Click the red pepper!
Don’t Veg Out
Become a Hero, Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/23/2012 10:47:02 AM PST by redstateone
Deeds, actions and Record is always the best way to assess.
Most of the more recent things have been either taken back or explained away.
I mean, if we use your standard of measurement, Romney might be the best choice. Poor record, great words and promises.
...and I think most conservatives know better.
“I would have crawled over broken glass to vote for the Newt Gingrich of 1998. Yet as numerous posters have pointed out, he’s gone quite squishy since then.”
He did. I think he bought into the group think about ‘triangulation’ that was the fetish back in those days. Dick Morris had gotten Bill Clinton in with the triangulation stunt, which was later imitated by Rove et al. to barely squeak by to some paper thin margins of victory. But it was all the rage.
Triangulation worked for Clinton, who as a liberal looked better to more people by adopting portions of conservative policy or rhetoric. It backfires for conservatives, who look worse by adoption left wing policies. I really hope that Newt has jettisoned all or at least most of that stuff. Even at his worst though, he is better than Romney, and probably Santorum.
I’ll give you one example using your own source.
Through 2010, Michele Bachmann had a 100% lifetime ACU rating, with votes a lot more recent than 1998. She was laughed out of the race.
I detest Romney and that is easily determinable from my posts. I’m also not thrilled about Gingrich.
He hasn’t gone squishy. Haven’t you watched him as a FOX News commentator over the past 5-10 years? He was not brought on as a “liberal” voice. He was there to bash the likes of Alan Colmes over the head and he did so consistently and resoundingly. Try to find me one liberal, progressive or socialist anywhere who has put pen to paper to say that they believe Newt Gingrich is on their side. It’s a laughable notion. Him supposedly going “squishy” is a complete and total fabrication coming directly from the vast Romney-wing conspiracy.
Yeah, just like in Nov of 2010. The voters rejected the Conservative voices and sent the dims back to the house - - - Oh wait. Never mind.
It appears as though the Republican brass has adopted Obama’s “fear and loathing” tactic.
“If you don’t vote for our guy, terrible things will happen!”
Great post and great tagline!
Newt is fully capable of being conservative and usually is conservative. Romney is incapable of conservatism. Mittwit can now stop trying to buy, bully and bribe his way to the nomination. Every dollar is a new elitist offense. He can take his mountains of campaign money (his only qualification) and stick it where the sun shineth not.
Care to reveal whom you support? I did not think so.
“Through 2010, Michele Bachmann had a 100% lifetime ACU rating, with votes a lot more recent than 1998. She was laughed out of the race.”
In reality she wasn’t laughed out of the race. Her campaign just never took hold. Maybe if she would have attacked Obama, instead of other conservtives, she would have fared better? I don’t know.
Our current reality is that it’s Romney and Gingrich that really have a legit chance to win. Gingrich’s conservative record is very clear and his accomplishments as a House member and Speaker who for the first time in nearly 50 years, gave us a GOP majority, dwarf the field.
It’s becoming clear that Santorum isn’t losing support and falling behind...but even if he weren’t...his conservative record is the lowest in the field after Romney.
Care to tell us who YOU support? I did not think so!
Of the available choices, whom do YOU prefer to support over Gingrich? Why?
It's kinda funny hearing someone who's famous for verbally slicing people to ribbons, say that a candidate needs to tone it down. Pretty hypocritical, really.
Hope she loves her new position as the mouthpiece of the RINO establishment. Bye bye, Ann.
Well, to sort of paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the Republican party, they left me.
When Speaker Gingrich allowed Representative John R. Kasich of Ohio, the budget committee chairman, to try to rally House Republicans around a conservative blueprint for more than $100 billion in new savings, the moderates refused to back it.
It was the so-called moderates who pushed Gingrich out of Congress. He left because too many Republicans refused to stop eating off the body of Uncle Sam.
Whole ball o'wax.
He's scarring the bejeebers out of the Establishment Republicans - who have ruled like the aristocracy of old England for decades.
Newt want's to finish what Reagan hoped to do. But Reagan was loaded down with the Elites, from his VP (GHW Bush, to appointment foxes, etc.
Newt was there. and when he became Speaker in the mid 90's, he had a good start on reestablishing and pushing through Reagan's goals - but he was ONE MAN against the hoard. They turned on as they are now - to protect their hides and powere, not our country and our Constitution.
Newt had the Socialists, their lackeys the MSM AND the Republican Elite (no better than the Socialists in their quest for power and control) coming at him like the Hounds of Baskerville.
Newt has a better chance now than ever to carry out Reagan's goals. Newt saw what happened when Establishment Foxes were forced into Reagan's cabinet...as fro his VP.
Newt will not let this happen. He has signaled he wants Col. West for his VP and has that Sarah would be great in energy - like Energy Sec. In addition, he has said: "I will not keep ONE holdover!" (That is what threw the monkey wrench in GW's way. Too many holdovers from the Clinton house and they sabotaged right from day one.)
And what is the common denominator of Newt and the people he is looking at?
They are "US." They were born in modest means families and became who they are through their own effort. (Newt lived with his mother over a gas station when the Sr. Gingrich was in Korea. West was raised in a middle income family in the south, Sarah was raised by school teacher parents. They don't see themselves as 'heirs apparent to rule." They love this country and want to 'serve', not rule.)
“Him supposedly going “squishy” is a complete and total fabrication coming directly from the vast Romney-wing conspiracy.”
No. His party first endorsement of Scozzafava was squishy. His alternative energy and ‘green’ game of footsie was squishy. His snarky comment about ‘right wing social engineering was squishy. He did those things. He has also backed off on those things, and that is good.
Newt is the -least- squishy of the remaining candidates IMO, but that does not mean he has not dropped the ball a couple of times.
I trust you are not implying I am a Romnoid by recognizing those lapses. If so, you must be -very- unfamiliar with my views on Romney.
Superb post sir. Nice to see the forest instead of the veins of the leaves of the trees. Your whole ball o’wax is a very good strategic overview.
Of the available choices, Santorum due to his strong social conservatism. However, my favored choices overall have been long since gone.
Did you see the Bachmann threads on this site? Vicious. And she founded the House Tea Party Caucus.
Anyway, I agree with you regarding legitimate chances to win, and in that respect I'd much rather have Gingrich than Romney. I just wish we had a consistent conservative choice and I don't feel that we do. Thank you for your reasoned replies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.