1 next stop of the Ace Train: Acceptance. -

2 Nobody's backing Newt for his policies. They're voting for his voice.

3 Big Romney, Big Romney, Big Romney NO WHAMMIES!

4

He supports a "variation" of it, but it's not really even a variation

But he has since said that was a mistake and he would totally dismantle Obama care or something

5 The only guy on a national level making the case for American exceptionalism and free enterprise over the last three years has been Paul Ryan. Someone needs to force him to run.

6 How about, if you don't pay or post bond you don't get treatment?

Mexico does it, so it must be good.

7

I'm for whatever it takes to win the election.

8 Like I said, slightly more conservative than Mutt. Hobson's choice here.

9 Except Newt will never admit he was wrong. He will just explain it way in a flood of new ideas. Mark Steyn nailed it when he said Newt has seventy five idiotic ideas, twenty okay ones, and five really good ones. The trouble is he shuffles the deck and you do not know which one he is going to toss out next.

10 Government mandates regarding health care services for abortion *and* no-copay mandatoryhealth care insurance for abortion? It's two great tastes that taste great together. -

11 Newt was hated on the hill. He had to prove that he was the smartest guy in the room at every opportunity, in every committee, with everyone he met. Hell, he's currently coming out against capitalism. Are most of you under 40, do you not remember Newt of the 90s?

12 I don't agree w/ either option, but there seems to be a big difference though:

Under Romney's plan, you give that money to the state to spend as it pleases.

Under Gingrich's the state is not allowed to spend that money.

13 The circle of acceptance is a circle of crap. I am tired of that. I am in perpetual pissed off with occasional depression.

14 So, as I've been saying...why not Santorum? He's opposed Obama/Romneycare from the beginning.

15 are there any positives? can we find something positive?

16 Ace, Ace, Ace....what are mere facts when you hold a top hat and a cane?

The show must go on!!!!

17 The point here is that the government requires emergency rooms to treat you, whether you have insurance or not, and whether or not you could afford to pay (which is why Gingrich mentions people with $75K incomes who elect not to have insurance. So how do we force people who could pay for those services to pay for them? IMO, you do one of the following: remove the requirement that ERs treat anyone, no matter the lack of insurance, give hospitals the ability to income-test after the fact and put liens on folks who could have bought insurance but didn't, or do some variation of what Gingrich suggests. After all, don't we conservatives believe that you should get what you pay for, and pay for what you get?

18 just to point out: Whatever Newt was saying about the "Corridor of Misery" or whatever was good, smart politics. People keep saying that Newt won with everyone making less than 200,000 per year, and that this appeal, about Obama's failure, had something to do with that.* We'll see if he comes up with something like that for Florida. * Caveat: Smart politics, but stuff like this worries me, because yeah, i do think Newt thinks in terms of a political, govenrmental fix for problems.

19 At any rate - if Newt is the nominee and he wins, at least we'll have a Republican House and Republican Senate to stand athwart his reign of big-idea socialism. _

20 RicksantorumRicksantorumRicksantorum /thatisall

21

10Government mandates regarding health care services for abortion *and* no-copay mandatoryhealth care insurance for abortion?

It's two great tastes that taste great together.

 

More babies murdered, more money for PP, more campaign cash for democrats. How could anyone have a problem with that? Oh, the dead black babies? Silly, they haven't even taken a breath, who cares how they're treated?

22 Two differences entre Newt and Mitt here: #1) Newt didn't institutionalize the individual mandate-he didn't make it a reality-in short order-the way Mitt did. #2) He's learned in the reality of ObamaCare -that it's not a good idea, the American people mostly don't want it, and small business is severely hampered. In the face of all that-the two Harvard geniuses-Obama and Mitt can't admit they fundamentally messed up.

23 Newt cannot win. So, hey, let's go with Newt!

24

Ace, this is a big deal.  It's just like what states do for car insurance.  And you don't have to put up the money, like bail bonds you'd only have to put up a percentage.

It's pretty simple, what Newt supported and what is being wrongfully protrayed is that if you don't want to purchase insurance and you want to use medical services that you don't prepay, then you need to prove that you can afford to pay for them.

DUH, moron, does that not make sense?   He threw a number out there and a method for that to occur.

It is NOT a mandate, but an option.  You can prepay your medical bills, you can have insurance, or you can carry a document around prooving that you are good for the medical care cost.

 

Shit Ace, you and the crazies are moonbats for peddling the lies that Newt supports a mandate just like Romney.

25 At any rate - if Newt is the nominee and he wins, at least we'll have a Republican House and Republican Senate to stand athwart his reign of big-idea socialism.

***
I will stand firm. At least until the Senate buffet opens.

26 16 are there any positives? can we find something positive?

I am positive we are boned.

27 next stop of the Ace Train:

Planet Ronulous

(I keeed)

28 IMO, you do one of the following: remove the requirement that ERs treat anyone, no matter the lack of insurance, give hospitals the ability to income-test after the fact and put liens on folks who could have bought insurance but didn't, or do some variation of what Gingrich suggests.

AFAIK, they do.  They send you a bill.  If it's an insane amount, then obviously you can't pay, but if you make $75K, they don't exactly let you leave without finding out who you are and where you live.

29 #21 Rick Santorum-gets you Romney at this point.

30 galt looks more and more like the only option...

31 Snort. If Newt is the nominee, we lose the presidency, the senate, and the house. Obama will be able to pass nationalized everything. Bye-bye america. You won the debate and lost the country.

32 * Caveat: Smart politics, but stuff like this worries me, because yeah, i do think Newt thinks in terms of a political, govenrmental fix for problems.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 11:37 AM (nj1bB)

Agreed.  I think Newt's first instinct is a government solution.  If some new ginned-up "issue" comes down the pipe, Newt won't stand athwart it crying "Stop!"  He'll seek to be the man who manages it best.

He wants to be transformative, historic, active.

33 We'reBoned v2.0.

34 He says it's wrong now. Mitt Romney thinks it's conservative.
Look ace, I'm unhappy the way Perry turned out like you. But we simply have to choose from who is left. I'd rather have Newt who has done more con things.

35
Most elections are joyous occasions for me, and I look forward to going to the precinct and voting my conscience.  Early voting has begun in Florida, and voting this afternoon will be a painful civic duty and not one of elation.

So, with a sense of duty, I will pick the turd up by the clean end and check my vote with the fecal pen for the least reprehensible prick on the calendar.

36 We could make people navigate an obstacle course to get to the Emergency Room ... that would help contain costs as only those healthy enough to be sick enough to need emergency care would receive it. And those people would most likely 1) respond to treatment and 2) appreciate the care and vote Republican. win-win.

37 That might be why the Conservative media is essentially saying-if you don't like Romney consider Santorum. Santorum is Romney's best hope right about now. It's interesting last night Santorum effectively hit Romney on RomneyCare-but he seemed to hit Newt harder on the individual mandate. Maybe Romney should offer Santorum something because-Santorum really seems to love his wife-and someone hit Santorum in South Carolina-right in the wife. *If* Santorum has a suspicion of who did that....things could get really interesting.

38 New bumper sticker for the 2012 election.

URANUS 2012

39 And again, to reiterate the point.

With Romney, the best case scenario is he tries to keep the 2013 status quo. The worst case scenario is he governs the nation like DC and  *advances* various leftwing causes.

With Newt, the best case scenario is he he fights hard to return us to 1994. The worst case scenario is he governs the nation like he pontificated since leaving office and  *advances* various leftwing causes.

With Santorum, the best case scenario is he he fights hard to return us to 1994.The worst case scenario is he fights hard to return us to 2007.

The risk/reward calculation seems pretty straight forward to me.

40 Wake me up when it's decided.

41 Two differences entre Newt and Mitt here:

#1) Newt didn't institutionalize the individual mandate-he didn't make it a reality-in short order-the way Mitt did.

#2) He's learned in the reality of ObamaCare -that it's not a good idea, the American people mostly don't want it, and small business is severely hampered.

In the face of all that-the two Harvard geniuses-Obama and Mitt can't admit they fundamentally messed up.

1)  Mitt made it a reality - in Massachusetts only,  and not on a Federal level as proposed by Newt, because:

2) Massholes wanted it.

Those are very important distinctions, don't you think?

42 Let's not get our panties in a knot. The mandate issue is the legal issue by which we can hoepfully kill Obamacare. Obamacare is evil not because of an individual mandate but because it is a not so stealth attempt at creating a single payer system. Single payer systems are the enemy. That is why O-care must be stopped. So, if newt or whoever, liked IM's, it's not the end of the world...I imagine there is a world in which one could have a free market healthcare system (i.e., fuck single payer) but still have a mandate.

43

For fucks sake, if Newt is not a conservative than neither was Reagan. Government expanded under Reagan, we had huge deficits, and he raised taxes to save social security.

We can play this game all we want. The idea that Newt is not actually conservative is mind-boggling stupid. He compromised sometimes--whoop-de-do. Anyone on a national level compromises at times, including Reagan.

Please tell me--who was the conservative alternative to Newt in the 90s? Who were the people pushing for free markets while Newt was supposedly engaging in sinister liberal policies?

 

 

44 Meet the Newt Boss. Same as the Old Boss.

45 Well, if you can't back Newt then...

YEAH ROMNEY WOOOO BANG BANG YEAH ROMSTER WOOHOOO!!

46 >>>#2) He's learned in the reality of ObamaCare -that it's not a good idea, the American people mostly don't want it, and small business is severely hampered.

It took him until May 2011 to "learn" it, though.  That's after it passed.  After Scott Brown.  After the 2010 elections.  That suggests to me that he didn't learn anything at all, that he's merely tacking to the political winds. 

In fact, Ace is being too generous here, because Newt was STILL pushing this idea as recently as two or three months ago.  During his first "surge" in the polls he went on Glenn Beck's radio show and defended the mandate.  Beck asked him incredulously about it and he said something like "well yes, it's a mandate, but you see it's different in key respects" blah blah blah.  I'm pretty sure Beck's white-hot opposition to Gingrich dates from that exact moment -- he couldn't believe that Newt was STILL pushing for a NATIONAL mandate.  Not a state-level one, but a national one!

47 #1) Newt didn't institutionalize the individual mandate-he didn't make it a reality-in short order-the way Mitt did.

Only because he was drummed out of office during his ethics scandal. He's got all kinds of great ideas on how to run your life for you. When other people have ideas they're social engineers, when Newt has them they're just profoundly fundamental methods to remake Washington.

48

actual implementation vs interview answer.

49 Put chalk boards back in the classroom and pay kids to clap the erasers and clean the blackboards after class. It'll give them exercise and teach them responsibility.

50 We'll see if he comes up with something like that for Florida. ******** Seems like that will be what Newt's space speech will be about.

51 Do you really think a Republican Senate, headed by McConnell, and a Republican House, headed by Boehner, would actually have the fortitude to repeal Obamacare? Do you think these two would abandon their established modus operandi of "get along to go along" or vice versa?  Do you think they would not be intimindated into cringing apology when the Dems and the MSM start howling about the uninsured poor?

Please tell me I'm wrong here, and why and how.

52

supported  << instituted

53
once again,

Newt is a lot like the NRA. Those of who who are familiar with the NRA's activity in Washington will understand the comparison.

54

Douche vs. Douche

This sucks.

55 A Mitt Sandwich or Newt Coke?
Pick your poison.

56 37 He says it's wrong now.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 11:42 AM (Q33Iq)

But is he sincere or is he just saying that to get elected?

57 I'm backing Newt because he just might kick some people I don't like right in the balls. Romney will put lotion on their backs.

58 Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 11:37 AM (7BU4a)

Other than his inability to win an election? Nothing. Santorum's great, especially if we can ignore the tedious social commentary that he seems to think passes as soaring rhetoric.

59
#1) Newt didn't institutionalize the individual mandate-he didn't make it a reality-in short order-the way Mitt did.

Posted by: tasker at January 24, 2012 11:39 AM (r2PLg)

That's only because he didn't have the votes to do so.  You don't get credit for not doing something that you don't have the power to do. 

60 The date on that Beck/Gingrich interview, as it turns out, was December 2011.  That's less than two months ago.  http://tinyurl.com/c2dhq28

Two months ago, Newt was still defending a national mandate.

Your true conservative Tea Party hero, Newt Gingrich.

But hey: at least he's not a Mormon from the Northeast!

61 DAMN IT ACE!  YOU KEEP THIS CRAP UP AND I'M NEVER GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHO TO VOTE AGAINST!

62 Except Newt will never admit he was wrong.

I agree.  But Mitt continues to trumpet how awesome RomneyCare is (it's bankrupted the state of MA).  The base was willing to settle with Mitt 2 months ago if he'd simply admitted fault on that issue, but he's apparently too stubborn.

63 hey jeffb did you get the 2nd opinion yet?

64 So, as I've been saying...why not Santorum?

He's explicitly said he doesn't want my little l libertarian vote.

65 Hey wait, can we no longer use italics, bold, etc. on the blog?

Is this all because of that fuckstain Juicer ruining the blog yesterday? 

66 It took him until May 2011 to "learn" it, though. That's after it passed. After Scott Brown. After the 2010 elections. That suggests to me that he didn't learn anything at all, that he's merely tacking to the political winds ******* Well what does that mean about Mitt? You have to believe one of two things about Mitt here- 1) Mitt hasn't really figured out it was truly a bad idea-hence his hedge-so he doesn't have the political savvy. or- 2) Mitt knows that RomneyCare was a really bad idea-but his pride won't let him admit that.

67 Magic Underpants Vs Can't Keep on His Pants.

Decisions.

68 I'm ok with Newt doing what the base wants.

69 Newt just continous to annoy me, just today he declared that the debate moderators have "been put on notice" for not allowing applause at last nights debate. Put on notice?! Jeeze , a little dramatic there bug guy. Admit it, he an obnoxious imperialist who flirts with delusions of grandeur.

70 @ 58 A Mitt Sandwich or Newt Coke?
Pick your poison.

At this point I''ll probably be snorting Newt Coke. 
(Although Prozac will be better.)

71 A Mitt Sandwich or Newt Coke?
Pick your poison.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 24, 2012 11:47 AM (dOsjQ)

Zombie Reagan: Our only hope

72 Please tell me I'm wrong here, and why and how.

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at January 24, 2012 11:46 AM (S3rrR)

OK you are wrong. That was one of the very first things that the House did after the 2010 election. They passed a Healthcare Repeal bill. It went to the Democrat Senate and promptly died just like everyone knew it would.

The same thing will happen after the 2012 election because we can not get a 60 vote margin. Promises of suing "reconciliation" will not come true.

73 Posted by: Reno_Dave at January 24, 2012 11:37 AM (OL4L4)

In reading your post my first thought was the next step in that way of thinking.  If you are a diabetic and they can prove you ate sugar that day, no treatment.  If you are a smoker and you have an asthma attack, no treatment.  If you had knee surgery and were told to stay off your feet but you had to work the assembly line for you kids to eat and you took your chances, then your knee blows up and the hospital produces a picture of you on the assembly line, you guessed it, no treatment.

That's starting to look more like the road to sarah palin's death panels than a conservative solution to me.  But what do I know.

74
Here's a question that will help explain why we're so gonna lose in 2012:

We're in the middle of the primaries, and keeping in mind all the debates held by the GOP candidates, which of the following has done the most to advance small-government conservatism this week?

a) Rick Santorum
b) Newt Gingrich
c) Mitt Romney
d) Bruins goalie Tim Thomas
e) Barack Obama

75

The anger against the individual mandate is misguided.  Other than the name, how is it different from a tax? Taxation is legal.  SCOTUS will strike down the lawsuits because they will simply say that its a disctinction without a difference.

So whether Newt or Mitt are wrong or right about the matter is a waste of time.  It's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The real issue SHOULD be government intrusion in health care.

Romney is so for it that it was the centerpiece of his governorship, and he still defends it tooth and claw.  Every other candidate opposes it.

76 And with Ron Paul, the best case scenario is he tries to return us to 1860. The worst case scenario is that China takes over the Far East, the Near East goes up in flames and we get nuked.

77 Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 11:40 AM (T0NGe)

Or we could allow the market to bear on health care. One segment of the industry is unregulated and unaffected by insurance -- cosmetic medicine -- and costs have plummeted.

Health care is a market, just like energy and toasters and dildo holders and shoelaces.

78 Let's not forget that Gingrich engineered the first Republican Majority house in 40 years. Anybody else remember the surprise and elation at that bit of news. That we got on television and via newspapers as teh intertubes were still not really all that yet. So - let's not crucify Gingrich too much. Just enough. _

79 I don't believe anyone is saying that Newt is the Platonic ideal of conservatism. I think they are saying if they are going to have to compromise - and let's face it, that is where we are - then compromise on someone who is going to fight in our corner. What I wrote about "cares about people like me" in the last thread? It matters to conservatives, too.

80

Let's face it. The left won.  Since the 1930s, they moved the overton window drastically to the left.

So much so that the dominant wing of the Republican party are essentially 1930s Democrats. Big spending hawks.

 

This is what total control of the schools, media and a welfare state get you.

 

 

81 If you went back in time to 1998 and asked 100 random people whether Newt should run for President somewhere down the line, 90 of them would've laughed in your face.

The other 10 would've punched you in the face for asking such a ridiculous question.

82 63 The date on that Beck/Gingrich interview, as it turns out, was December 2011. That's less than two months ago. http://tinyurl.com/c2dhq28 Two months ago, Newt was still defending a national mandate. Your true conservative Tea Party hero, Newt Gingrich. But hey: at least he's not a Mormon from the Northeast! -- As a hard wired agnostic, the religion someone practices isn't much concern. They're all pretty idiotic, but some of them are more idiotic than others. The Mormon version seems particularly ridiculous. Almost to the point that they set out to BE the most ridiculous, like on a dare or something.

83

>>don't agree w/ either option, but there seems to be a big difference though:

>>Under Romney's plan, you give that money to the state to spend as it pleases.

>>Under Gingrich's the state is not allowed to spend that money.

Yeah, how long does that last Krak?

84 34 Snort. If Newt is the nominee, we lose the presidency, the senate, and the house. Obama will be able to pass nationalized everything. Bye-bye america. You won the debate and lost the country.

Posted by: dagny at January 24, 2012 11:41 AM (w+PM

--

Prove it.  Show me some proof that your statement is true.  This is the standard RINO response to Newt lately and I'm tired of hearing it. 

Do you really believe a Pussy like Romney can win?  He's clearly not a leader.  He's just a safe bet to not upset anything.....and a safe bet to lose.

85 That's only because he didn't have the votes to do so. You don't get credit for not doing something that you don't have the power to do. ******* You can work that formula in reverse-Mitt wants us to forgive the lack of moving Conservative judges forward -because his hands were tied... He keeps saying he couldn't do this, he couldn't do that-in Massachusetts. Let's see in all the negotiations with the Dems after the appointment of some 20 liberal judges Romney couldn't negotiate with the Dems to throw him a bone-one Conservative judge-just to save face?

86 an obnoxious imperialist who flirts with delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 24, 2012 11:50 AM (gJwBE)

Flirts? He's been trying to shove his tongue down my throat for years!

87 Thank you #78. The IM is a tactic, not the game. It's about stopping Obama's single payer care system, Obamacare is evil not because of an individual mandate but because it is a not so stealth attempt at creating a single payer system. Single payer systems are the enemy. That is why O-care must be stopped. So, if newt or whoever, liked IM's, it's not the end of the world.

88 >>>Well what does that mean about Mitt?

No, it means that a STATE mandate and a NATIONAL mandate are two substantively different things on a Constitutional law level.  That's what's so fucking appalling about Gingrich's stance: there has been a longstanding conservative argument for *state-level* mandates in healthcare, on a "personal responsibility" logic, though it's of course now as popular an idea as smallpox.  But there was NEVER a conservative argument for nationalized healthcare, or a national mandate.  That was a Newt Gingrich Big Government Special, something that only HE was pushing as a "conservative" idea, and something which he bizarrely STILL cannot seem to quite let go of.

As a secondary matter, I also think that Romney can't afford to disown Romneycare as a strategic matter.  His entire campaign in 2012 has been built around avoiding the 'flip-flopper' tag that plagued him in 2008, and that would be the biggest one of all.  So he just says "it ain't perfect, but I'm gonna own it."  He would be far more screwed were he to actually disown the thing...people like you who keep telling him to abandon Romneycare would simply turn around and say "ooh you flip-flopping liar, I don't believe you!" if he were actually to do so.  He knows that and you know that.

89
The answer is d) Tim Thomas.

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Barack Obama are all killing the agenda for small-govt conservatism.

90 85 jimmah "As a hard wired agnostic, the religion someone practices isn't much concern. They're all pretty idiotic, but some of them are more idiotic than others. The Mormon version seems particularly ridiculous. Almost to the point that they set out to BE the most ridiculous, like on a dare or something." as a practicing member of a denomination you find less ridiculous than the mormons.....i was still able to find this funny.....golf clap......

91 >>>>hey jeffb

>>>>did you get the 2nd opinion yet?

Friday.  And honestly I've gotten enough shit for daring to talk about this stuff in the comments that I think I'm going to keep it to myself from now on.  Just gives people another reason to bitch about me.

92 oh, so how can conservatives help promote the idea of a conservative townhall debate, as discussed today on instapundit? ideaas?

93 Newt just continous to annoy me, just today he declared that the debate moderators have "been put on notice" for not allowing applause at last nights debate. Put on notice?! Jeeze , a little dramatic there bug guy... ***** I really want to fall into the Mitt boat and vote for him-but this is a good strategy on Newt's part. He's defending the peeps-being allowed to have some voice in the debates. The debate last night was gawd awful. Even if the audience had been allowed to clap much-I doubt they would because most of the questions were liberal concerns. (Really, really bad.)

94 jeffb keeping you in my prayers......

95

The rancor around the general election is going to highlight the crappy state of politics in D.C.. For us, the battle is half the fun, but for many voters, the atmosphere is the problem. They think--and more can be convinced--that working together will "solve problems" and "fix the economy".

Romney's bland approach, his strategy from the git-go has been to market himself in the general as the guy who can pull this off. Get D.C. working again.

Now I don't give a shit if it ever works again, but the point is that this is why Romney's not going to throw you the red meat that Newt does. He's positioning himself for the general as a "competence candidate". I can see disliking him for many reasons, but having a plan and sticking to it shouldn't be one of them.

96

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 24, 2012 11:52 AM (SY2Kh)

 

go back to May of this year and you'll get about the same results. this has been a horrible primary. so many laughable vanity candidates is my theory as to why some of the more serious ones stayed out. and the tea party is to thank. somehow because she could rally a tea party crowd bachman thought that meant she could rally a nation. and cain, oh good god, what a joke. one that is still going on thanks to the tea party express.

97 Of the two legitimate candidates left (Newt/Romney) I ask myself this fundamental question - Which one of the two am I absolutely sure would sign a balanced budget amendment?  Everything else flows from that question.  With a balanced budget there is no practical possibility of universal healthcare. 

Of the two, the only candidate that I'm certain would sign a balanced budget amendment is Newt.

98 Jeff B., I hope you get some good news from the second opinion.  Keeping you in my prayers.

99

I'm not going to defend Newt for embracing climate change and sitting on the couch with Pelosi, for working with Fannie/Freddie, or for supporting an individaul mandate.  I'm only going to point out that it seems many of our criticisms of Newt when it comes to how conservative he is for actions he took and statements he made after he left office.  Those should hold some weight, as we should look at a candidates entire body of work.  But when he was in office and when he was Speaker, I think there is no doubt he pushed the ball forward when it comes to advancing a conservative agenda. 

I for one am gonig to give more credence to what a candidate actually did in office.  Not what he may have said once he left.  That doesn't mean I'll ignore it, but when you ask who has advanced the conservative cause more:  Newt, Mitt, or Santorum.  I am in the Newt camp.  That is a big factor in my support for him.  Sure he has other baggage - all candidates do.  But moving the conservative cause forward is almost always going to be my primary determination as to whether to support a candidate or not.

100 there has been a longstanding conservative argument for *state-level* mandates in healthcare, on a "personal responsibility" logic,

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 24, 2012 11:55 AM (23Ios)


------------------------

YOU LIE!!

101 Best of luck to you, Jeff B.  Hopefully all goes well.  Thoughts and prayers go to you. 

102 (Really, really bad.)

Posted by: tasker at January 24, 2012 11:58 AM (r2PLg)

It was terrible!  Cuba?  WTF?  Cuba?  How long did they spend on that lame ass question?

103 Please tell me I'm wrong here, and why and how.
Posted by: Minnie Rodent at January 24, 2012 11:46 AM (S3rrR)

Wisconsin Republicans and the Government Unions. Even when the Dems took the ball and ran out of state they didn't fold.

104 I'll repeat my rant from a few days ago.

We are left with zip dog shit for candidates. Year after year after year under the stagnated BS Republican Party primary rules we get stuck with shitty candidates. The primaries are preloaded with almost ALL blue States all the way up to the damn Super Tuesday date. This is why we get stuck with lackluster, its my turn “moderates”. Yet there are some here who keep saying this is all wingnut “conspiracy theory”. I throw the bullshit flag on that. Once is OK, twice may be a coincidence, three times is enemy action. Decades worth is Party design.

We are now left with Mutt Romney who they are still saying is the designated winner although he has only won one Primary in virtually his own home State and it appears he will NOT win SC despite all the MFM hoopala. He hasnÂ’t got a conservative bone in his body. He is not electable because he will split the Party and likely result in a third Party run. The base hates him yet if he does win it will be the same damn way McShitty won. A plurality of about 30%.

 

Then there is Eye of Newt. More baggage than an overloaded airport baggage train headed for a wide body 747. He has a couple of finger bones that may be conservative.

 

Coming up third will be Santorum (at least in SC). He is arguably more conservative than Gingrich (maybe) but he so alienated his own State so bad he was routed in his last election attempt. His stress on anti-gay and on social con issues is so hard that he is virtually unelectable in any tight State like VA. The same way Mutt will cause conservatives to stay at home, he will cause some fiscal cons who donÂ’t give a shit for social ideas to stay at home. If he would keep his mouth shut on this score he would be a lot better off. Swing into that shit AFTER the election dumb ass. Do like the Dems do, run to the center and then after election go hard right social con.

 

Fourth is Crazy Racist Uncle. Not a chance of getting elected anywhere but he has a following of loud and obnoxious pot heads and skin heads.

 

This is what our Republican Party primary rules has given us. This and endless fucking bullshit debates hosted by the MFM designed not to allow the candidates to debate, but to pose “gotcha” questions, stir up controversy for ratings, and just generally damage the Republican party. Hell, the ONLY reason Newt has climbed out of the gutter is by attacking the debate assholes. Is this how we want to pick candidates; seriously?

 

All you Mutt-Mashers can bitch about this all you want, but I am about fed up with the Republican Party. They are not just the Party of Stupid, they are the Party of semi-Democrats. I am about to agree with Glenn Beck, there is not much difference between them but degree of how far left they want to go. Whether it is big government socialism for the Republicans or bigger government communism for the Democrats. Either damn way we are going off the cliff.

105 Almost to the point that they set out to BE the most ridiculous, like on a dare or something.

***

Have we met?

106 It was a dark and stormy night.  As the waves crashed upon the rocks, leaving faint droplets of seawater upon the glass, our hero strained to listen to the conversation from within.

"I am very much looking forward to hearing more from Newt over the next four years", said nobody.

107

Jeff B. at January 24, 2012 11:55 AM (23Ios)

 

but romneycare is the one thing he can flip and say how it didnt work, the gov/legislature after he left tinkered and broke it, etc. but for some reason he is standing firm on it while he flips on other issues that cant be explained as well. amnesty for one, he supported mccain's bill back in 07 and then he attacked others in the debates this year for supporting a path to citizenship or whatever the hell newt was going on about. his support for romneycare goes beyond a rational explanation.

108 Jeff B. It's this in Ian S.'s comment: ****** But Mitt continues to trumpet how awesome RomneyCare is (it's bankrupted the state of MA). ***** Mitt Romney is pretending not to know that? Secondly funding RomneyCare was not purely a state issue. Federal funds went into funding that healthcare experiment and artificially supporting it so that it could be "phased in" and/or foisted on the rest of the country in the shape of- ObamaCare

109 If anyone ever finds that microwaved food causes cancer, I am totally boned.

110 Formatting fail.

111 off sock

112 I won't voter for either, but I will likely be less depressed should Newt become POTUS vs Mittsy.

As I posted yesterday, Mittsy doesn't have conservative principles in even the most basic sense.  Some leanings, perhaps and likely, but not core beliefs. 

Newt, otoh, has Newt as his core belief.  Everything takes second billing to his Newtness.  So, he doesn't view problems from the perspective of a conservative first and foremost.  He views them from his Newtness. 

And, both men, and apparently an entire generation of R bench "strength" think that government is the answer, as long as they are in charge.  They seek to manage the beast of government, not truly shrink it. 

Perhaps, that will be the most valuable outcome of this election.  The R party outed for being Blue Dog Democrats.  Perhaps some truly principled conservatives will continue to rise and when elected, actually stay conservative.  Scott Walker, Alan West, Rob Johnson, Marco Rubio seem to be avoiding the traps, so far.  Nikki Haley, not so much. 

We may not survive another 4 years of Obama, but we likely won't survive another 15 of the R's as currently constructed. 

113 >>>>Of the two legitimate candidates left (Newt/Romney) I ask myself this fundamental question - Which one of the two am I absolutely sure would sign a balanced budget amendment? Everything else flows from that question.

***
You do realize that virtually every proposed "balanced budget amendment" has been little more than a gimmick which would accomplish approximately nothing, right?

114 Hollowpoint, you might want to see if you can get an NEA grant to pursue your craft.

While the the NEA still exists.

115 I see from all the paid Axelrod trolls here pushing Romney and smearing Newt that the Dems truly fear Gingrich. The big three networks coordinated attacks on Gingrich agree. That is reason enough to find him acceptable as a candidate.

116 Cuba? How long did they spend on that lame ass question? Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 12:01 PM (X6akg) ****** Tami Man I wish I could say I thought that was the worst question... The..._______ case? I don't even want to type it out-but who in the hell, what voter is saying I HAVE to know which Republican thinks what about the _____ ______ case from SIX years ago-before I vote. Wow. The Liberal MSM is going to dig up anything and everything to stay off the subject of the Obama Economy.

117 Big Romney, Big Romney, Big Romney NO WHAMMIES! Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 24, 2012 11:31 AM (h6mPj) LMAO! I LOVED that show! I used to watch it with my friends after school while we drank cactus coolers and smoked menthol cigarettes (which cost 1.25) that we got at the corner drug store by forging a note from my mom saying "please sell my underaged daughter a pack of cigarettes." Ah, those were kinder, more innocent times.

118 I hesitate to ask this but why not.  Am I the only one getting emails about romney's tax return.  In particular the amount of money he gave to his church.  Asking "don't you think that is dangerous?"

119 Perhaps some truly principled conservatives will continue to rise and when elected, actually stay conservative. Scott Walker, Alan West, Rob Johnson, Marco Rubio seem to be avoiding the traps, so far. Nikki Haley, not so much.

*****
SOPA, ahem.

120 In particular the amount of money he gave to his church. Asking "don't you think that is dangerous?"

***

No way!!

121 A key difference which you don't acknowledge here Ace is that Gingrich's individual mandate preference has always been far more limited than Romney's.

Romney's individual mandate, like Obama's, is universal. It applies to all income levels in order to dramatically increase the size of the insurance pool.

Gingrich's mandate has always been more limited. Originally, at the time of Hillarycare, Gingrich proposed that the threshold be $75,000 in earnings. He's since moved that threshold higher, saying 80-90k should be the starting point.

These are approaches designed to solve two fundamentally different problems. Romney's and Obama's was designed to increase the insurance pool as a way of buying off insurers - more people buying into the marketplace, more acceptance of encroaching regulation and price controls. They were paired with costly taxpayer subsidies and dramatic Medicaid expansion to cover those people making up to 300-400 percent of the poverty level (respectively) who could not otherwise afford to pay for the mandate. This requires massive redistribution of taxpayer money.

Gingrich's is designed to address a far more limited problem of fairness - that those uninsured who already have enough income to afford insurance shouldn't be able to exploit the legal requirement for hospitals to provide emergency care.

To give you an idea of the difference in scope, consider who was effected under Romneycare vs. Gingrich's approach. According to the 2010 figures, Romney's individual mandate put 412,000 people who were previously uninsured into the insurance pool. Of this total, 193,000 uninsured people went on Medicaid, and 180,000 went onto subsidies through Commonwealth Care. These are people who make less than $54k a year as an individual, or less than $85k a year as a couple.

In other words, no one who would qualify under Gingrich's hypothetical mandate. His target was a different problem, addressing a much more niche issue, and not involving any of the budget-destroying redistributionist taxes which have blown up in Massachusetts since Romney left.

In sum: Gingrich's mandate is still a mandate. But suggesting a universal mandate and a mandate targeted at high earners is the same is simply false.

122

The Gingrich Debate Delusion.

"Even if Obama doesnÂ’t duck his eventual GOP opponent, the planned exchanges only amount to 270 minutes of direct debate time out of  a months-long campaign.  Four-and-a-half hours.  That's it.  The outcome of the fall contest will depend far more on ground game, organization, fundraising, focused messaging, and the ability to appeal to independent voters by making Obama the issue.  "

 

123 Only Newt can advance the cause of conservatives!!

124 >>>I really want to fall into the Mitt boat and vote for him-but this is a good strategy on Newt's part.

>>>He's defending the peeps-being allowed to have some voice in the debates.

No, he's defending his interests.  Without a crowd of partisans to hoot and holler at his red meat, Newt falls flat. 

There is absolutely no reason there needs to be "audience participation" during a debate, tasker.  In fact, given the fact that (1) we're supposed to judge candidates on the substance of what they're saying rather than in-house reaction, and (2) the general election debates will be completely silent, w/o applause or audience reaction as well, it actually makes sense to keep audiences OUT.  This isn't WWE wrestling, or American Idol. 

125 I see from all the paid Axelrod trolls here pushing Romney and smearing Newt that the Dems truly fear Gingrich. The big three networks coordinated attacks on Gingrich agree. That is reason enough to find him acceptable as a candidate.

****

WTF are you calling a troll?

126

And yet, Newt Gingrich has been endorsed by Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Rick Perry, and Fred Thompson.

127 I'll admit. I've lost hope at this point. I only want Newt to punish the party for absolutely F*ing this election and flushing my country down the toilet.

128 >>>I hesitate to ask this but why not. Am I the only one getting emails about romney's tax return. In particular the amount of money he gave to his church. Asking "don't you think that is dangerous?"

Yeah that's right curious, Mitt's donating money to the LDS Church in order to subvert the fabric of America by advancing the cause of evil Satan-worshiping, polygamist mormonism.  My phone's been ringing off the hook about it this morning.

129 Other than his inability to win an election?
***
Santorum won repeated elections in a blue State until the GOTTERDAMNRUNG of 2006. Romney won one election in a blue state. One. And his chosen successor
lost the followup because Romney knew he could not win re-election.

If we go by *records*, Santorum is actually the most electable of the bunch.

Look, being a strong soc con will cost him votes in MA and CA, no doubt...but so what? Trading votes in states he won't win for votes in purple states like IA or OH is a big win.

130 I see from all the paid Axelrod trolls here pushing Romney and smearing Newt that the Dems truly fear Gingrich. The big three networks coordinated attacks on Gingrich agree. That is reason enough to find him acceptable as a candidate.

Coordinated attacks on Gingrich?

The MSM LOVES Gingrich, at least while he has a chance to drag the primary process out further.  Likewise Newt loves the MSM, at least when the cameras aren't rolling.

But yeah- everybody who finds Newt too flawed to be a good nominee is definitely a paid Dem troll, and since you disagree with Dem trolls, you go ahead and support Newt.  Your logic is irrefutable.

131

Any group that is questioning the amount of money Romney is giving to his church should be exposed asap. Who is sending these emails?

 

132 Did I miss something in the Glenn Beck interview? He seems to simply not address the mandate thing at all, he ignores it. Does he come back to it later?

133 Jeff B. It's still a good tactic for Newt to defend our supposed worthless voice in the process.

134 The..._______ case? I don't even want to type it out-but who in the hell, what voter is saying I HAVE to know which Republican thinks what about the _____ ______ case from SIX years ago-before I vote.

Wow. The Liberal MSM is going to dig up anything and everything to stay off the subject of the Obama Economy.

Posted by: tasker at January 24, 2012 12:07 PM (r2PLg)

Oh yeah!  I forgot about that insane question. 

Worse.debate.ever....and that's saying something.

135 And, with the likes of Ann Coulter and Jen Rubin defending Mitt-who needs trolls? Heh.

136 >>Santorum is actually the most electable of the bunch.

Couldn't agree more, great point!!

137

Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 24, 2012 12:08 PM (OWjjx)

 

i dont know either about rules keeping anyone out. the format/schedule of the early primaries dont favor some candidates so that could be it. i think some stayed out this go around due to some of the odder ones who threw their hat in the ring. they didnt want their message to get lost in all the feedback caused by vanity candidates.

138 Any group that is questioning the amount of money Romney is giving to his church should be exposed asap. Who is sending these emails?

****
Agreed, except it might grant their pathetic rant even more attention.

139 Posted by: dagny at January 24, 2012 11:41 AM (w+PM
--Prove it. Show me some proof that your statement is true. This is the standard RINO response to Newt lately and I'm tired of hearing it.
Do you really believe a Pussy like Romney can win? He's clearly not a leader. He's just a safe bet to not upset anything.....and a safe bet to lose.

Posted by: Not an Artist at January 24, 2012 11:53 AM (YUwuZ)

 

I'm no Rino. I don't even like Romney. I liked Perry. I cannot prove Newt will lose huge but he will, He was hated hated in the 90s. Everyone on the Hill, even those who were with him politically despised him. He is an arrogant POS and the media will have a field day with the volume of people who will come out of the wood work to tell the obnoxious, arrogant, flip-flopping, bull shit that he was responsible for the last time around.

Sitting with Pelosi is one of the few things we know about--just wait, everybody is in line with their own Newt story. I was talking to a lobbyist yesterday for USAA. He was talking about how stunned everyone on the hill is about how Newt could be getting the poll numbers he's getting. Newt makes Nixon look soft cuddly and honest.

140 Your not a troll. Your a RINO!
Everyone of you is a RINO!
All the posters, bloggers, cobbloggers, candidates and the entire electorate.....RINOS!

*****
WTF are you calling a RINO?!



hehe

141 yeah,  the "paid axelrod trolls" are attacking newt, because obama is deathly afraid of the twenty 7 hour lincoln-douglas (applause!!) debates he will have to endure at the hands of newt gingrich

142 but the rules preventing the good candidates from running isn't really a good excuse.

How about one damn red State out of all the primaries up until Super Tuesday?

143 One more point in re this: I do not support Gingrich's idea. I think it's an overreach of government and possibly unconstitutional.

However, one simply cannot compare a mandate on a very tiny problem of free riders - we're possibly talking about a number in five digits at most in a state like Massachusetts in 2006 - with one that requires the universality of Romney's or Obama's mandates.

The distinct difference is that one is designed to protect providers from being exploited. The other is designed to allow for a government takeover of the insurance industry. Different goals entirely.

144 ben, so the big distinction is that Gingrich only supports the mandate for people making $75,000 or more? At the $75,000 level of income, your right to be free of government imposed mandates toggles off?

145 Oh yeah! I forgot about that insane question. ***** Definitely the worse debate ever-unlike Jeff B. I think I would have highly valued the audience getting to boo the moderators last night.

146 Ace ---

If you can tolerate a link to HuffPo, here's a two-part video of the entire interview.

http://tinyurl.com/cb2w92c

Money quote from that article, which you can hear in the interview: "In another section, Beck played two soundbites of Gingrich speaking about healthcare in 1993 and 2011. He told Gingrich that "this is where we fundamentally differ," and argued that Gingrich seemed to be in favor of an individual mandate. Gingrich admitted that his current position was a "variation" on the individual mandate."

147 Oh -- and Newt also supports a FEDERAL, national version of this over-75,000-p.a. mandate?

148 24 Newt cannot win. So, hey, let's go with Newt! Posted by: red meat at January 24, 2012 11:39 AM (O7ks

Mitt cant win so hey lets go with Mitt..I mean he won against McCain AND obama in 08 .......wait...

149 The more I hear about him the less I like.  National Geographic should do an article on Newt the Chameleon.  

150 Vic btw I think Allen G. posted your infamous comment at his blog. Epic. I think he calls it Vic's rant at #9..

151 jeff b those are clips of the may 2011 interview which I've already linked.

152 >>>I was talking to a lobbyist yesterday for USAA. He was talking about how stunned everyone on the hill is about how Newt could be getting the poll numbers he's getting. Newt makes Nixon look soft cuddly and honest.

I hear the same things, too.  But I figure there's absolutely no point in mentioning it around here because the sorts of people who are riding on the Crazy Train right now will simply take it as confirmation of their choice: "See, all those Beltway people HATE Newt!  He MUST be doing something right!!"

As opposed to the possibility that the people who know Newt the most oppose him the most, not because they're intimidated by his flinty integrity, but rather because they know what a loathsome scrunt he is.

153

Still undecided. Leaning heavily towards Newt now though. Only because I think that the opposition is forcing Mitt upon us so that they can open up the class warfare arsenal.

Unfortunately, I think that our retarded electorate will fall hard for that tactic. Remember how popular the OWS movement was?

I'll have the shit sammich.

154 131 And yet, Newt Gingrich has been endorsed by Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Rick Perry, and Fred Thompson.

And both of the Palins.

155

So f'in what? e all know Newt has had some bugfuck crazy ideas over the years, and some of them have gone so far as to get him to sit on a couch. Just how many of them have been implemented into policy? How many of these will withstand scrutiny and consideration at length?

Just because he makes some insane statements, one thing I have seen from Newt is that he is willing to admit he mad a mistake, unlike teh One and, yes even Romney. He does not get so wedded to his ideas that he identifies with them. So he has to throw an idea out, so what, he'll come up with another one or a dozen tomorrow.

NOT disqualifying, IMO.

156 >>>jeff b those are clips of the may 2011 interview which I've already linked.

Yes, Beck plays back the May 2011 interview to Newt.  But the point is that in December 2011, when Beck does this with Newt on the phone, Newt STILL defends it.  He cavils a bit by saying "oh it's a *variation* on the national mandate" as if that gets him off the hook, but still...seriously?

157

Seems to boil down to "Promote the the General Welfare" vs "Provide the General Welfare." Because that principle has been deviated from, American taxpayers are being extoted. 

Drug test for welfare? Right. When the checks stop rolling in, a percentage selfish drug addicts won't take much prodding to rob for their drug money. The welfare payouts for those "disabled" people are essentially safeguards against burglary, robbery and other crimes not currently committed as a means to acquire drugs.  The list of  Welfare Extortion preventative measures goes on and on and on.

Need a candidate to spell out the preamble while ensuring that yes, we care. We just care realistcally while Dmeocrats care in a fantasy world using other people's fantasy money.

158 Same same. Mitt equals no change and Newt equals no change in the status quo. We will have 4 more years of the leviathan growing more out of control and sucking more life and blood from every one of us. But go ahead and drink the fizzy drinks and suck down the brauts because thats all we are going to have to look forward to for the forseeable future. The Dems managed to spend ALL the money and now there aint none left for anyone else. Im SOOOO Happy!!

159 On one of those "alternative" forums (no, not THAT kind. Think tinfoil hat) it was reported that Henry Kissinger told the Chinese that Jeb  Bush would be the next president.

Strangely enough, I think I heard something about that in the MSM the other day- that Jeb would be a great choice.

Sigh.

I hate all the  candidates.

160 look, when it comes to electability, think of the fight in the candidates. Mitt is apparently a thug when it comes to running ads, which is a good thing, because he'll go after SCOAMF hard...even if SCAOMF avoids debates. So that's good. Remember, Mackerel lost because he was a fuddy duddy idiot who wouldn't attack SCOAMF

161

"Just don't tell me that Romney would merely "manage the decay" of the big government social welfare state while Gingrich would "fundamentally" shake it up.

As I've said before, the dominant strain of thinking in the past couple of decades was neoconservatism, which was proposing alternate solutions (preferably without as much government involvement) to the liberal checklist of problems that needed to be addressed.

Gingrich was and still is a big neocon. So was and is Romney.

Now since then, this style of "solution" has been greatly criticized by many conservatives as being, fundamentally, part of the problem.

But if you can overlook one you can overlook the other."

 

why do you think I have so reluctantly moved into the Ron Paul camp?

i didn't want to, I don't like him that much, but he's the only one left that has any crediblity left on this shit.

162 There you go Ace, trying to get Perry back in.

163 I'm disappointed with all the candidates.  We're either getting Obama or Obama-Lite.

164

Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 24, 2012 12:22 PM (OWjjx)

 

rudy's run in 2008 election is a good example of the format hurting. he didnt feel he had enough of a chance in the early states to spend the money. by the time florida rolled around he was basically forgotten. it doesnt take much to get some momentum going and then some voters jump on a bandwagon just because.  as to the vanity candidates, thats just a theory. but there is only so much bandwidth and sharing it w/ candidates that are not serious makes getting your message out harder. and some may think running against an incumbent isnt worth it. he's sittingon his ass while the media via the debates is providing all his oppo research.

165 Yet there are some here who keep saying this is all wingnut “conspiracy theory”. I throw the bullshit flag on that. Once is OK, twice may be a coincidence, three times is enemy action. Decades worth is Party design

166 @ace Yes, he's saying that if you can afford it yourself, you should have it, and you should have to pay a penalty to a provider rather than get fixed and dash.

This is still a bad idea, but I consider it far less terrible than a universal one, primarily because it does not involve the creation of a new entitlement or the massive redistribution of taxpayer money. It is designed to solve a different problem than Romney's or Obama's. One's about a nagging problem for providers. The other is about greasing the skids for a government takeover of insurers. There's a major difference in scale.

167

So Newt once defended the idea of an individual mandate.  He has at least now said that was wrong.  Romney continues to believe an individual mandate is ok so long as the state does it. 

The question should be, who is more likley to fight for the repeal of Obamacare?  I believe it to be Newt.  He has a much better ability to persuade.  He has Congressional experience which should enable him to whip up votes. 

If the GOP had a filibuster-proof majority, this wouldn't be an issue.  I believe Mitt would repeal.  I just don't know how much political capital he will risk to do it.  I think he would prefer to tinker.  I think he will push for some sort of jobs bill over a repeal bill.

These are my opinions of course, and we can no nothing with certainty.  But I have still yet to see any evidence of Mitt advancing any conservative agenda in the face of  Democrat opposition.  Newt has.

168

Jerry Pournelle on Newt:  http://tinyurl.com/7nja8a7

"As to the “ethics” charges against Gingrich, the one I am most familiar with was the charge that the fiction book we were to collaborate on was a sham and a means for a publisher to bribe Gingrich with an advance to be paid to both of us.

As I pointed out at the time, I am the author of several best selling books, and the advance we were offered was not particularly large compared to what I was then getting for novels. I decided not to do the book – a contemporary high-tech political thriller – when Newt became Speaker; I could handle the political implications of the plot when the co-author was Minority Whip, but the Speaker is third in line for the Presidency, and the need to be careful in the plot lest it have diplomatic effects seemed too great.

The book was never written, but the “ethics” charge that it was anything other than a book to make money was simply fabricated; which told me all I needed to know about the kind of people who would bring such a charge."

 

169 Screw the price of gas. Bacon up 22%. Obama must go down!
http://bit.ly/AgswtE

170 >>> @ace Yes, he's saying that if you can afford it yourself, you should have it, and you should have to pay a penalty to a provider rather than get fixed and dash. um that's exactly what Romney says. that's the whole point. You are defending Romney's individual mandate but trying to pretend only Newt's individual mandate is protected via your, um, analysis. The theory of both is to stop free riders, and to do so by having the government compel people, by threat of fine, to purchase insurance. You're spinning that there is some big difference in principle over setting the level of income at which the mandate kicks in at 40K vs. 75K. You want to claim the latter is good or defensible policy, while to set it at lower figure is just Socialism. Um, they both are, or neither is.

171

How old is Romney?

I mean, how do you get 101 million dollars into an IRA account? Even at $6000 per year, heÂ’d have to be over 15,000 years old to have that much money in his IRA.

Either that, or heÂ’s been playing some games to avoid tax liability.

Oh, now I see.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Other than how it might look, I mean.

Kind of like that Swiss bank account he closed just before he geared up for the latest election. Perfectly Legal^tm. Like all that money stashed in the Cayman Islands. It's all Perfectly Legal^tm.

172 and don't forget about Newt's immigration policy (not much different than Romney's) is straight out of the U.S Chamber of Commerce and is as open borders as you can get.

173 Only because I think that the opposition is forcing Mitt upon us so that they can open up the class warfare arsenal.
***
Actually, it is even worse. They want Romney because they know how to campaign against him and have been preping for him as the opposition for some time, but he is also a "reasonable Republican I could live with" to much of the left.

So heads they win with Obama, tails they win with Mitt keeping Obama's policies in place.

174

Ben,

I don't know where you are coming up with that stuff. In the same interveiw Gingrich says he would provide Government Subsidies on a sliding scale for those who couldn't afford to by insurance or a bond.

That sounds like he's using taxpayer money to me.

175

Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 24, 2012 12:31 PM (OWjjx)

 

but his campaign strategy was based on the existing format!! if the schedule were different rudy wouldnt have waited. thats the point.

 

and as for iowa and sc, they were won by huckabee and mccain last time around. two guys who are NOT conservative. i dont know how big a role the scheduling plays in some people's decision, but to complete dismiss like your trying to do is wrong.

176 Strangely enough, I think I heard something about that in the MSM the other day- that Jeb would be a great choice.

****

It won't happen, certainly not anytime soon, but don't under-estimate the power that man pulls in Florida and with Hispanics.

177

Look, you either turn people who can't afford medical care away or you mandate that everyone have skin in the game. There is no middle options that won't be abused by freeloaders.

Same with legalizing drugs. You can either have legalized drugs OR a social safety net. You can't have both.

 

178 You want to claim the latter is good or defensible policy, while to set it at lower figure is just Socialism.
***
So as an aside, would any of the Republican candidates be brave enough to use the S word?

179 Actually, Jeb's son is the one to watch for. I don't think Jeb will get in his way.

180 also, I am trying to find the ONT that had the guide to using twitter, in an effort to get more cons on twitter, link?

181 These guys both have major flaws. I think it's a mistake to overlook Santorum at this point. He hasn't to my knowledge every supported any giant democrat boondoggles and is electable (twice to house and twice to senate in PA). And he can articulate conservative principles well.

182 Ben, do you understand the objection to the mandate is not about specific details of implementation? It's about principle. You are saying you prefer the wonkish bits and implementation of Newt's better. You like that only people making 75,000 per year (rather than 40,000 per year) will be affected. if it's unconstitutional or overweening -- which IS the objection -- the constitution is not satisified if people making 75,000 or less per year are guaranteed their rights vis a vis the goverment, and "only" those making 75K or more have their rights stripped from them.

183 >>>So Newt once defended the idea of an individual mandate. He has at least now said that was wrong. Romney continues to believe an individual mandate is ok so long as the state does it.

Dude, he was defending it as recently as A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

Suddenly, he says "oh yeah, I was totally, completely wrong." 

But he was touting a *national* mandate (which we as conservatives believe to be unconstitutional, as well as terrible policy) full-throatedly as recently as May of last year -- in the middle of the primary campaign! -- and defending it when pushed as recently as last month.

And now you believe he's found True Conservative religion because he said -- once -- "oops, I was wrong"?  Oh, and let's not forget: this isn't the first time he's done this.  This is just the latest in a long line of wildly liberal big government heresies Newt has bought into.  Suddenly, *conveniently*, he's disclaimed all of them...and even then little hints that he still believes in them keep creeping out. 

And you're throwing in with this guy.  Because he's not a Northeastern liberal RINO. 

Except, actually he is.  A "proud Rockefeller Republican moderate," in his own words, a guy who's endorsed everything from Obamacare mandates to cap & trade to Dede Scozzafava to Medicare Part D to you-name-it.  Today he poses as a Tea Party True Conservative and tosses some insults at the media types he parties with off-the-record, and you buy it? 

Are you really that cheap a date, so to speak?

184
I am amazed that Santorum's opposition to gay marriage is killing him among supposed conservatives.

Santorum is not perfect, but he easily has the most conservative record of anyone still in the race. And except for Paul, he is also the most financial conservative...

185

Slatz,

Santorum was a big supported of and voted for medicare part D which has cost us $500 Billion in added debt to date.

186 Support loading up the Senate and House with TEA party candidates: Give to SarahPAC

187 If this fucking country is stupid enough to give another 4 years to obama, then it don't matter what we do, the country is already lost. it died from within. Its already a corpse, and all we are doing is deciding what clothes to bury it in.

188 "Santorum is not perfect, but he easily has the most conservative record of anyone still in the race. And except for Paul, he is also the most financial conservative... Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 12:39 PM (7BU4a)" In the big govt so-con sense? Yes. But as for someone like me, who's only socon preference is abortion, and the rest is economic, it's almost a lose-lose since everyone else in the race trips over themselves to be pro-life, and Santy is for big fuzzy conservative govt.

189 I mean, how do you get 101 million dollars into an IRA account? Even at $6000 per year, heÂ’d have to be over 15,000 years old to havethat much moneyin his IRA.
Either that, or heÂ’s been playing some games to avoid tax liability.
Oh, now I see.
------- ----------- --------- ---------- -------- ------ -------- ----- --------
Most people do it by rolling a retirement/deferred comp plan into an IRA. There's nothing sinister or even complicated about it.

190

It does no good to whine about the candidates that we have left.  The only candidate people on this board would have supported over the ones left is Perry.  Perry ran a bad campaign.  We need to get over it.  There were others out there that many of us would have liked to see run.  But they look great now because they haven't gone through this process.  Plus, they didn't run.  Let's just get over it.  The likelihood of getting any kind of candidate who will make great changes in Washington is slim.  Our process prevents great change, particularly without expressly campaigning on it.  It is what cost the Dems in 2010 and will likely cost Obama in 2012.  He brought great change, even though he campaigned directly against some of the changes he implemented.  Newt is being greatly underrated as a candidate who can beat Obama. 

The great number of independents in this country who move elections do not follow politics.  They aren't going to care about ethics charges from 20 years ago.  They are not going to care that Newt once supported a mandate.  Regardless of whether the President has any say in such matters.  And they aren't going to care about Newt's transgressions.  They are going to be moved by Newt's stories about having kids work through school, and nod their heads in agreement.  Newt's line about the "food-stamp" president will resonate with them, far more than a 57 point economic plan.  Eveyone on this board follows politics very closely - probably too closely.  And our friends probably do too.  But we forget that there is a sizable chunk of the electorate that doesn't.  They are called independents.  Not because they are centrist, but because they just appeal to the argument of the moment.  Newt can better make the argument of the moment than Romney.  And Obama has no ability to make it.  Newt has a much better chance than we are giving him. 

191 189 Actually, Jeb's son is the one to watch for. I don't think Jeb will get in his way.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 12:36 PM (piMMO)

Oh yeah....I could watch him for quite awhile.

192 Bye George....

193 >>> I am amazed that Santorum's opposition to gay marriage is killing him among supposed conservatives.

****

Ridiculous.  His opposition to gay marriage isn't his weakness among conservatives- all the candidates have been opposed to gay marriage.

It's that he's a one-trick SoCon pony in an election cycle that will focus on fiscal / economic matters.  There, he's a big government populist "conservative" with no executive experience.  Essentially he's a less likeable doppelganger of Huckabee without the leadership experience.

194

Jeff B - I'm throwin in with this guy, because of the 3 left, I am more confident that he will advance a conservative agenda.  I look at the records of the 3 candidates, and Newt's is better.  I'm not even sure it is arguable.  Maybe Santorum can make it, but not Mitt. 

Maybe Newt supported it 6 months ago.  I am quite confident that Newt will fight tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare.  I could say the same about Santorum.  Will not and cannot say it about Mitt. 

I have 3 candidates to chose from.  I'm chosing the one who has advanced conservatism more than anyother.  I don't think that makes me a cheap date.

195

Seems to me conservatism has changed over the last 20 years. We've moved beyond the neoconservative ideas as Ace mentioned. However people who've been active for a long time, even if they've evolved along. carry that as baggage. They're wrong in philosophy or flip-flopppers.

One reason why i suppose that long-term members of congress have problems getting elected President. They've had to take too many positions and they wind up being against things after they were for them.

Obama wasn't round long enough to build a trail, plus liberalism is always for more so there may be more consistency there. Conservatism is going from 'less' to 'none' and the old guard is behind that curve, unable to appeal to the current mindset (which may not even command a majority consensus).

Thus the new crop Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, Christy look so appealing.

My fear is that we'll have to go though an impending crisis to generate any kind of consensus about what did not work.

 

 

196 Oh yeah....I could watch him for quite awhile.

****

Too bad Ron didn't pay the same deference to the future of his own son. I would almost kill to see a debate between Biden and Rand.

Mitt needs to cut a deal with Ron to drop out so he can name Rand as his second.

197

 

The only principled objection to the mandate is it forces a person to purchase a product from a private company.

If it has to be changed, it will simply be changed into a tax, and you'll be forced to "buy" the "product" from the federal government. And you'll pay more for it the more money you make or the lighter your skin.

 

198

Gingrich's supposed policy of a $75,000 cuttoff for buying insurance (which I don't beleive is his position) is a red herring anyway.  If you have assetts now and don't pay your medical bills they are like you not paying any other bill. The hospital and doctor sue you to get you to pay.

199

I'll admit. I've lost hope at this point. I only want Newt to punish the party for absolutely F*ing this election and flushing my country down the toilet.

------

I have not lost hope.

 

Newt can win this thing.

 

And if not, he will punish the party for absolutely fucking this election and flushing the country down the toilet as a consolation prize.

 

And we are gonna need the consoling.

200 and Santy is for big fuzzy conservative govt.
***
The worst case you get out of a President Santorum is an attempt return to the size and scope of the government of 2007. And if he was successful would make him the most conservative President since Coolidge.

Santorum dabbled in Bushism, sure, but he was also part of the "radical" Republicans of the mid 90s who reformed welfare and shut down the government over spending.

And unlike Newt, Santorum didn't sign onto a healthcare mandate or AGW legislation.

201

202 Gingrich would shrink government by 40% (compared to our misleading projection of Romney increasing government by 14,000,000,000%).

203
It's that he's a one-trick SoCon pony in an election cycle that will focus on fiscal / economic matters.
***
He's got a better record then Romney on financial matters, and while he dabbled in Bushism in the 00s, Newt was advocating the same leftwing positions Romney was implementing in MA.

The only candidate that could argue he has a better record from the fin con side is Paul.

204 At least with Santorum, I would feel good about the judges he nominated, and his desire to repeal Obamacare.  I'm not entirely sure he would have the polticial heft to get his desired judges through or to fight for repeal.  But he would risk what political capital he would have to do so.  Santorum has baggage just like Newt - well voting baggage.  But he has at least advanced the conservative cause on certain issues. 

205 Essentially he's a less likeable doppelganger of Huckabee without the leadership experience.

Except Huckabee's non-soc con principles are closer to Romney or Newt since leaving office.

206 >>>> Newt can win this thing.

And if not, he will punish the party for absolutely fucking this election and flushing the country down the toilet as a consolation prize.

****

Umm... whatthefuckover???

He's going to "punish" the party for making the mistake of nominating him by losing???

207 THESE FACTZ R RINO!!!1!one!1
Every1 noes Gingrich is teh True Conservative!1

208 Santorum was a big supported of and voted for medicare part D which has cost us $500 Billion in added debt to date.


To me, there's a big difference between supporting medicare part D under Bush, pre-Obama/tea party, and supporting a healthcare mandate in 2011 as Newt and Mitt have done. The latter suggest fatal weakness for the job at hand.

209 >>>He's got a better record then Romney on financial matters, and while he dabbled in Bushism in the 00s, Newt was advocating the same leftwing positions Romney was implementing in MA.

****

He didn't "dabble" in Bush's big government conservatism, he dove in head first and tried to drink the well dry.

210 Yeah that's right curious, Mitt's donating money to the LDS Church in order to subvert the fabric of America by advancing the cause of evil Satan-worshiping, polygamist mormonism. My phone's been ringing off the hook about it this morning.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 24, 2012 12:11 PM (23Ios)

Jeff B.  I didn't say I believed it or agreed with it.  I did say it is out there.  It's going to have to be dealt with as the libs/dems are targeting us independents. 

211 It isn't news to say all the candidates have serious problems. The question is, who is the least terrible.

212

@218 - I would suggest it simply shows that all candidates have their flaws.  But when you get down to it, Newt is the only one who doesn't have a vote in his name for either Medicare Part D or an individual mandate.  That doesn't exonerate Newt's statements of support, but it is factually correct.  Do we look at the record or their statements.  Both - right.  Which do we give more credence to? 

Santorum's best argument last night was on Tarp.  I would have liked for more discussion on that point. 

213

He hasn't to my knowledge every supported any giant democrat boondoggles and is electable

----

Perhaps not. But he has been involved in and supported seemingly all the giant republican boondoggles.

214

Santorum sounded very good on TARP.

 

When he talks about his big government crap, and fuzzy statist 'compassion', I greatly dislike it.

 

When he does get around to talking economics, he almost makes me forget it.

 

He does at least seem to be aware of what I would want.

215 The principle difference between Romney and Gingrich is that Gingrich eventually realized that the base hates his clownish "ice skating uphill" positions and so he started pandering to them that he can change and is ctually looking into what they might want to hear. Mitt thinks that the base is a sort of chauffeur who quietly stays in motorhouse break area while on duty until it is time to come out and vote for him, and what it wants doesn't matter because the base is hired help. If the base flakes out, screws up, or doesn't show up, then Romney figures they'll just fire it and let it find someone it wants to work for, and hire another base actually who appreciates the job. Except now Romney has been informed that no one has answered the ad for a new base and he's wondering how to get where he wants to go without letting the base know how desperate he is. I think the GOP is doomed as a party. It's too stupid and too invested in self satisfaction to acknowledge failure after failure after failure. There is two much contempt for the only people willing to help them. There is a bi-modal alliance and the smaller dwindling hump wants to use and control the larger growing hump and the authority just isn't materializing and the larger hump is quite alienated. A desire to oppose Obama and this collectivist activism wave and repair the economy holds the two together for now but they really are running out of reasons to help each other. If Obama is out in 2012 then I don't think the larger hump will feel much need for the smaller and of course the smaller hump will be growing more and more obnoxious at that point . I think the party is done. The tent was too big and it collapsed and the stolid obedient pyramid caste system that was supposed to hold it together was doomed to fail to hold the whole thing up for long.

216 Most people do it by rolling a retirement/deferred comp plan into an IRA. There's nothing sinister or even complicated about it.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 24, 2012 12:42 PM (+lsX1)

The other thing is that you can always contribute more that the IRS maximum. You just will not be able to deduct more than the maximum on your taxes. And then your accrued interest on the account is tax free.

217

Umm... whatthefuckover???

He's going to "punish" the party for making the mistake of nominating him by losing???

---

I don't know dude ask the guy who wrote it.

218 Nobody is going to radically reduce the size of government. They all will talk about it but none of them will do it. Because once you do it people on the Obamabucks train will freak out. We will only have an "austerity" plan for the same reason Greece is -- when the shit hits the fan and we have a credit crisis. Until then politicians of both parties will kick the can down the road and hope the economy doesn't explode while they are in office.

219 The only reason to support Republicans at this point is Repubs at least will slow down on the road to Apocalypse. The Obama fucker wants to speed ruin along.

220

The principle difference between Romney and Gingrich is that Gingrich eventually realized that the base hates his clownish "ice skating uphill" positions and so he started pandering to them that he can change and is ctually looking into what they might want to hear.

------

All the people in the race have done this. Perry went pandermanic near the end. I think I saw him on lower Wacker promising if elected to give a homeless drifter $2.

 

What is perhaps interesting is half of them moved in the wrong direction. Perry went away from the issues I thought were his strength.

 

Gingrich (and maybe Santorum a bit) are the only ones who moved in the right direction, after they all came out and hoisted their retardedness on us in broad daylight.

 

Romney might be trying but it's hard to tell if anything has changed.

221 cackfinger Mitt is going to die on the hill of his own arrogance-or maybe Coulter's...

222 Santorum is a so-con, no doubt of it, but he is no fiscal conservative, he voted in favor of every big gov. program that came down the pipe during his time in office.

223 Speaking of taxes here is a story at Fox:

Internal Revenue Service data show that 3 percent of Senate staffers and more than 4 percent of House staffers owed taxes in 2010, adding up to about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes. More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS.

224 Although he's flirted with amnesty in the past, Mitt has been promising to implement E-verify if elected President. Is Newt still promising amnesty through some sort of  undefined "citizen panels"? I don't think Newt thinks through very many of his 'big ideas'.

225 Auto-complete sucks and makes me angry as hell. I thought I had it turned the hell off. Damn it!

226 Not to kick my own man (Newt), but why do people keep dismissing Santorum?  If Mitt collapses in FL, Santorum cd move up big, and a lot of leaners cd rush to support him--presto, "national campaign infrastructure."

Sant's negatives (off-putting style, whiny voice) are less compelling than those of Newt or Mitt, to be fair.
---------------
I support Newt because he has proven he can organize and lead a team of underdog conservatives to a smashing victory over the Left, and worked on it single-mindedly for 16 years.  It is important to note that 1/2 the people who laughed at and mocked and denigrated him as a bomb-thrower/fantasist over those years were "respectable" Republicans.  I think it's so funny to hear the Repub. criticisms of him for his leadership from 1995-1998--those critics were riding on his coattails just to get there!  If it hadn't been for Newt, they'd have been clubby minority losers forever, just like they were from 1954-1994.
---------------

It is a little like General Patton--if the mission is to annihilate the Nazi divisions, we can overlook that little incident about slapping the soldier at the hospital.  'Cause the man has shown he can get the job done.

227

Both candidates are way more comfortable with big government that I would like.  Given that, it has come down to this for me: 

Who is more electable?  Gingrich or Romney.

228

Newt is Bill Clinton with an R after his name.

Or at least, he wants to be Clinton with an R after his name.  He has mastered all of Clinton's bad qualities like cheating and such, but has none None NONE of Clinton's charming personality. 

Shouting bumper sticker slogans during a Republican debate is not going to win a general election against Teh Won. 

 

229 #85  Well,  if they are members of a "ridiculous" religion,  it seems to me they are pretty tough people to stand up to the ridicule,  which I am not so sure Newt can do,  given his past whining about some things.

230

Look, chumps, I don't know the differences between individual health mandates and improvised explosive devices, but that doesn't matter for purposes of this rant.

What Rush Limbaugh said.

I don't give a rat's ass what these RINOs say or do about healthcare or about health insurance coverage.  Besides, since when do elections have anything to do with such mundane topics as healthcare or health insurance coverage?  Give me a break.  Listen up, punks, elections are all about deporting Mexicans, banning abortions and saying no to vaccines and no to RINOs.  Nobody in my family and nobody I know would ever vote based upon anything else.  Well, yeah, excepting of course for a man's religion.

I want red meat.  I want to fight.  I want to rip out hearts and eat them for lunch.  I want blood.  I want hyperbole.  I want to get down in the mud and to get real nasty, like Rush's, Beck's and the Newt's six combined divorces.

What Michelle Malkin said.

In the primary I'll be writing in St. Sarah of the Snowball.  In the general I'll be voting for the Constitution Party nominee.  Better to be able to kick Obama around for another four years, until we can impeach Boehner to then impeach Obama, than to lose slower with a RINO GOP RINO.

Palin-Angle-O'Donnell, '16.

231 @240 Troll cleanup on aisle three

232 He didn't "dabble" in Bush's big government conservatism, he dove in head first and tried to drink the well dry.
***
Medicare Part D passed the Republican Senate with, IIRC, every Republican Senator voting Yes.

NCLB (which Santorum has repudiated) passed the Republican Senate with every Republican Senator voting Yes (and 87-10 overall).

For this Santorum is unelectable? For not being more conservative then Inhofe or Crapo?!? Who also note dabbled Bushian Compassionate Conservatism.

Note that Obama/Romneycare - which Romney enacted and Newt supported more or less - got 0 votes by Republican Senators.

233 That's exactly right: Newt and Romney are effectively a push. Newt has an edge by being in the past very conservative and having major positive accomplishments, while Romney has an edge by having executive experience and not having such a horrific personal life.

But neither is better than the other.

And if anyone thinks Romney would have been any less a big government Republican in congress than Newt was under President Bush, they're foolish to a dangerous degree.

Face it folks: its a huge crap sandwich and we all have to take a bite.

234 "Look, you either turn people who can't afford medical care away or you mandate that everyone have skin in the game. There is no middle options that won't be abused by freeloaders."

The existence of freeloaders does not require that the government be given unlimited authority to manage the health care providers.

One obvious alternative is to offer private, charitable care for people who can't afford it. Which is exactly how it's been handled for centuries, right up until government mandates turned emergency rooms into taxpayer-funded charity wards.

235

I, along with many other conservatives, enjoyed Newt's smackdown of the MSM the other night.

But I question whether this type tactic will play well against Obama in a debate. It won't be a room full of Republicans who will give him an ovation, the crowd is more apt to be representative of an audience for The View.  Newt would be caricatured as whiny and petulant, while Obama will be the "only adult in the room".

Personally, I remember Palin as kicking Biden's tail from one side of the room to the other in her debate a few years ago. But Tina Fey had already proved Palin was a typical Republican idiot who saw Russia from her back yard, and the media spiked some objective factual errors made by Biden, so what really went on during the debate was less important than the preset narrative.

Will Newt do better than Romney in a debate? Probably so. But I don't see it playing out as well as we might hope it would.

236 Here's the main problem I have with Romney, and to a certain extent Gingrich although to be fair in his case the end result remains to be seen:

Support for Romney has been a mile wide but only an inch deep.  He has gone from being up 20 points in a state to losing it handily, without a single major gaffe.  When people talk about electability, that should give them pause--it doesn't take a whole lot to turn a Romney supporter into a supporter of somebody else.

And the same thing happened to Gingrich in November.  He got lots of traction out of a couple debates where he scored well, but two weeks of negative ads and his support level was lower in NH and Iowa than it ever was to begin with.

Now that many of the other candidates have been forced to leave the field, one expects that much of that support that was lost will have to gravitate back to them.  People have few other choices now.  But both are very weak horses who will be greatly dependent upon Obama's unfavorability for the job outweighing their own.  That's a scary proposition.

  

237
I agree that if this election season is characterized by one thing, its how swiftly people change from one to another guy. But that's not the great thing for the Democrats that the left seem to think. They're overjoyed at what's happening because they're reading it absolutely wrong.

The reason this is happening isn't that people don't really care for one candidate or another so much as they're moving from one to the other guy while they look for the one who'll they'll replace Obama with. He's so frightening and basically unliked in America that people don't really give a crap who wins, as long as it isn't Obama.

238 Newt is a brilliant guy!

Think about it: instead of buying health insurance, I could post a "bond." That is, something that would make sure my doctor bills got paid if I got sick. Really sick, where I would need a lot of money to pay them.

Sort of like what we used to call Major Medical Insurance! Leaving me to pay for the small stuff out of my own pockets.

It would be like the crap state legislatures make us buy,  except without all the mandates to cover podiatrists, acupuncture, and "autism."

And since I don't get sick all that often, and don't smoke, I probably wouldn't have to pay a medical insurance company - WUPS, a non-medical "bonding  company", very much for my bond.

239 Umm... whatthefuckover???He's going to "punish" the party for making the mistake of nominating him by losing???

Well I actually don't think Newt's odds at getting elected are that much worse than Romney's as to make it a distinction between the two. I don't have confidence either one of them will depart from the progressive path of DOOM we are set upon. Newt, because he actually is a prog, Romney, because he is prog lite with absolutely 0 political courage. Well I won't say 0, repeatedly defending his stupid mandate does take some courage in the face of a base that hates it, and a national electorate that opposes it. Neither of these guys is good enough.

Who? Santorum. I'm Catholic, and conservative, and I like 90% of what he has to say, and he can't even sell me on team Santorum. He has an uncanny ability that scientists should study: to say things you agree with in such a way you disagree with him. I doubt he could sell a glass of cold lemonade to someone stranded in a desert. And the more I watch him the more I get the vibe he thinks it is governments job to not just to protect rights with law, but to augment societal morality with law. I can't abide that.

240 Except Gingrich, in the past several months, apparently discovered he'd been wrong for twenty years about this. Better to discover you're wrong a few months ago than to be like Mitt and still think Obamneycare is hot stuff. Again, I see Newt's malleability as an ADVANTAGE. I want the next President to listen to the (presumably) Tea Party congress.

241

and Mitt refuses to admit he is wrong ...

 

242 Mitt's problem is that he arrogantly stares people in the eye and says "I was right no matter what you say" on health insurance, but he'll tell everyone anything they want to hear on every other topic. For him to take one stand on anything, why did it have to be this?

I don't trust Newt to have changed his mind, but he sells it a hell of a lot better than Romney does. Newt explains and gives a reason, Romney just says "sure, whatever you like."

243 His discovery occurs at a lovely time to hop upon my bandwagon. 

He hops well.   I've likened him to an ambulance chaser as he knows which case will make his historical bones.   And he will get me more than a ratty ass settlement I think.

244 253= equal Newt

245 Ace, that's the exact difference: Newt has admitted he was wrong, ORomney has just doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down.

246 Its Pleasure to understand your blog.The above articles is pretty extraordinary, and I really enjoyed reading your blog and points that you expressed. I really like to appear back over a typical basis,post a lot more within the topic.Thanks for sharingÂ…keep writing!!!