wouldn't have happened without GOP voters holding out against the inevitable.

 

*totally untrue, by they way.  We sacrifice kittens to Satan's brother.

105 In response to questions Newt's lack of campaign organzation, think real hard on why a Romney needs an organizaiton of Washington flunkies and Newt doesn't. If the candidate can stand on his own feet and represent himself directly why would he need a hundred retread flunkies to carry his case to the media arbiters of electability? This is a Romney weakness not a strength. Just sayin. You have had 4 years of leadership through media manipulation of a teleprompter, do you want 4 more again? Jeebus.

106 The whole "anti-Northeast" thing is real, and it's beyond gay. When someone like Scott Brown gets a Liberal state to send him to the Senate for a third of a term, all the retards scream and yell about those damn Yankees screwing up the GOP. Meanwhile, the stalwart conservatives of the South and West give entire careers to "RINO's" like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, etc. Childish, stupid and counter-productive, like most biases.

107

In response to questions Newt's lack of campaign organzation, think real hard on why a Romney needs an organizaiton of Washington flunkies and Newt doesn't.

 

He does need one.  Once elections start, Newt will consistently underperform his polling at the actual polls.  Organizations aren't optional--at least, everyone who's tried to introduce a new campaigning paradigm to date has crashed and burned.  Maybe Newt will be the exception that proves the rule, but if he is (which I doubt), necessity was the mother of invention.

108

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 18, 2011 02:27 PM (K+pvw)

Nope, you are simply incapable to understand that conservatives are willing to cut a guy some slack when he has reliably played for the home team. Newt is far from perfect and I know that. He is somebody who tries to modernize the conservative movement to mainstream it and he makes too many ideological compromises along the way. But nobody would doubt that Newt does, what he does - as misguided as it may be - for the movement.

Romney is in for his career and thats it. Thats why he is hiding between elections and sometimes during elections (Ohio?), because he doesn give a fuck. Thats why he quit Massachusetts and left it to Deval Patrick without a fight. The truth is that he has not a single political bone in his body and is solely driven by sense of entitlement.

Thats why Mittens disparaged Ronald Reagan before a liberal audience, something Newt Gingrich would never do, I dont think even Scott Brown or John McCain would have done that. Willard went there. Quite unique if you ask me - but then he is a uniquely rotten guy.

109 A grad professor from Yale said to tailor your presentation to your audience. Newt wanted to make money selling a lot of books. Why would he try selling either dry bones or treatises and expect a large profit margin from sales, Jenny?

What do you have when a PJ reporter targets Gingrich, her real competition, as a "phony" intellectual? A pseudo-intellectual posing as a journalist. Yawn...so another cigarette addict for Mitt bitch just can't quit. Join Ann Coulter's cheerleader team.

But, ironically, what he never masters is politics. His collapse as speaker is more understandable once you grasp the full extent of his egomania and grandiose visions (“Muddling through — which is the default option of our constitutional system and the one that most Americans, latently conservative as they are, seem to prefer — never surfaces in the swirling mists of his crystal ball.”) Daydreamers and narcissists can make (in small doses) amusing writers and entertaining cocktail party guests, but lousy political leaders. And as president? Shudder.

Newt has his MANY faults. But pretending that Mitt Romney is intellectually superior to Newt Gingrich makes me scoff shudder at Jennifer Rubin's be very afraid affront that insults the rational. WTF with no source for the parenthetic muddling quotation? "Intellectuals" who premise all discourse upon the word "intellectual" are queerly needy.

110 If the candidate can stand on his own feet and represent himself directly why would he need a hundred retread flunkies to carry his case to the media arbiters of electability?

Posted by: Sub-Tard at November 18, 2011 02:39 PM (0M3AQ)

The boots on the ground are what gets the votes in the actual primaries.  Any candidate can 'win' a debate, but it takes organization and money to win primaries (and one must win several of them).  That is why it is premature to write off Perry, and way too soon to coronate Bachmann  Cain  Gingrich.

111 102

Its either Willard or Newt now. Those are our choices. Pick one. 

 Posted by: Sub-Tard

Look at the bank accounts.  Newt isn't in the ballpark.  Perry is, Cain might have been until last week.

Vashta, money follows polls. See Cain's bank account today and in 60 days. Romney already has money (his own). The nomination process weeds out the also rans and focuses on the electable. That is what we are seeing. Expect MSM Newt hits presently. We saw how well Cain fielded the hot ones (not good). Dittos Perry. We have never seen, nor will we see Willard field hot ones until he is the nominee (Northeastern Faggotry is the status quo in MSM) . My bet is he is no Golden Glove. So watch how Newt handles the next couple of weeks. Remember, a number of the hot ones hit his way will be funded by Romney money. Just sayin.

112 110 If the candidate can stand on his own feet and represent himself directly why would he need a hundred retread flunkies to carry his case to the media arbiters of electability?

Posted by: Sub-Tard at November 18, 2011 02:39 PM (0M3AQ)

The boots on the ground are what gets the votes in the actual primaries.  Any candidate can 'win' a debate, but it takes organization and money to win primaries (and one must win several of them).  That is why it is premature to write off Perry, and way too soon to coronate Bachmann  Cain  Gingrich.

 

Vashta, boots on the ground are Tea Partiers not country clubbers for Willard. Understand the difference. A candidate has to fire up a base. So far Willard has fired up his rolodex and fax machine to all the "right" people. Big difference.

113 Fire in the belly hole! ...shit

114

Vashta, boots on the ground are Tea Partiers not country clubbers for Willard. Understand the difference. A candidate has to fire up a base. So far Willard has fired up his rolodex and fax machine to all the "right" people. Big difference.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at November 18, 2011 02:49 PM (0M3AQ)

Tea partiers might volunteer for a candidate, but Romney (and Perry) can afford to hire their workforce.  I don't see anyone else in the field that can do that.  I know what you are saying about firing up the base, but we are still in the primaries, and the strategy is different.

115

I don't want a candidate to debate Obama over whom will most skillfully steer the capsizing Ship of State between the Scylla of unsustainable debt and the Charybdis of effective government intervention.

I want a candidate who will directly address Barack Obama's bankrupt ideology and show how the president's faulty worldview is responsible for our current national condidtion. I want a candidate who will offer a contrast between individual liberty and managed decline.

I want a candidate who won't be thrown off-message by media distractions. I want a candidate who correctly understands that the mainstream media is the enemy.

I don't just want Barack Obama out of office; I want his ideas defeated in the arena of public opinion.

So I'm for Newt Gingrich. He's not perfect, but I believe he's the only candidate that will make this election an effective contrast between conservatism and socialism. I'll gladly vote for Romney if he wins the nomination, but he won't have my vote on Super Tuesday.

Your milage may vary.

116 Jen Rubin: I don't have a tool, but I am a tool! And a drooling love slave of Mutt Romney!

And mostly damned pathetic.

117

Thats why Mittens disparaged Ronald Reagan before a liberal audience, something Newt Gingrich would never do, I dont think even Scott Brown or John McCain would have done that. Willard went there. Quite unique if you ask me - but then he is a uniquely rotten guy.

Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at November 18, 2011 02:43 PM (/TSnh)

Mitt Romney is a 'uniquely rotten guy'? Yikes. Not just plain old rotten but uniquely rotten. Wow. Maybe you weren't born yet or don't remember, but I remember Newt! back in his heyday as House Speaker. He pouted like a child--not exaggerating--when Clinton spitefully had Gingrich seated in the very back of Air Force One, somewhere sandwiched next to the galley and the rear restroom. The two men didn't like each other very much. Watching the footage, I thought Newt was going to break out into tears of rage and frustrated pride. Not kidding.

But hey, look, if you're going to be a full-fledged Newtist, then you need to immerse yourself in all things Newt: read all of his unreadable books, every turgid word, listen or watch all of his speeches and debates from the old days, especially those when his gratingly shrill voice rises fully two octaves when he's annoyed or upset, and count the number of times he obsessively references his wife Callista's name in interviews, whatever the topic or context. The name 'Callista!' could be the trigger word for the most drunken drinking game ever invented.

Gingrich hasn't changed. He's still a grandiose buffoon, a squealing, prideful, porcine cartoon: overrated and ideologically all over the place. He gets nominated we'll lose, guaranteed. Since Perry's out, that's the sole measure of a GOP candidate right now: can he or she beat Obama? I don't care of Obama drop-kicks puppies and drowns kittens on live national television, Gingrich would still lose.

118 S-H-I-L-L S-H-I-L-L S-H-I-L-L And Rubin was her name-o!

119 Jeebus troyriser, how did such a rube and baffoon successful nationalize an off year election resulting in majorities in both houses and force a socialist pres to stand down? I heard Romney did something similar. I think he tied a dog to his car's roof or passed Statewide socialized heathcare. Jeebus, thanks for warning me off the cartoon Newt guy. Who knows what would happen if he were elected. Better to go with a guy leftist really like. Good advice.

120 I don't like RINO Gingrich or Mittens. Find me a consistently solid conservative, damn it.

121 106. This.

122 Legal Insurrection blog, Prof. Jacobson, gets Romneybots everytime he posts anything about any candidate.  And they are insulting.  I think Romneybots add to my unease about having him as a choice to vote for.  His followers are rabid, to the point where a commenter at Legal Insurrection said "How is it possible for anybody to be so passionate about Romney?"

123 @36 - I think your post holds more weight than @19.

Well done.

 I still haven't figured out how this non-corporeal entity known as "not-Romney" continues to manage to posses one candidate after the other.  This concerns me because we see a strong parallel with what happened in the Star Trek episode (the original serious not the updated "Libs in Space" serious) "Wolf in the Fold".  I demand an investigation - this is serious!

124

Jeebus troyriser, how did such a rube and baffoon successful nationalize an off year election resulting in majorities in both houses and force a socialist pres to stand down?

Posted by: Sub-Tard at November 18, 2011 03:17 PM (0M3AQ)

It's true President Clinton was ultimately disbarred as a result of perjuring himself during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but he served two full terms and is still considered a force in national politics. By the way, calling Bill Clinton a socialist is pure hyperbole. Clinton is, if anything, an old-school Democratic politician, a traditional left-of-center liberal who also happened to be the kind of opportunistic shapeshifter ready to take any position in order to maintain political power. A socialist would not have reformed welfare.

Newt ended up disgraced and driven from the House. That's the way it played out and there's no use whitewashing it. And the buffoon remark I made? The guy's full of himself, completely, blissfully unself-aware and convinced he's a Renaissance man with no equals. All hat no cattle.

Watch as Gingrich gets put under the gun as frontrunner. The guy doesn't do well under stress. He'll crack and when he does, we'll all get to see the old Newt again: whiny, petulant, and immature.

125 >>>I still haven't figured out how this non-corporeal entity known as "not-Romney" continues to manage to posses one candidate after the other.  This concerns me because we see a strong parallel with what happened in the Star Trek episode (the original serious not the updated "Libs in Space" serious) "Wolf in the Fold".  I demand an investigation - this is serious!

Not-Romney is clearly Redjack.

126

Regardless of traditional practice or legality, the content was work product owned by the state. That is irrefutable.

Brewer's at it again in the sidebar. He's the only one blathering about "work product" but it is "irrefutable".

Okay, I'll refute it. With just as much proof as Brewer's presented. Ready?

The content is available elsewhere.

There. Done. Refuted.

127 Spongeworthy, you have no idea what work product is.  Hint:  "Work product" is a term of art.

128 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

129

Didn't the state get Romney's documents?  All of them? Just not in an easily searchable form?

I seriously dislike the guy but, there seems to be no there there.

130

Oh. Well then.

Fuck me.

You just proved your claim with this bit of brilliance:

Spongeworthy, you have no idea what work product is. Hint: "Work product" is a term of art.

How could I ever have doubted a known and proven liar like you when "work product" is a term of art. It surely is a wonder!

A hack's hacking hack. Who hacks.

131 Look, you ignorant vulgarian, "work product" is a legal term of art. 

132 @108
Thats why Mittens disparaged Ronald Reagan before a liberal audience, something Newt Gingrich would never do

Are you kidding me - did you even look up the quote?  Here it is for all to judge the great evil Romney stated against Reagan.

Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

133 Elize:  How does this compare to Perry supporting Gore at the time of Reagan-Bush?

How does this compare to Newt starting out his campaign by slamming Paul Ryan's budget plan.  Romney never did that he supported it!  Maybe you should use a tiny bit more critical thinking before you jump on the bandwagon of some of the stupid, idiotic, tardasil statements floating around out there. 

I do not like Romney fanboys overstating the case for Romney - but I really can't stand people who are too slow to figure out who to find things out for themselves. 

Sorry - crap like this gets me going!

134 Jenny is a skank.

135 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

136 Many Republicans mistake Sauron Romney for a Republican, despite all contrary identifiers. He is a member of a ridiculous cult ("the angel Moroni"?!? C'mon! Capitalize the A and you have a pretty good name for a racehorse jockey.). He thinks socialized medicine is a good idea. He is still falling for the AGW scam. (What's next, Anthropogenic Plate Tectonics and Danny Glover as Sec'ty. of the Interior?) He'd make a good Democrat, certainly much better than nearly all their current crop, since Mitt can't be eating as much mescaline as les autres.

137 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

138 I used to read Rubin occasionally, but now I roll my eyes when I see her name on a column, and I don't even bother to read it.  She is a contemptible Romney shill who has sacrificed any credibility she ever had.  If she can be bought and paid to act as such an obvious Romney campaign surrogate while posing as an objective "journalist," she has no credibility or integrity whatsoever.  She may as well work for PMSDNC.

139 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.