National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.
While giving credit to Newt’s positive characteristics, it has come to the same conclusion that I have. Not Newt.
I, like many other conservatives, have spent months searching for the anybody but Romney candidate. Newt’s comeback in the polls after a disastrous and what I thought fatal start is as startling as its effect on me. I am now searching for the anybody but Newt candidate.
Look, Newt is a smart fella and I can even relegate the marital peccadilloes to the past, but Newt is still Newt.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. But Newt can/will destroy us (conservatives). Newt will blow up, either as a candidate or as a President and he will take the entire conservative movement with him. His hubris and his flightiness will end up alienating just about everyone. You know how I know this? Because that is what Newt always does.
While he had successes as Speaker, he ended up the most unpopular figure in the country, both left and right. As a pundit, he has done the same thing. And as a candidate, the same thing. Newt blows up. That is what Newt does.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. He says many of the right things now, but his record is the stuff of schizoid legend. But even if Romney only believes half of what he now claims to believe and the rest is pandering, I might take that. At least the pandering recognizes there is a base he must satisfy. Newt doesn’t care because he knows he is smarter than me and you. It is we who must change our opinion before Newt changes his.
Romney is no conservative, I know that. But I think that I prefer the guy who at least pretends to be.
I am still a supporter of Santorum. Notwithstanding a dramatic showing in Iowa, I must accept that 4% is 4% and I might not have that choice. But if I had to choose between Newt and Mitt, I think I choose Mitt. Call it risk mitigation.
December 15, 2011 at 3:36 am
National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.
Are you joking? NR's editorial is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever seen. They winnow the field down to Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum – in other words Romney and two guys who almost have no chance to beat Romney. It's their way of endorsing Romney without endorsing Romney. For their next act NR is going to ask their readers to select the next American League champ, only they can't consider the Rangers, Angels, Red Sox and Rays and must choose between the Yankees, Royals, and Mariners.
I'm not a Newt supporter, but if you want an actually honest evaluation of the man you'd be better served with with this. I'll take Newt over Mitt in a heartbeat.
December 15, 2011 at 3:42 am
Not joking Paul. I think that Newt could/would be a disaster that could set back the movement a decade and by then it could all be over.
With Romney, I may only get 70% of what I want. Gingrich is too much of a wildcard.
December 15, 2011 at 3:56 am
If Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon can support Mitt, I can support him too.
December 15, 2011 at 4:06 am
I'm not referring to your judgment, Pat, I'm talking about the NR editorial. It's such an embarrassment that I think the magazine has lost all credibility forever. Again, it's not the anti-Newt stuff as much as the transparent non-endorsement endorsement of Romney that is a display of disgusting intellectual dishonesty.
If you're going to make the case against Newt, you should probably rely on less odious sources.
If Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon can support Mitt, I can support him too.
Yeah, why think for yourself?
December 15, 2011 at 4:07 am
I blink dumbly at the screen.
NR has been in the tank for Romney. That piece is, to my estimation, yet another in a shoreless ocean of hit pieces. I cannot fathom how it could be considered an honest evaluation.
I agree with you on Santorum being far preferable, but if a hypothetical Pres. Romney gave me 30% of what I wanted, I'd be stunned. If you are so inclined, walk us through your reasoning that Romney would give us 70% of what we want.
I'd rather have the intermittently sane Ron Paul than Mitt Romney.
For your consideration — not that I am optimistic of your mind being changed — here are two pieces worthy of inspection:
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/romneys-1994-problem.php
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney/
I have the same concerns you have, only I have them about Mitt Romney.
December 15, 2011 at 4:27 am
"Yeah, why think for yourself?"
Let's see. I've got Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon saying one thing, and Hollywood and a bunch of punk-@$$ rock stars saying something else. I'm trying to remember how following the latter worked out for us three years ago. Hmmm …
December 15, 2011 at 4:30 am
It is true that Mitt Romney has taken positions or made statements that are not conservative. But they all occurred several years ago.
The biggest change is that he went from pro-choice to pro-life (although it seems clear that he's always been personally pro-life for what its worth). As pro-lifers we should applaud this change, we want converts to our cause after all. Once he became pro-life he did as much as he could to protect life in Massachusetts and he's been unwavering ever since.
Contrary to a recurring myth, Romney has always been pro-marriage and did as much as he could to prevent same-sex marriage in his state (Just ask Maggie Gallagher or the Mass. bishops)
-Its true that Romney called himself a progressive 9 years ago, but he's been pretty consistently conservative for the last 6 or 7 years. You can't say the same about Newt.
Newt has taken non-conservative positions within the past 6 or 7 months. He bashed Paul Ryan's medicare plan, he supported a FEDERAL individual mandate (something Romney has never supported), he said life began at fertilization, not conception (and called those of us who believe it begins at conception "ideologues").
Newt expressed disapproval of risk-takers in a capitalist society.
Of course Newt apologizes for these mistakes the next day and says he made a stupid mistake. But then a few days he'll say the same thing.
With Romney he may have taken a bad position a decade ago but since then he's been very consistently conservative.
Newt had good positions 17 years ago, but since then he'll take a different side depending on the day of the week. One day he is the great moderate unifier, the next he's the Tea Party firebrand. One day he takes 1.6 million from Freddie Mac the next day he says people who supported them were criminal. One day he's for intervention in Libya the next day he's opposed to it.
I understand that many conservatives have valid concerns about Mitt. I would understand if you supported Perry, or Santorum or Bachmann because they are more conservative. But it makes no sense to support Newt as the "true conservative".
December 15, 2011 at 4:43 am
zlet's see. I've got Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon saying one thing, and Hollywood and a bunch of punk-@$$ rock stars saying something else. I'm trying to remember how following the latter worked out for us three years ago. Hmmm …
That would be a valid retort were it not a strawman.
It is true that Mitt Romney has taken positions or made statements that are not conservative. But they all occurred several years ago.
Yeah, he's been a bedrock of conservative principles for like five whole years – all of which he's been running for president.
I understand that many conservatives have valid concerns about Mitt. I would understand if you supported Perry, or Santorum or Bachmann because they are more conservative.
Good, because I do.
December 15, 2011 at 5:06 am
Do you take your Catholic faith at all seriously? It doesn't seem so. First, as far as the Church is concerned, Newt has been married only ONCE. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that he was received into the Catholic Church? His former "marriages" must have been annulled and his present marriage determined licit, otherwise he could not have been received into the Catholic Church. Any serious Catholic must accept the fact that Newt has been married one time only.
Second, do you have no confidence in the power of the Catholic faith to work powerfully in a man to convert him from vice to virtue? It seems not. As for me, I will trust in the wisdom of the Church in receiving Newt as a member in good standing, and, just as importantly, in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about true repentance and conversion in a man who by all outward indications seems to have undergone a profound change in his life.
Third, has it not even crossed your mind that the incredible turnabout in Newt's campaign, from being dead in the water with massive staff departure to being in the lead may just be the work of God? I'm not saying it is, but certainly he has seen an amazing reversal in status that is hard to explain merely in human terms.
One point about Mitt: I must question the judgment of anyone who sincerely accepts Mormonism. If you believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri, I have some serious doubts about you grasp on reality. I would much rather give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has embraced the original Church and promoted the life and work of Pope John Paul II.
Steven R. Lo Vullo
December 15, 2011 at 5:27 am
Mitt is about as pro-life and as conservative as Barack Obama. I'll admit Newt is not perfect, and I understand if someone would choose not to vote for him. However, Mitt is not the more conservative candidate, and I think he would destroy the pro-life movement and the conservative movement far worse than Gingrich ever could.
http://prolifeprofiles.com/romney
December 15, 2011 at 5:45 am
Anyway, I think Romney just jumped the shark. He not only referred to Newt as "zany," but also implied that conservative talk radio hosts are "zany" as well. Does he not understand that the base takes very seriously talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, etc.? He may as well have called mainstream Republicans "zany." Does he really think he can win the primaries relying solely on "independents"? Good luck. And I don't believe in luck. This guy is finished.
Steven R. Lo Vullo
December 15, 2011 at 5:58 am
You say you know that Romney is no conservative. So why would you support him over Newt? Newt may have SAID some questionable things, but Romney has actually INSTITUTED some abominable things. He says his RomneyCare plan is just an example of "states rights." But tyranny is tyranny, and bad judgment is bad judgement. You mentioned Newt's opposition to Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare. Newt's position on Medicare is perfectly reasonable. He explained that he doesn't want to do with Medicare what Obama did with ObamaCare, i.e., shove something down peoples' throats when they are not on board. This is completely understandable. People must be persuaded that change is necessary before it is implemented. We can't just run roughshod over people before the are ready for change.
Steven R. Lo Vullo
December 15, 2011 at 6:02 am
I prefer Ron Paul over all the other candidates. He's profoundly conservative, he has a steadly marriage, fiscally responsible, and doesn;t believe that the US should be the world's policeman.
Milt Romney I'm not to crazy about, but at least he has a steady marriage.
Newt I'd never vote for. He has shown himself to be unstable in his family life, he switches his positions on issues at the drop of a hat, is arrogant and ticks people off. The fact that he's Catholic now is no qualifier for high office. If he's a believing Catholic, he can receive forgiveness of his sins and eternal life, but that doesn't mean he's capable of being the POTUS. JFK was a Catholic too, bt if we knew then what we know now about his private life, would any sane American in the 60's vote for him to be the President? We know a lot more about Gingrich, and no sane person is going to vote for him.
December 15, 2011 at 6:45 am
The National Review is a joke. They outright lied about Ron Paul in the article, dismissing him with this:
"Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."
If you want to defeat Obama, you should vote for the only candidate who can actually beat him in a head-to-head election – Ron Paul.
Of course, if it's more important to you to maintain the American empire than to defeat Obama, then by all means vote for Romney or Gingrich or one of the other clowns. Any of them would lose to Obama. But then, that shouldn't matter to you, because Obama's foreign policy is identical to Romney's and Gingrich's and Santorum's and Bush II's. And maintaining the empire appears to be the single non-negotiable issue on this blog.
December 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I share this concern about Newt "blowing up". On the other hand, I remember very clearly how every word, every step, every motion of Newt's head was taken by the media and turned into the heinous acts of the villainous caricature they had created.
The media hated him so much they made him into this crazed guy who was: 1 part Mr. Hyde, 1 part Quasimodo, 1 part Dr. Frankenstein and 1 part Scrooge. It is any surprise that some of that has stuck around?
Liberals HATED the fact that he helped win back control of the Congress after 40 years. They HATED the fact that Newt succeed with the Contract for America and that he pushed through welfare reform. What Newt did was tantamount to a real revolution in American politics at the time. (I remember it vividly as I was working on The Hill at the time, and even met him a few times – although I don't know him.)
So called "Moderate" Republicans hated this change just as much, so he was attacked from both sides.
I agree that the NR article is unbalanced, and it reeks of the old Newt-bashing caricatures.
So while I share certain concerns about Newt, in being objective, one has to consider how this information is being presented to us. On the whole, he is infinitely better than Obama and would have my vote if it came down to him.
Rommey would get my vote, too, over Obama. Then again, I would vote for Linsday Lohan over OB. At least she would be passed out somewhere not making things any worse.
(Oh and I'd vote for Linsday Lohan over RP too. Talk about making things worse!
A vote for RP is a vote for the Iranian bomb and it's use on Israel and the US. Gee there's a good idea. Can't we try him as a traitor right now? Since it will bring about WWIII, maybe he can be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity. He is the ONLY candidate – including Obama – who thinks it's a good idea for Iran to be allowed the capability of destroying the United States – which they are planning to do right now. If anyone could go back in time and stop 9/11 would you? With an Iranian bomb the future of America is a wasteland of destruction. No other issue will matter when everyone is dead.)
As of last night I have actually begun to seriously consider donating to Santorum's campaign. Even though I don't give him much chance. I have I have seen him evolving a bit. If he got a bit more momentum, it would at least force the conversation more to the right.
December 15, 2011 at 3:37 pm
"A vote for RP is a vote for the Iranian bomb and it's use on Israel and the US."
Let's leave the polemical and naive haze where we believe candidates will do exactly as they say when running for the president. All of the under-the-radar we work we do overseas will not continue. America has finally joined the asymmetrical battlefield, and this is much cheaper than moving 200,000 men. Ron Paul will not threaten our national security. People talk about him like he's a 10-year-old.
I like brass-knuckle republicans. Rep. Allen West. Bobby Jindal. I was on the Cain train.
I was never a Ron Paul fan until we got down to these two other clowns. Newt Gingrich simply does not want to size down. Romney upsets my stomach with his inability to be consistent and then deny it. It's more childish talk.
America would benefit greatly if Ron Paul won the primary, even if he was rudely defeated in the general election. He would shake every institutional principle to the core and remind Americans that voting actually matters still. He would shut up and further relegate the MSM to the realm peanut gallery pundits, leeching off of a dying medium (TV).
And in the history of this country, third parties are always assimilated into one of the two party systems. If you really want something done, take the long shot with a bunch of other people.
In less than 10 minutes on OpenSecrets and FactCheck, Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Rahm, etc. are all shown to be cancerous. The shining moral light in this is Ron Paul. And even if he's a long shot, I truly believe him the only moral and reasoned vote for a Catholic, even if it is a long shot. The stakes are too high. Dare to hope. RP 2012.
December 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm
If anyone here is serious about finding an end to abortion that doesn't involve *hoping* a judge or two dies off or retires and *hopefully* we'll have a conservative in the WH. Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion. Riddle me this friends: do abortion numbers rise or fall when a conservative is in office?
Moreover, Santorum and ever other candidate is against Holy Mother Church when it comes to wars, being the police state, etc. This idea that we are responsible to overthrow governments and replace them with someone more 'democratic' is completely anti-Catholic. That's going to work out great in Iraq and Libya here in the next ten years…
Why do military members support Ron Paul 4 to 1 over the other candidates? Because while they are noble and follow orders, they know they are locked in an unjust war that is reaping no direct benefits for our country. And honestly, who cares if Iran gets a nuke? If they do, and threaten Israel, let's watch as Israel wipes them off the face of the earth (not that anyone wants that) because Israel is a SOVEREIGN nation who does not need our help (see Netanyahu's speech about that on YouTube).
We Catholics must support Ron Paul who has the BEST chance of beating BHO (he will CRUSH him with the independents and many liberals as well), because if he isn't the candidate and runs third party, there are enough people who are 'awake' that he will receive an incredible amount of votes taken from the neocon establishment.
December 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion.
Wow, I didn't know Ron Paul had such amazing powers. Will he also bring about the return of unicorns and fairies?
Moreover, Santorum and ever other candidate is against Holy Mother Church when it comes to wars, being the police state, etc.
One of the great things about being a Ron Paul supporter is you get to complain about supposedly hyperbolic statements about your candidate but then turn around and make even more hyperbolic statements about everyone else. God love ya.
Why do military members support Ron Paul 4 to 1 over the other candidates?
They actually don't, but hey, when have actual facts gotten in the way of your daydreams.
We Catholics must support Ron Paul who has the BEST chance of beating BHO
The sad thing is you actually believe this. You probably also believe the real Charlemagne will rise from the dead and bring about the rise of the Fisher King.
Paulistas always wonder why they're mocked. It's because you present so many delicious opportunities for mockery.
December 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Gimmie a break, homer:
You say talk about polemics and naivete, then you go on to bash everyone else, calling them "clowns" and just flat out state that RP will not threaten our national security – AS IF IT'S TRUE!
The fact is that in reference to an Iranian atomic weapon RP has said MANY TIMES, They have a right to defend themselves, don't they?
That is INSANITY. Iran is, right now, building nukes. Iran, right now, is planning to use them on Israel and the US. They have said as much. And we have every reason to believe that it is true. They are at war with us, because their religion requires it. No matter what we do that will remain the fact.
A single weapon launched from a ship based missile off our coast and detonated over the CONUS would destroy the entire electrical infrastructure of the country in a flash. Imagine every electrical device, every transmission media – destroyed. 18 months from now?
Not only is it possible it is likely. So- you among those who don't believe in EMP? Fine. Hug your Winnie the Pooh tight to your chest when you sleep. He'll keep you safe.
And RP's plan to stop it? "Aw shucks, you know, let's invite them over for falafel or something. Has anyone ever tried that? Well HAVE they? Maybe they just want to be loved, you know? Doesn't eveyone just want to have falafel and be loved? This is what's wrong with our foreign policy. We need less war and more falafel."
Their religion REQUIRES that they destroy us. It requires that they destroy a third of all Muslims in the process as well. So your regular run of the mill means of deterrence are not going to work. Neither will harsh language, or holding hands.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Iranian bomb. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is not… correct.
BTW: What does asymmetric warfare have to do with is? This is not a discussion about the means of stopping Iran. That would necessarily include AW and OOTW. The point is: Ron Paul is the only guy out there who doesn't care if they get the bomb or not.
BTW2. If Allen West was dead (God forbid) he would roll over in his grave. You claim to be a supporter/fan boy whatever. He doesn't want Iran to have a bomb either.
BTW3: Any idea what is happening – right now, in Saudia Arabia, in Turkie? They are ALREADY working on their nukes – to counter Iran.
So, in sum. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for:
-The Iranian bomb
-Which WILL be used on Israel and the US
-A new nuclear arms race in the Middle East with a very high probability of nuclear exchange.
The sad thing is there is nearly an endless list of reasons not to vote for him.
1. Back to the gold standard which will limit the size of the global (and American – duh!) economy,
2. Heroin and crack galore
3. Legal prostitution, etc. etc. etc.
Idiotic doesn't even come close.
December 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
"Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion."
Professor Boing-Boing can do that? He's magic.