« | »

Reuters: Gingrich Stumbled On Immigration

From an always on the lookout for the the chance to divide and conquer Reuters:

Did Gingrich’s [Sic] stumble on immigration?

By Steve Holland
Wed Nov 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich finally reached front-runner status this week after a long climb and may now have drawn the wrath of conservatives by professing a moderate position on illegal immigration.

At least Reuters hopes that’s the case. As is evidenced by their headline, which they were too excited to correct.

The former speaker of the House of Representatives was sailing along confidently at a CNN-sponsored debate on Tuesday night and seemed to be wearing the front-runner label with pride after seeing his campaign nearly collapse six months ago.

You see, ‘pride always goeth before a fall,’ at least in the mind of the news media, and when they are talking about Republicans.

But toward the end of the two-hour debate, Gingrich declared himself in favor of a comprehensive immigration overhaul that would include a guest-worker program for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Many Americans, including current Democratic President Barack Obama and former Republican President George W. Bush, back that approach.

Huh? We didn’t hear anything that sounded like President Bush’s plan (which was really the Kennedy-Kyle plan). Or anything that sounded like Obama’s promise of eventual full and complete amnesty. But we are not professional Democrat media flaks journalists.

The Bush plan had no time in country cut off. And Obama simply wants ‘across the board amnesty.’ But Reuters knows saying Gingrich’s plan is just like Bush and Obama’s will damn him in the eyes of the Republican primary voters. And that is precisely what they want to do.

Like God, the news media will not be mocked.

But to the conservatives who tend to vote in the Republican presidential primary races, the loquacious Gingrich may have talked himself into a corner.

You see. He is too smart for his own good. – And that will teach him to pick on the news media.

By the way, if Gingrich hadn’t attacked the media and wasn’t leading in the polls, he would be celebrated by the media for taking such a ‘progressive and humane’ approach to immigration.

"If you’ve been here 25 years and you’ve got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said

We actually agree. We should send the entire family back home. For the children.

When Bush attempted to get a similar immigration plan through Congress in 2007, opponents called lawmakers so often in protest that it shut down the phone system. By supporting the Bush plan, Republican Senator John McCain, then running for president, almost saw his candidacy run out of money.

Once again, we don’t see the similarities.

The collapse of the legislation has made it hard to bring up the issue again. Obama has shied away from it despite promising to do so in his 2008 campaign, saying there is a lack of political will to tackle the problem.

Don’t worry. Once Mr. Obama gets re-elected, he will punish his and La Raza’s "enemies." …

While Romney said he disagreed with Gingrich’s position, he seemed to offer a waffling response.

"I’m not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go," he said.

Again, we didn’t hear any "waffling." But again, e aren’t professional Democrat media flaks journalists.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

33 Responses to “Reuters: Gingrich Stumbled On Immigration”

  1. artboyusa says:

    What Newt has in common with Obama is that they both imagine they’re the smartest people in the room, always, only Newt hides it a little better. Sorry, but as smart and experienced as he is, as impressive is his grasp of policy might be, I can’t vote for him because of his, um, complicated personal history. Three wives is two wives too many; especially given the circumstances under which Newt aquired them. It would be hypocritical to hold him to a different standard of conduct than the one I applied to Ted Kennedy and John Edwards just because I’m so desperate to be rid of President Miracle…

    • proreason says:

      So you see a parallel between the Swimmer’s marital history and Newt’s? Did Newt walk away from a drowning woman while I wasn’t looking?

    • River0 says:

      People don’t “stumble” when they tell the truth about their beliefs. I’m glad the cat’s out of the bag, finally. Newt’s toast now, as far as I’m concerned. If we’re stuck with ‘progressive’ Republicans I’d rather vote for Mitt. He can certainly win; whereas Gingrich almost certainly can’t. He’s very smart but lacking in charm and charisma.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    The emerging political context to this little bomb that was hurled is fascinating – frustrating in how Newt seemed to walk into the ‘heartless Conservatives’ trap, but hilarious given how on one side Michelle accuses his idea to be amnesty when it isn’t, and on the other Romney is talking about magnets when he was talking citizenship for 12 million – exactly what Bachmann was accusing Newt of supporting – in 2007. Lol!

    https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/newtgingrich/status/139376796515840000 heh heh

    There was an invisible wall preventing progress in the coalition on this front. Newt just rather inartfully began the process of bridging it. Inartfully because, as Artboy says, Newt has an ego issue and has to remember it’s not all about his brilliance.

    Still, it is a MISperception if there’s any truth to whether Latino voters are GoPshy because we come off as anti-immigrant. That would be entirely due to Leftism obfuscating rational discussion so that they can solidify another voting bloc onto the plantation.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      It is amnesty. If not in form, then in function. Once the socialists get ahold of it, they will sue in the courts that by making them “legal” to be here, they will push to make them citizens based on a whole slew of legal (but specious) arguments and even bring up segregation and “separate but equal”. Newt’s idea is worthy but not practicable with the huge number of liberal judges who will defeat the “legal but not citizens” act with judicial activism.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You’re right Rusty, thanks. Amnesty in function, since it would amount to a path to a de facto pardon of the original crime, but without voting. That is going to create legal challenges of ‘second class citizen’ but then we’re already there when it comes to our obligation to provide illegals with rights and services. In the meantime our government is arming the very stimulus driving the problems at the border where it’s so bad multiple states are embroiled in lawsuits to do what the Feds refuse to. How’s that for a magnet?

      Newt’s proposal is flawed, and will amount to amnesty, albeit ideally for those which have proven themselves more an American than your average OWS fleabagger. I think it should only be considered after an established time in which the standing law is allowed to be enforced. But I also can’t fault him for trying to think forward and propose possible solutions within the realm of possibility rather than concede the awful status quo.

  3. canary says:


    Fact: America is one of the only countries in the world that allows anchor baby’s.

    These politicians are so removed and ignorant from the reality of the danger and financial burden
    illegals are costing us. It’s all about knowing illegal Mexicans and their elaborate fraud scheme with I.D. and documentations are voting.

    The Republicans running are so removed from the reality of damage being done in this country.
    Yes. And another tunnel just found going into San Diego or is another tunnel they decided to expose
    to make it look like they are doing something.

    The U.S. Dept of Education is giving federal stimulus money to the most populated Public Schools
    with illegal Mexicans. The schools are chomping at the bit for illegals to get the ongoing federal stimulus money.

    It’s the little people who are harmed the most. But, this is different than the hard working Mexicans that used to come to U.S.

    These little illegal Mexican childrens’ parents are drug smugglers, gangsters, the scum of the earth.
    The Mexican children are taught to lie and deceive. As Mexican being a country of Catholic beliefs the illegal children in our country have not and are not being up brought with morality or following the law. Strike up conversations when ever you can. They illegals in this country it’s like bobble dolls that can agree and say oh…ahh…hmm. They will say yes when they have no idea what the heck you are saying.

    And further this “yes” answer, “I can”… is leading to poor quality products in America. They don’t know how to measure. Some don’t even know how to turn on an oven.

    Things change. Do we light fires with a two sticks because it worked in the past.
    One out of 2 Mexicans crossing the border are illegals.
    Mexico has become a tool and pathway for muslim terrorists and this isn’t about marijuana anymore.
    That 90% of opium Afghanistan serves the world to finance their war of religious terror is coming into our border just as Russia and ruining lives and countries.

    The U.S. Dept of Education and school unions wants little Mexican children to line their own pockets with money.

  4. proreason says:

    If the candidate’s position on the treatment of illegal immigrants who have been in the county for decades is really the key decision point for someone, then the issue becomes….do you like Newt’s clearly stated and hardly sweeping-amnesty position better, or Romney’s (if you can figure out what it is), or little lenin’s.

  5. GetBackJack says:

    Rusty, Tranq, Canary – I’m proud to be on your side of the aisle. (you, too artboy)

    It appears I was raised by Losers. Raised in a church family, Boy Scouts, ethical sportsmanship, hard studies, physical “country” labor, born and raised around hard nosed, ethical people with spine who stood their ground and didn’t equivocate or waffle.

    What fools. And it screwed me for life.

    That upbringing has been a hindrance all my life, actually, and really hamstringing me from many gold plated opportunities and advancements. To be the ethical person in the room has been the cause of both guffaws and shunning. Didn’t matter how smart I am or how capable, being ethical was cause for being ignored, like when I didn’t know why all those men on 17th Street in Denver were trying to shake my hand in funny ways, and then the real estate deals would go sideways.

    BTW – Canary, that Opium number you quote? If you want an eye popping look in to what Opium really means to the world of Power …. write me at mackenzie.jack-at-gmail,com Also, read this …


    The Shadow Superpower
    Forget China: the $10 trillion global black market is the world’s
    fastest growing economy — and its future.

  6. Reality Bytes says:

    Newt would make a great follow up to Biden. Think of the possibilities.

    As for Herman, suddenly everything went quiet. To paraphrase Carville, waive a $50.00 in front of a Chicago condo where David Axelrod just so happens to live & you won’t believe what comes out. Where’s the follow up? Seems the guy who was most qualified executive was blind sided; lynched & left to pick up his own pieces. to quote Ray Donovan, “where do I go to get my reputation back?” Conservatives were too quick to throw ol’ Herman under the bus.

    That leaves Perry: Hey, that’s how they talk in Texas. They walk funny too; just to make if fair to the others. I’d be very happy to have either of them up against Obamanot.

    • proreason says:

      Cain didn’t just fall off because of the smears. Too many non-responses on interview questions. It’s about 50-50.

    • JohnMG says:

      Probably so, pro, but the witch hunt paid early dvidends to the MBM. A bit more money and a bit more time to revamp his campaign and shore it up where such was needed the most might have given Cain a better opportunity to succeed. I don’t think the media was any less prepared for Cain’s early popularity than was Cain himself. The difference was the resources that were available to one faction and non-existent to the other.

      Even had Cain the best possible responses to every question thrown at him, he still would have lacked the financial resources to combat what the media heaped upon him by way of a smear. If the allegations had been true they would still be pursuing him. In my mind, the plan was to tie him up in legal proceedings, distract him and his campaign, and bankrupt him in the process.

      I think even the MBM are sorry that they were as successful in rapidly taking him down.

  7. Reality Bytes says:

    RB’s Immigration Proposal:

    Online Applicaton: By EZ Pass (only computers south of the border need apply)

    Virtual AND Actual Fence by: Lockheed Martin & Halliburton (that last one really pisses ’em off)

    Border Enforcement: Blackwater

    Oh & any local police anywhere in the country are paid $1,200.00 for every illegal alien caught north of the border. Hell, we pay local to plow state & federal highways, imagine what they can do rounding up illegals? I’d give it about a month before they’re won’t be any left around.

  8. Melly says:

    Didn’t particularly care for the concerted attempt between Newt, Rush and Real Clear Politics to take Romney’s position on illegal immigration he offered in 2007 out of context. It’s getting to a point where we all have to rely on our own instincts regarding the GOP candidates – thank God for the internet and a little effort and fact checking is easy to accomplish regarding all the candidates. Take for instance: Newt, supported by Rush, linked (tweeted) to this 14 second clip of Romney discussing illegal immigration on Meet the Press 12/07: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/23/romney_flashback_illegal_immigrants_should_be_able_to_get_citizenship.html. One can just take that at face value and believe what Newt and Rush say or one can dig deeper and go to the transcript of said Meet the Press episode: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/ and search thru the transcript for Mitt’s complete response to Russert’s Q. or cut to the chase and view the video of Romney’s response in full: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1964884272959557384#

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thanks for the link Melly!

      Bush-McCain proposals were reasonable, but he did not specifically endorse them? Hmm. I tend to think that when you lend your praise to a certain set of solutions, it’s generally because you agree with their general direction.

      Point is taken though that clearly by this interview he understood that ‘special path to citizenship’ meant amnesty and was politically a non-starter in blanket form and without border controls first.

      The thing is, like Pro said above, I can’t figure out what Romney’s position is now other than lip service to securing the border and Employment Verification, a solid an overdue idea but hardly a comprehensive solution. That’s the theme of the interview: on the one hand – no we’re not kicking anyone out, on the other this supposed sudden magical lack of employment is going to provoke 12 million illegals to cross over and into the back of the immigration line. Vintage Mittens, wanting his cake and his Kennedy hair-do.

  9. chainsaw says:

    Imagine if Newt was a Congressman when he and Princess Nan did the ad for pseudo science. Would we be on the brink of a pseudo tax? The man has been in power and knows the stakes of the game. He has/had a multitude of resources able and willing. Coming off now saying it’s the dumbest thing he’s ever done (debatable for sure), is no excuse. Y’all can be forgiving and look the other way, but this man has disappointed me beyond repair. Get the facts straight, take dead aim, and hit your targets.

    I know there is no perfect candidate. But Newt has failed to make my list. Listen, the media wants the easiest target to take out next year. Newt brings too much baggage that would complacent the media. I have a good slogan for Newt, “Here’s the new Newt, (not) the same as the old Newt”. No sir, I won’t get fooled again.

  10. Papa Louie says:

    If people didn’t ask our permission to come into our country and “live in shadows”, why is it our responsibility to welcome them and bring them out of the shadows? They made their bed, let them lie in it. Besides, Newt’s example is bogus. Anyone who has been here for 20 plus years most likely has children or grandchildren born in this country who can sponsor them toward citizenship. So they won’t be deported anyway. We have already lost that battle.

    The more important thing is to close the border. If you don’t do that, you can deport illegals by the millions and they’ll just come back, along with a few of their friends. Most of the GOP candidates have promised to close the border, so any of them would be better than Obama. We just need to defeat him and make sure we elect a congress that will pressure the new president to close the border now. Then why care so much if there are some illegals still living in the shadows. If they break our laws – any laws – we deport them. And if we clamp down on employers and stop giving them welfare, they will deport themselves. Eighty percent of all immigrants (legal and illegal) without a college degree are recipients of some kind of government handout. So the money we save not giving benefits to illegals would pay for the fence.

    To those who bring up “compassion” as an excuse for allowing illegal immigration I say, where is your compassion for the future generations who have to pay the bill for all your “compassion”? There will always be more good causes than there is money to pay for them. Be compassionate with your own money. Using someone else’s money to make you feel good about yourself is not compassion.

  11. artboyusa says:

    “So you see a parallel between the Swimmer’s marital history and Newt’s? Did Newt walk away from a drowning woman while I wasn’t looking?…” asks pro and the answer, I’m afraid, is yes, once you take out the leaving the scene of an accident part. The same kind of lying, the same kind of selfishness, the same cruelty, the same indifference to the feelings of someone weaker than yourself, the same glorification of one’s own ego… adulterers are all boringly the same. This is not to say I’m perfect or that I have any right to demand perfection from anyone else but I do think we deserve a presidential nominee, let alone a president, who’s character we can admire rather than make excuses for.

    • proreason says:

      You’re a brilliant writer Artboy, but I have to say that your attitude in this matter is seriously misguided, for many reasons, and you know it, because of the way you framed your response.

      The deepest problem is that there isn’t an infinite slate to pick from, yet the opponent is a person so dangerous that failing to defeat him will essentially end the world’s only serious engagement with individual freedom. I’m not even saying that Gingrich is the only person who can beat him. I don’t believe that is correct. But I do think that given the seriousness of the risk, excluding a strong contender from CONSIDERATION is a serious blunder. Even before considering that nobody can see into another person’s heart, and nobody can really know what the personal flaws of the other candidates are either. (For example, it’s impossible to know whether Herman Cain is a misogynist, but it is easy to see that he knows little about foreign affairs.)

      The way I see it, it’s like a military commander eliminating a viable option that has the potential to win a war and save thousands of lives, because he has a moral problem with the option. That would be selfish and foolish.

      And don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Newt’s past behavior, and I’m not saying he is the only person who can win. I am simply saying that given the crisis that in my opinion faces the entire human race, eliminating one of only 8 remaining people from consideration because you disapprove of his marital history is awesomely short sighted. Because if Obama wins, there is a high risk that the world will descend into a new dark age with consequences that will dwarf any plague, war or natural catasrophe that has ever occurred on the planet.

      But maybe you think Obama is just another liberal president and this too shall pass. There is certainly some chance of that. I prefer to minimize the risk by keeping all options to defeat him on the table, and eventually by picking the option with the best chance of defeating him, knowing that any option will carry its own risks and compromises, moral and otherwise.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I will try to summarize.

      It’s not that we won’t hold our nose and vote for the republican we dislike the least, it’s that we’re sadly disappointed that out of all the human beings on the face of the earth, we are stuck with this choice of seven. Granted, any of the seven is better than Blammo the Liar but…we simply fear that the road to socialism will merely slow rather than stop.

      In my own mind, though some of them are good at voicing the concern about big government, I also assume, perhaps unfairly that they would all be intoxicated by the power of the office of president. Ironically, by being elected president, it affords the person holding the office the opportunity to insulate themselves from things they don’t like to hear or don’t want to see.

      Then, there’s the simple fact that they are politicians and I don’t mean just in vocation. It’s long been my observation that any industry, club, activity, group or gathering has its “politicians”. Those people who do things in a way so as to try to get everyone to like them. It has always baffled me especially when someone who knows I cannot stand them approaches me at the company picnic and makes small talk as if I’ve forgotten the meeting we had two weeks ago where they were trying to get me fired.

      It’s the most curious of human behaviors and I have hated it my whole life. But the people running for the nomination are already spending way too much time bickering amongst themselves (an indicator of low self-esteem, typical of all politicians) and too little time pointing out that The Magic Negro has been destroying this nation from within with the help of a heavily socialist faction in the democrat party. And it causes me to ask why.

      And the only reason I can come up with is that they all suffer from the misconception that government is the solution to the problem, not the problem itself. None of them have said, “We need to get the government out of people’s lives”. Instead we have Newt and Michelle and Mittens espousing their new, improved government plan. I would vote for whoever says, “I’m going to get rid of the FDA, the DOE, the EPA, and put thousands of government employees out of work for good so that the free market can have its day again.”

      Naturally such a statement would have the media messing it’s collective diaper and thinking that without all that government control, the US would sink into the abyss forever and kids would be fed lead-based paint for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But there has to be someone who can verbalize the problem and get people to see it for what it is. I thought it was Newt….but his ego is as tiny as all the rest and he constantly needs to prove to everyone how smart he is. I say small ego because it’s a misconception that the biggest showoff has an oversized ego; It’s actually quite the opposite. Small egos and low self-esteem result in people seeking attention for their own gratification and social acceptance.

      I’d prefer a lone wolf quietly strong, get-it-done kind of guy in the white house, not the typical $2,000 dollar suit-wearing, cocktail party-going, limo-riding pukes that we’ve had for far too long. They’re too comfortable and NONE of them care about the people they say they are elected to serve. Not Newt, not Bachmann, not Cain. NONE.

      Washington DC is Hollywood for ugly people. It’s the most basic of human behavior…or even mammalian behavior. Pecking order, rank, power, legitimacy. God told us all we are sinners and in that light, a person who is voted into office should understand, not only their own failures and weaknesses but also find those who can best keep those things from becoming a factor.

      Finally, I had to ask myself the other day…after a debate, “Can I see six of these seven people all serving on a president’s cabinet and being helpful and trying to do what’s best for the nation if one of them was elected president?” and the answer is no. And that told me a lot about politics.

      I apologize for being so wordy. But I often take a long path to get to the way I understand things which is usually down to the most basic and instinctively simple thing. I’ll hold my nose and vote for the republican but…I do not look forward to four years of Brian Williams and PBS’s whining….the sand people gaining more ground, “reaching across the aisle” so the democrats can keep screwing us and our freedoms disappearing still. All because we have socialists and whatever the republicans are who are more worried about being liked than doing the right thing.

    • proreason says:

      I think conservatives are too hard on the Republican candidates.

      As a group, they are probably the best set of candidates from any party since Reagen challenged Ford.

      The problem is that our expectations are, and should be, extremely high; but now that stakes are so enormous and the politics in the country have been fragmented by the marxists, the candidates all get ripped to shreds in ways that simply could not have happened before 1970…..except for the criminal president that the mass media protects to the ultimate of its ability, and the man who, if republicans don’t screw their heads on straight, will complete the takeover and destruction of the country in the four years after 2012.

    • chainsaw says:

      Pro, with all due respect about us conservatives being too hard on our candidates, I feel the opposite; We do not challenge our representatives enough. For if we did, they would know where they stood and we would not have to entertain the likes of their present company.

      You see us taking out Newt akin to a valuable resource a military commander has at his disposal. I see it as clearing the path for those who don’t, won’t or can’t spend the time to do what should be done; vesting (God knows the press won’t do it for us).

      With that said, what we are doing here is trying to parse through the minutia and select not the best 8, but the best one. It’s obvious that Newt is your man. But us cancelling him out is not paramount to the fear of world wide collapse you discribe, “Because if Obama wins, there is a high risk that the world will descend into a new dark age with consequences that will dwarf any plague, war or natural catasrophe that has ever occurred on the planet”.

    • proreason says:

      What? I haven’t said that if Newt isn’t nominated that the Moron will win. In fact, I’ve said that Romney can win as well, and I may end up voting for him. I have even said that Romney is the more likely of the two.

      But anybody who thinks that Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman, or Ron Paul can win is deranged. And Rick Perry is nearly as long shot as the other five.

      For several weeks, my point has been for that we are down to two viable candidates. Fortunately they are both good candidates. No, they don’t ring up Mark Levin to get validation before they open their mouths, but you know, Levin and Rush don’t even control 10% of the electorate. And, to Artboy’s point, Newt hasn’t been a saint, but unless Newt buggered a boy in the last couple of years, I simply can’t see how ancient and legal personal business is a factor when the enemy at the gate. And Artboy has affirmatively declared he won’t vote for Newt under any circumstance. To me, that is an unfathomable position.

      If you can’t bring yourself to accept EITHER of the two guys that the nominee will be chosen from, then you are voting for Obama, and, in all liklihood, the end of freedom. (I will also say the same thing if by some miracle one of the unelectable candidates gets the nomination. I will also immediately begin working on my personal doomsday plan.)

      But the dominant theme on conservative sites remains that one of the unelectable 6 must be chosen, or even more unbelievably, that Sarah Palin must relent so that she, like the other six, can lose by 20%.

      I like slamming the marxists like everyone else, but crunch time is beginning. It’s time to get realistic.

    • ezra says:

      Since the tea party lacks a credible candidate (again), I only wish that we could put Huntsman in the ring instead of Romney.

    • chainsaw says:

      Pro, previously you called artboy shortsighted for eliminating one of the “strong” contenders from the group of 8. Then you tell us that this field is the best set of contenders since Reagan. Now you tell me that I’m deranged if I believe that some one other than Mitt and Newt hasn’t a chance to dethrown the childking.

      “But anybody who thinks that Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman, or Ron Paul can win is deranged. And Rick Perry is nearly as long shot as the other five.”

      I’m slightly confused why your parred list trumps all others (probably caused by my deranged syndrome?).

      Btw, I’m curious why you eliminated Gary Johnson from the list of non-contenders. Is it his lack of MBM attention or his lack of debate attendance?

    • proreason says:

      There are only 4 candidates who are polling high enough to win; Romney, Gingrich, Cain and Perry. Cain can’t win because he has no experience. Perry can’t win because he has made too many mistakes. But even the other 4 are good candidates from a historical perspective It’s just that at this point, the lower 6 can’t win.

      If you look at what has happend, it’s clear that only Romney and Newt have a chance. Ron Paul never had a chance. Santorum has never been able to get traction, even as several others have gained some traction and fallen back, probably because he seems too young and had a major defeat in Pennsylvania. Huntsman has never gained any traction because he is perceived as too liberal. Bachman surged and fell back because she says too many things that sound rigid and unrelenting. Cain has surged and fell back because he has no experience and isn’t conversant with too many of the issues. Perry surged and fell back because of too many flubs and because of poor debate performances. Gary Johnson never even got to 1% because he is too libertarian.

      Anybody who thinks one of those seven can win now is simply fantasizing.

      A lot of them are decent candidates, but they just aren’t in the same class as Romney and Gingrich. The public has already spoken about that. And yes, I know people love to cite 2008 when McCain had fallen back and still won, but that was a significantly different situation and a weaker field (because Rudy fumbled so badly and Thompson turned out to not like campaigning).

      If you watch the Miss America pageant, most people will immediately eliminate 40 of the candidates. It’s not that they aren’t all beautiful and accomplished. It’s that they aren’t in the same class as the best candidates.

      There isn’t anything illogical or contradictory about what I’ve said. The field was strong, but 6 (or more if you include Gary Johnson, Thad McCotter and several other fringe candidates) simply didn’t make it to the finals.

      Again, anybody who thinks that anyone other than Romney or Gingrich can win AT THIS POINT, is fantasizing. If you want to fantasize, a better fantasy is a deadlocked convention from which Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Jon Kyl or Bobby Jindal emerges as the nominee. All of them them are strong as well and some may be even better on paper than Romney or Newt.

  12. artboyusa says:

    Its not Newt’s zipper problem that’s the problem, its what that suggests about his character. If he can’t kep his promise to a woman, what about his promises to us? And what else remains to be disclosed about his past? I don’t know but if he’s the nominee, our watchdog media will be sure to tell us -again and again. Anyway, I can’t see him getting nominated. “Vote Newt – he’s kind of a bastard but he knows a lot about foreign policy” isn’t a winning slogan. Our problem is that just holding our noses and voting for whomever, as we’ve all done before, won’t win this election. We need somebody who will really motivate people, our version of Obama in 2008, and I can’t see any of these dweezils being able to do that.

  13. David says:

    Newt got me thinking about this in a new light. The only reason this is an issue is that citizenship = ability to vote. If libs couldn’t squeeze votes out of this block then there would be no argument about it from the vast majority of libs. (of course there is that fringe that is against punishing any crime.) My solution is that anyone who gained access to this country illegally or become illegal (over staying) is barred from voting for ever regardless of whatever citizenship/amnesty thing gets figured out.
    This seems obvious since our laws prohibit people from getting financial gain from a crime.

    • proreason says:

      Great idea!

      It flushes the libs out of the weeds and reveals their true colors.

      Therefore, it could never be implemented. They will die rather than admit what they are really for.

  14. sticks says:

    I have a powerfull sense of unease about all this, Is Newt gaining popularity because people are hearing what he says and carefully thinking about it? Or is it because the media like him by which I mean they would like to have him as a candidate they know they can shred, publically, and thus bring the Dark Lord back to power for another four years. For the powers behind the curtain whatever Obama can do by way of legislation is probably icing and his real purpose is worse yet, to cause Americans to give up on the republic and listen to the voice that says “we need a new form of government, one that will be fair”.
    I would rather throw in my lot with Romney, even with his known faults, I think he could beat Obama (though the media will shred him too) which may be why he is falling in the “polls”.

    • proreason says:

      Newt’s appeal is his debating skills. He is the one most willing to take it to Obama. Maybe Romney will do some of that as well, but Newt does it all the time.

      Whether that attractionn lasts is another matter. It has a downside which is that he sometimes goes to far.

      From a policy perspective, they are both big government types who have ratcheted down that rhetoric because of the mood of the country. But you can tell they are both the type who can’t wait to try out their programs, rather than the type (like Perry) who would rather dismantle every program they can.

      As I see it, the key differences are that Romney is the safer choice, but Newt is the one who will dive into the mud when the going gets tough. Part of the reason Romney is safer is that nobody thinks he has bimbos in his background. He has the Mormon stuff, but what can Obama say about that directly when he has the Reverend Wright in his. Of course, that won’t stop the media.

      Neither one is the conservative savior that everybody yearns for, but as I’ve been saying, there are only 8 candidates left to choose from and these are the two who have a chance.

      The scary thing is that there are so many people willing to say they won’t vote for one or the other under any circumstance. If there are many people like that, buy gold and ammunition. You’ll need both.

    • tranquil.night says:

      They’ve all improved 1000% since even the beginning of this campaign cycle.

      For me it’s now simply coming down to who can bring it all together now and relentlessly refuse to let the regime set the premise of the narrative. Both in their aptitude in preventing the Left’s attempts to destroy them personally, as well as their ability to counter the demogoguery. Who can best challenge this tyranny. It’s not just Boy-blunder Barry that they have to overcome; it’s the whole Democrat Complex leviathan

      Everybody understands that they’re going to make this the dirtiest campaign in recent history. They’re already on their way. So whoever it ends up being, they better be ready, and we better be ready to go to the mat.

      They are looking to exploit every point of weakness they can wedge.

    • sticks says:

      Looks then like we will have this choice,sigh, either a terribly dangerous big government guy or one with better motivations anyway. Hopefully we can at least slow the train (out of controll government spending) down and maybe someday get it moving back in the right direction before we all go off the cliff. We don’t have very much time left.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »