Skip to comments.Consensus breaking out: Not Newt
Posted on 12/04/2011 6:04:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
On Friday, I suggested that Republicans could pull a name out of a hat and find a more consistent and personally stable conservative than Newt Gingrich. Many smart conservatives seem to agree. (VictorDavisHanson points out that with Gingrich as the nominee the GOP would forfeit the crony capitalism issue; No one has been a bigger crony than he.)
The latest and perhaps brightest warning flare to the right is sent up by GeorgeWill. There are too many delicious lines in his column from which to choose a favorite. (e.g.,There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrichs unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages; Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how.) George patiently explains to those who think the conservative movement began with the Internet and is defined by those who can burnish the most withering rhetoric: Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies. Yes, Gingrich is what conservatism aims to save us from.
Now, George would choose TexasGov Rick Perry or Jon Huntsman. RameshPonnuru would take MittRomney. There is also RickSantorum to consider. Reasonable conservatives differ on the alternative, but other than sheer contrarianism and temporary amnesia it is hard (for those who want to maintain the ideological health of the conservative movement and win the WhiteHouse) to justify embracing Gingrich. That he is more gregarious, upbeat than he used to be is no reason to choose him as president or to declare he has turned over new leaf.
For those conservatives who are not systematically averting their eyes, Gingrich every day gives Republicans further reason to conclude there is no New Newt, only the same disorganized egomaniac who drove his House caucus to revolt.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This still won’t help Perry. Nice try though.
I can see the groundswell starting for Willard “Mitt” Romney
becuase his campaign of “Hey, I’m next, right?” has me bowled over.
Jennifer is batshit crazy... Total Mittbot.
Oh, horrors...the establish speaks and they don’t want Newt. It’s good that the people decide, and not the establishment that brought us Dole, Bush I, and McCain.
Now you know I love your posts most of the time. And you know I could easily live with Perry as nominee.
BUT, just because Jennifer Rubin and George Will say so, a consensus this does not make....
Really, George Will calling Newt egotistical is the like the Pope calling Billy Graham too religious.
New tagline ...
It may not be Perry, but lord help us, it’s not Newt!
Please add the disclaimer that Will’s wife works for Perry.
Truth and trust.
Well, C.E.W. we know they aren't the only ones.
Using an establishment RINO pundit’s desperate ramblings to hate on Newt
humping a desperate bisexual male hooker to get back at your husband.
If not newt, then it will be Romney. It’s easy math at this point.
Santorum is so out of the running, he isn’t even traded on Intrade.com (i.e. his chances are less than Cain’s and Cain has suspended his campaign).
We like Newt.
We like Newt.
This is beginning to smell like another McCain look-a-like
“I can see the groundswell starting for Willard Mitt Romney”
FR is opposed to Romney because of his many liberal positions and his flip-flopping, and his collaboration with Ted Kennedy etc (not because his name if Willard or because of his religion).
If you look at Newt’s positions, there is no meaningful difference. Newt has signed on to the every liberal cause in the last few years (amnesty, global warming, cap-and-trade, individual mandate in ObamaCare, Fairness doctrine etc). He eagerly collaborated with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton).
He has flip-flopped and lied about many things, including support for cap-and-trade and his Fannie Mae lobbying.
Yes, in the general election we probably have to vote for Newt over Obama (and pray that House has conservatives to stop him in amnesty/GW/FairnessDoct etc), but we are in primary now.
Newt and Willard are both flip-flopping politicians who have joined pretty much every liberal cause in the past. Both have done few nice things. Why would you support either one of them (and not both?).
In the primaries, there is no need to vote for liberal.
We still have, for example, Bachmann and Santorum (and who knows, brokered convention).
Still pushing to get Romney on top I see.
Your pathetic candidate won’t get much further than Bachmann. So your buddy Romney thanks you for the grand effort you have been showing.
Maybe we should ask for a ‘do-over’ on Pawlenty.
Newt is better than Mittens. If these guys are all so imperfect, then maybe someone really disgruntled here should run himself. I wanted Michelle Bachmann to be the frontrunner, but that is not happening at all. At least Newt is very intelligent. Perhaps more intelligent than almost everyone here.
Seriously, the smoke-filled room would be far better than this system.
Again, according to the libtard rag WaPo...am I surprised or what? /s =.=
I’m hoping it will be Perry.
Hard to support Jabba the Hutt Newt. And I sincerely don’t think the majority of Americans “like” him enough to propel him into the WH.
Obama wins by default.
Please support Perry.
Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
By July 1997, however, the contract was finished, and conservatives, particularly those elected in the Revolution of 94, were growing frustrated with Gingrichs leadership.
The speaker was disorganized. He knew nothing about running meetings and nothing about driving an agenda, DeLay writes in his memoir, No Retreat, No Surrender.
He was erratic. On Monday, we would say were not going to give a $500 child tax credit to people who dont have tax liabilities, Graham tells National Review Online. On Wednesday, hed meet with President Clinton, and that position would change.
In May 1997 . . . Newt declared the GOP willing to separate tax cuts from other items in a balanced-budget deal that we were negotiating with Bill Clinton, writes former speaker Denny Hastert (R., Ill.) in his memoir, Speaker. That was news to us and represented a huge change in policy in less than twenty-four hours.
He was hyperbolic. Hed call something the single most corrupt act in the history of Western civilization . . . always these Armageddon-type announcements, says Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.).
The congressman still remembers that fateful trip on Air Force One in November 1995, when Clinton made Gingrich sit in the back. Miffed, the speaker later asked the press, You just wonder, where is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of courtesy?
I still think its the main reason we lost [the government-shutdown] debate, King says.
Before the government shutdown we thought Newt Gingrich was invincible, writes Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) in his memoir, Breach of Trust. After the shutdown, however, he was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clintons presence............
Frustrating isn't it?
Many smart conservatives seem to agree
I think the lady named two individuals in the article, but which is it, many who are conned or many who are smart?
Every day Newt's numbers improve and Jennifer Rubin gets more frustrated.
The people are much smarter and more sophisticated than Ms. Rubin gives them credit. They know these are extraordinary times which require an extraordinary candidate. They had not been conned, they and we know the liabilities that come with Newt Gingrich. We have made a calculation that we need the upside so we'll take the risk on the downside.
If we nominate one of the others on the stage we simply are buying into no side.
How does it feel to align yourself with Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post? I have never had the pleasure...
his voting record was MORE conservative than Santorum at the time.
Bachmann and Santorum have no shot. At all. Ever.
So the Washington Post has aimed their guns at Newt? I’m sooooooooo surprised. /s
I need to correct my last statement...Santorum IS traded on Intrade.com and has a 1% chance of winning the nom at present. Cain has fallen to a .2% chance.
What? You can be a ping list person now?
When Perry learns how to debate his way out of a paper bag, call me. Until then, I’m going with a candidate that can aggressively pummel Obama on his crappy ideas.
Who IS Will married to now? I remember when Mrs. Will I threw all his stuff out on their front lawn after learning of his affair with Lally Weymouth (daughter of the WaPo’s Katherine Graham). But I think he married someone else? Such a pure conservative ole George is.
It won’t match your frustration when Obama wins against Newt. Think about it.
Will’s column was excellent, and definitely an entertaining read. Best work he’s done in a long time. And it prompted me to give Huntsman another look.
I’d say the polls disagree with her assessment, not that I disagree that Newt is not the answer; clearly many seem to think he is much to my dismay. I’m certainly ready for a new Flavor of The Month, whether it be Santorum, Bachmann, Palin or some other.
Amazing. Stick to,trying to support your candidate than simply trying to roast others.
Thank you !
The fact that there will be Americans who wake up this morning, read this piece of swill and say, “yeah, Mitt is the most conservative of the bunch” is testament to the lefts abililty to make the MSM look like Pravda on steroids.
Guess the easy answer is the Washington Post wants Romney - just like they wanted McCain - - well, up until the nomination. Then they went 100% for the Obama...
And BTW, Gingrich is polling ahead of Obama in the latest polling.
This is just like the consensus on the science of global warming...
The same Huntsman that told us all we are dullards for not supporting the “science” of global warming? No thanks.