Replies

I seem to recall Newt did great in his last election cycle. He did so well he quit, leaving us "cannibals" to fend for ourselves. Santorum isn't the only candidate to have a huge, unprecedented loss his last go around. When we won big in the 2010 mid term elections did Pelosi and Reid give up? Alas, no. Why aren't all those who were screaming when Sarah Palin left her governorship making any comments about what Newt did in '98?

You can't pick and choose from any candidate's legacy, be it Mitt's smorgasbord, Paul's psychoses or the less than perfect records of any of the others. Those enamored with the 'great' Newt need to explain why the - more recent - 'terrible' Newt is no longer operative.

I know Newt can "talk the talk" when he wants. So can Santorum, Cain, Bachmann and even Romney. But can he "walk the walk?" (Perry is an odd case, he may well be able to walk the walk, but seems unable to talk the talk.) Mitt, and Newt have also proven they can talk the other side's talk. When I heard Newt talk on his health care reform ideas in DC four years ago he sure sounded like an enthusiastic, *competent*, true believer in everything I opposed. It was hard to see how a solo physician, like myself, could survive under his model. Rick is explicitly pushing small business healthcare solutions. Santorum's alleged heresies are few and mild compared Newt's. He's often been asked about them and provides answers in the longer interviews of him I've heard that at least sound honest and plausible. Other than saying "sitting on Pelosi's couch was the dumbest thing he'd ever done" I've seen and heard very little by Newt to explain his many strange affairs with liberal issues. He just does a verbal 180, throws out some random historical tidbit, often of Democrat icons (most recently Andrew Jackson, the founder of 'modern' Democrat party) and people bow at his feet.

Palin's comments on Hannity last night regarding Newt have been repeatedly cited here. I hadn't seen them live, so I tracked her full interview down online. She doesn't want our campaign to end, she wants it to continue. She believes extending the process will forge a stronger nominee in the end, whomever that may be. And she wants the candidates to be thoroughly vetted. I don't think she wants Obama to have any true surprises left up his sleeve. She said more about Newt, but she also said nice things about both Ricks and part of Paul. I believe she's encouraging the vetting of Mitt that Newt is providing, but that she would also want Newt well vetted should he become the candidate. If he can't handle vetting by his putative friends Obama would quickly have him back in the sub-W polling territory from where he abandoned his speakership.

John, I agree with much with you have to say. Check out what I said about Sarah in another thread. My point about Rick may be subtle outside of PA. He lost big time against Casey ... With many pro-life Rats voting for Casey, not Rick. I call these folks "people that live conservative lives but vote for democrats because their fathers did." Rick was also an incumbent when he last ran for office ... Generally a huge advantage. There is no buzz about Rick in PA. To be fair, there is no buzz about any Republican in PA.

That is what worries me. If the hometown boy doesn't get any attention now, and he has a record of losing, then how is he going to stand up in a general election in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The election is literally won by getting the conservative RATs to vote "against" a democrat (Obama). I think this is the same situation in Ohio and other states.

I'd like to see Rick start a business on his own and come back in four or eight years. Then he will be ready for prime time.