February 1, 2012

Yes, me-too Republicans, there is a GOP “establishment”

And not only is there an establishment, but they don’t much like you conservatives or classical liberals, either. Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator:

Sarah Palin is dead-on right.

If Newt Gingrich disappeared from the planet today and in his place stood only Rick Santorum — or Sarah Palin herself or some other conservative — you can be certain the Establishment GOP would have their sights trained on that conservative, running some version of precisely the same multi-gazillion dollar campaign they are running against Newt Gingrich right now. As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008. If by chance Rick Santorum emerges as the sole conservative left in this race — look out Rick.

Why is this?

The hard fact of the political matter, to give the short version, is that with the advent of the American progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many in the Republican Party who in their own fashion went over the side, abandoning the good ship of conservative principles. It’s not that they necessarily left the GOP — although some, most prominently Theodore Roosevelt — did so. No, what happened is that they simply folded like a cheap suit, caving to what they were certain would be the eternal popularity of the progressive movement. Becoming what was eventually known as the “me-too” Republican. Or, in the tart summation of Barry Goldwater, supporters of “the dime store New Deal.” Today, the name is RINO — Republican in Name Only.

The real problem on display with the Romney-Gingrich duel is that since the advent of the GOP moderate, moderation has become the default position of the Republican Establishment. In the day, to decry the New Deal or the Great Society or, today, abortion or gay marriage or any number of other liberal favorites, is to open oneself up to social approbation from this or that set of self-anointed elites. Elites who put a premium on being seen as “moderate,” “nice,” and “smart” as opposed to “extreme,” “mean,” or — God forbid — “not very bright.” Sniff, sniff and all of that.

As someone who grew up for all but two years in the Northeastern United States (Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, with considerable professional time afterwards in Washington) this is something one learns quickly. In truth, for some, to be perceived as somehow challenging these so-called values is so much of a psychological freak-out (invitations to the right parties dwindle, the right friends shy away, business possibilities — income — can be negatively affected) that it is simply easier to just shut up and join the herd.

Politically speaking, for many in the GOP Establishment this is a terrifying set of thoughts. In an electoral sense, to not be suitably “moderate” equates to losing elections. After all, if voters (read: “Independents”) don’t want to have you at their parties or even be friends with you or do business –much less if they think you’re not very smart — why would they ever vote for you or your candidates?

[...]

You might call this an electoral learning disability. Ronald Reagan carried 44 states in his 1980 landslide over Jimmy Carter, the man who had defeated Gerald Ford in 1976. In 1984, Reagan was re-elected, carrying 49 states and coming within a few thousand votes of carrying the 50th — opponent Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota.

Years later, after both Reagan and Ford had died, Ford biographer and Newsweek’s White House correspondent during the Ford era, Thomas DeFrank, wrote a book based on his long off-the-record conversations with his friend Jerry Ford. The book, Write It When I’m Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conservations with Gerald R. Ford, sums up the moderate Ford’s thoughts on the conservative Reagan in March of 1980 in a more potent, decidedly then-unprintable fashion.

Writes DeFrank of what Ford really thought:

Translation: The thought of Ronald Reagan becoming my party's nominee makes me want to puke.

THIS, OF COURSE, IS PRECISELY the kind of stuff now being said of Newt Gingrich by Mitt Romney’s Establishment supporters right this minute. It is exactly the kind of sentiment Governor Palin was addressing when she said that this argument was really about the GOP Establishment versus the Tea Party. To wit: “cannibalism.”

Palin has also put her finger on the problem when she said that the Establishment GOP had “adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.”

This is correct. And there is a reason for it. The very “moderation” sought by the Establishment is designed to nudge America’s conservative party ever so appropriately and socially acceptably — left. Thus there is no mystery why the leftist tactics Palin cites surface inside the GOP Establishment.

— and, I would add, are then projected onto the TEA Party, or its representatives, or any challenger to the ruling elite, as we saw recently with Gabriel Malor’s remarkably strained suggestion that, if anyone is really guilty of adopting the tactics of the left (which is no big deal anyway; what one man calls “tactics,” another calls “tools”), it is movement conservatives, those who’ve been consistently characterized as Hobbits, racists, unsophisticated rubes, extremists, populists, ideological purists, party saboteurs, Obama Republicans, and so on by the very Party whose base these hideous embarrassments to the GOP make up. And besides, who, having now learned how to use, say, a hammer, wouldn’t then take it and, having finished building a bird house, then use it to beat their family into pulp as they lay sleeping?

Continues Lord:

Attack the moderates’ core belief that they are somehow electable — in spite of their long record as political losers — and they come at you, as Buckley also noted with amusement, with lances cocked. And that’s before you challenge them on the perpetual squishiness of their views on issues of the day. This, in short form, is precisely how an alarmed Romney campaign and GOP Establishment is responding to Newt — and would respond to Santorum if need be.

[...]

Recently, there was a bit of a fuss over my revelation that National Review had published a piece from ex-Reagan State Department aide Elliott Abrams cherry-picking a Newt Gingrich speech on American-Soviet relations back in 1986. What’s interesting are two remarks made in response by Romney supporters.

In his still-further cherry picking response to me, NR’s editor Rich Lowry had this to say of the Gingrich speech:

I suspect Newt's fans will find it unerringly brilliant, while others will roll their eyes.

Meanwhile, in her Washington Post blog on Sunday, Establishment Romneyite Jennifer Rubin, by way of reprimanding me, displayed her elitism by unleashing her inner Tina Fey, recycling Fey’s bit about Sarah Palin. Said Rubin:

From her house she might see Russia, but her understanding of Stalin is nonexistent….

When one adds the Lowry eye-rolling comment about Gingrich to Rubin’s snarky from-her-house comment on Palin — not to mention Romney’s “You’re fired” comment about space exploration — one gets the pluperfect illustration of the Establishment mindset that launched Dewey and Ford and all manner of moderate-inspired political disasters.

Newt Gingrich’s old friend Jack Kemp — loyal Reagan lieutenants both — would breezily call this kind of thinking “elitist and patronizing.” Buckley, the founder of Lowry’s magazine, called this kind of attitude an example of “consistent intemperance, insularity and irascibility.” Add the absence of Romney’s conservative ideology to his thus far disturbing pride in his utter lack of vision and imagination and the same old dreary picture painted by Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald Ford comes clear yet again.

To wit: yet another losing presidential campaign or a disastrously weak “mortgage presidency”– filled with intellectual and programmatic mush staffed by wimps afraid of their political shadow.

AS NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY, if Romney is nominated the hard-edged bashing of Gingrich will vanish when the opponent becomes President Obama. Why? Because, Romney and the Establishment GOP will run the updated version of the Dewey-Ford mortgage driven campaign. After all. A presidential campaign, to quote Romney, isn’t talk radio. One can’t attack Barack Obama in this fashion. One can’t say the reason this presidency is an utter failure is because of an Alinsky-ite, far left philosophy. Nooooooooo. One must say simply and politely that Obama is, to quote Romney directly, just “over his head.” And at Romney’s side (aside from all those Washington lobbyists there now) will be mortgaged aides like ex-GOP Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. In the finest tradition of Establishment wimpiness assuring that Romney really doesn’t mean it when he talks about undoing Obamacare. Oh no. After all, in Coleman’s words:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president.… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

[...]

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment.

Or, as the saying might go after all these years: still more mush from the wimps.

All true.

But then, all very unhelpful.

After all, don’t you stupid hicktard conservative state schoolers want to regain the Presidency and the Senate so that Mitt and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can more efficiently manage the federal Leviathan?

That is, don’t you want all that beautiful government revenue — and all those delicious potential new regulations — to be presided over by our side?

Of course you do. No get your asses in line and make it happen. We need to get back to those efficient, collegial, pre-TEA Party days in Congress when, as Nancy Pelosi reminded us, party affiliation didn’t make much difference. And to do that we need a President Romney.

Oh. And a failure to relent on your part? Means you’ll be responsible for re-electing Obama.

So, like, way to go, “True Conservative” “purists”.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:44am
55 comments | Trackback

Comments (55)

  1. Wall Street Romney thinks our insolvent and ruinous “safety net” is in good shape – just maybe needs a tweak or two.

    And if Team R doesn’t seek a mandate to reform entitlements, it won’t get one.

  2. It’s funny how happy they are to assign blame preemptively for RE-electing Obama…

  3. Romney has an advisor who lost his Senate seat to Al fucking Franken?

  4. McGehee, the “blame conservatives” strategy has been in place for the better part of a year.

    The GOP would rather assign blame than take responsibility.

  5. You know what’s really cool? Watching Romneybots start spluttering when you call them out on blame game.

    For some reason, Romneybots won’t admit that perhaps the GOP needs to move toward Conservatives rather than the other way around.

  6. related thoughts:

    In addition to the effort we all are engaged in to defeat Obama, the Republican Party is hell-bent on making sure that the Tea Party (i.e., conservatives) do not conquer this party and end up controlling it or running it. Now, Sowell is of the belief that the real purpose of Romney’s assault on Gingrich is to just take out the conservative wing of this party and defeat it and send it packing. That it is the establishment, the RINOs, the Teddy Roosevelt wing, the Rockefeller wing, whatever — the moderate Republicans — who don’t have a taste, don’t have any ability to get down and dirty muddy and actually do what it takes to win.

    It’s too easy to just play the game and get close to winning now and then; win sometimes but stay close to power however you have to do it. Conservatism upsets that applecart, wants to deemphasize the role of government in people’s lives. The RINO Republicans don’t want that. [emphasis added]

  7. After all, don’t you stupid hicktard conservative state schoolers want to regain the Presidency and the Senate so that Mitt and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can more efficiently manage the federal Leviathan?

    In a word, no. And I won’t be held responsible if Obama’s re-elected either. As Geoffb noted in another thread, it’s Romney et al who seem to think they can WIN! by depressing overall GOP voter turnout.

    I’m still thinking Santorum has a chance if Newt flames out and Romney goes back to saying stupid stuff. I’d relish a head-to-head debate between the two.

  8. Down at the bottom of the page, under the “Stronger Grip” ad is a hyperlink to “Elizabeth Warren Homepage”. I’m thinking it’s not coincidental to the post…

  9. Santorum has no chance whatsoever, and whatever glimmer of hope one might find for him would be nonchalantly obliterated by Wall Street Romney’s money.

    Wall Street Romney has Santorum right where he wants him, and he’s hoping he stays there.

  10. Romney has an advisor who lost his Senate seat to Al fucking Franken?

    It makes a lot more sense when you look at it as “Romney has an advisor who used to be a Democrat mayor.”

  11. Santorum has no chance whatsoever, and whatever glimmer of hope one might find for him would be nonchalantly obliterated by Wall Street Romney’s money.

    Wall Street Romney has Santorum right where he wants him, and he’s hoping he stays there.

    He has no chance precisely because we’re told he has no chance by those who don’t want him to have a chance.

    Whereas if each individual conservative voted his conscience and didn’t worry about the tribe or electability, I suspect he’d have a very good chance.

    We used to care about the individual conservative.

    Yes we did.

  12. I’m still thinking Santorum has a chance if Newt flames out and Romney goes back to saying stupid stuff. I’d relish a head-to-head debate between the two.

    That depends on an increasingly improbable dynamic:

    1) —Newt and Romney continue to beat each other bloody, to the general and widespread disgust and dismay of the average GOP primary voter.

    2) —Santorum has some kind of highly visible, widely reported break through moment.

    3) —either Newt or Romney drops out.

    How many debates are currently scheduled? I ask because Romney won’t be agreeing to add any to that schedule.

    Santorum’s best chance to win was for Newt to repeat his South Carolina win in Florida and scare all of Romney’s supporters into his camp. Newt blew it for them both.

  13. After all, don’t you stupid hicktard conservative state schoolers want to regain the Presidency and the Senate so that Mitt and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can more efficiently manage the federal Leviathan?

    Hell no. But resent the implication that I went to a state school.

  14. Now Romney’s going to learn about how the media and the Left (but I repeat myself) will take his “I am not concerned about the very poor” out of context, adding to the Monopoly Uncle Moneybags top hat and monocle on him.

    And Jeff will write about how you should expect that when you get in bed with those who play the privileged interpretation game.

  15. Mr. Jeff you could say that about anybody… but the point is that Mr. Rick doesn’t have enough support to be a contender to the presdidency. This is a quality he shares with Mila Kunis and Jeff Dunham by the way.

  16. Santorum is going to have to heal the sick and raise the dead at this point to get any positive press.

    Probably not even then.

  17. *presidency*

  18. There’s only one debate scheduled in February Ernst.

    But I believe that Santorum will do better than expected during that month anyway in the states in play. All it might take would be him to edge Gingrich in a contest or two to have the Romneyites turn their fire on him.

    The resulting media attention would provide a platform for him to deliver more excellent snippets like he did in the last debate summation. This would cause a lot of conservatives to pay more attention; especially because he a Newt are going to start slugging it out over mandates and Obamacare.

    It’d be a tough row to hoe, to be sure, but not un-doable.

    What he needs to add to his list of points to make is addressing questions regarding his own electability vs Romney by prefacing the answer with something like, “Mitt won’t enjoy the luxury of outspending Obama 4 to 1 on television ads in the General…”

    That would be fun to hear at least once :)

  19. And Jeff will write about how you should expect that when you get in bed with those who play the privileged interpretation game.

    Probably not. Too much effort, little reward.

    I think maybe I’ll just start pointing and laughing, and if people are curious why I’m laughing, only then will I point them to my archives.

  20. He has no chance
    we are told,
    because he has no support.

    He has no support
    we are told,
    because he has no chance.

    He has no chance
    we are told,
    because he has no support.

    He has no support
    we are told,
    because he has no chance.

  21. McGehee, the “blame conservatives” strategy has been in place for the better part of a year.

    If by “year” you mean “decade,” I agree completely.

  22. And ff by “decade” you mean “ever since Goldwater lost to Johnson,” I agree as well.

  23. Michele Bachmann: I am NOT endorsing Romney

    Let me be absolutely clear — there are absolutely no negotiations between me and the Romney campaign regarding any pending endorsement of Governor Romney. I continue to speak with all the candidates and plan on uniting behind the presumptive nominee. The Boston Globe article today is completely false and I call on the Globe to retract their article.

    phfffff

  24. That’ll teach her to trust Romney’s people.

  25. Considering where the 4 remaining candidates started Santorum has done incredibly well. He’s in the final 4 from a potential field that included some personality rock stars, some experienced politicians that are very popular with moderates, rinos, and the establishment; and some good people popular with the conservative base. Santorum is losing not winning yet, but he stands steady with his conservative beliefs. As jeffg said we’re told he has no chance by those who don’t want him to have a chance, in part because for The 2% there is nothing, nothing that can be allowed to stand in the way of gay marriage. The Progs, and many of those who claim to be on our side, are prepared to abandon the Republic, as long as they get to define what the word marriage means.

  26. Yes there is an establishment. No it is not a completely unified bloc.
    Yes there is a base. No it is not completely unified, instead it is riven by factions.

    You want a conservative candidate to nominate? Find someone who won’t blow themselves up in the primaries and convince that person to run. And that means you have to elect conservatives to lower level municipal, state, and national offices so they get some experience and those who survive will be less likely to self-destruct. And in this way the base changes the establishment, like the Democrats got changed over the past couple of decades.

    All of this will take time. But, you lose every game you don’t play, you lose every game someone convinces you to sit out.

    I f you want to win, if you want limited government, then you have to participate in Self-Government, and that involves a little bit more than just voting.

  27. Bill Kristol thinks Santorum is in the hunt and cites today’s Gallup tracking poll, Gingrich is at 28 percent, Romney at 27, and Santorum at 17.

  28. You want a conservative candidate to nominate? Find someone who won’t blow themselves up in the primaries and convince that person to run.

    Are you sure they’re blowing themselves up all by their lonesomes? Because I tend to think that part of the reason it’s hard to convince conservatives to run is that conservatives’ faults (and we all have them, being human an’ all that) get magnified until they become insurmountable liabilities. And every time that happens, it gets that much harder to get the next candidate to step up.

    Agree with you about strengthening and deepening our bench,starting at the local level.

  29. Ernst – who forced Perry to have brain-freeze? Who forced Bachmann to go off on Gardisil? Who forced Pawlenty to drop out? Who forced Cain to have happy-hands?

    Look – they had strengths too, but they didn’t get them out there, not enough to survive the self-inflicted injuries. We can complain about the press not being fair, but it is part of the terrain that has to be crossed. If people don’t want to cross that terrain for the nomination then they won’t fare well in the general or in office. It is a tough winnowing procedure, but darned if they don’t come out pretty well-vetted.

    I’m putting this stuff out here because I don’t want to attend a pity-party, nor do I want to indulge in the opiate of conspiracy theories. I am an American male, so I want to first identify that there’s a problem, second what the nature of the problem is, and then discuss solutions to the problem.

    If the problem is an establishment that does not want to listen to anyone that is not part of the club, then the answer is Self-Government removing the establishment. We get the government chosen by those who’ve shown up and gone onto the field. If we want limited government that is fiscally thrifty then we have to get off the bench.

    Any other ideas, because I’m open to hearing them.

  30. Perry is dumb

  31. Retarded hamsters spouting assertions and catchphrases are infinitely dumberer.

  32. Who created the dumb-cowboy trope? Who created the wild-eyed religious extremist trope? Do we really know how “happy” Herman Cain’s happy hands are? (Pawlenty, now, that’s entirely on him —the dummy).

    I’m not saying that there’s a media conspiracy to take our candidates out as fast as we put them up, but the spotlight distorts as well as highlights, and there is bias, and they are looking for the opportunity to shoot conservatives down, as those opportunities present themselves. This idea that, if only we’d put up better candidates, we’d be bullet proof*, is reactive and self defeating; and Gingrich proved what a well placed “fuck you, media!” can do. (Take Perry for an example, Obama can’t put two sentences together un(tele)prompted, but Perry’s the dummy for being caught on camera acting human).

    The pro-big government ruling class has a vested interest in the notion that small government conservatives and classical liberals can’t win. All I’m suggesting is that we all note how, when and where they have their thumb on the scale, and seek to rebalance it accordingly. Because right now, as Jeff has repeatedly said, we’e letting the media arm of the ruling class choose our candidate for us again, and we’re blaming the candidates when maybe we should be blaming ourselves.

    You don’t want to attend a pity party. Neither do I. Nor do I want to attend an “it is what it is and we have to make the best of it” symposia with a bunch of would-be Stoics.

    *My gloss, I recognize that I’m stating that more forcefully than you.

  33. Perry created the dumb cowboy trope Mr. Ernst by saying dumb things and by refraining from saying not-dumb things. And sometimes by simply refusing to make the sentences at all.

  34. “Nor do I want to attend an “it is what it is and we have to make the best of it” symposia with a bunch of would-be Stoics.”

    Me neither. But I think acknowledging what is actually there is important, and (for example) noting that the press is going to attack conservatives is part of that reality. Now, how do we deal with it?

    Ernst, I think we’re in agreement on over 95% here and just quibbling about details. I know I don’t – and I don’t believe you do – want to engage in that long existential scream of rage that the Left did in the mid-2000′s. It feels good for a little bit, but it’s only destructive, not constructive, and I think it is kind of obvious that I prefer being constructive.

    We have a problem. What exactly is it (we’ve been doing that here) and how exactly do we solve it (we’ve done some of that here) needs to be worked out. Here’s some of my thoughts on what it is and what ought to be done.

    Just tossing some things out there, friend. All the good-will in the world is going with them.

  35. Mikey and Ernst, the MSM’s stranglehold on propaganda information needs to be broken completely before Conservatives will be able to gain any real traction.

    A good portion of the electorate truly believes Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house” for instance.

    Newt has the right idea when it comes to hitting the media head on. McCain was dumb enough to think he would get a fair shake from MSM. I think Newt understands that “MSM” and “fairness” are not even distant cousins.

    Romney thinks he’ll be able to get along with the media. Just wait until MSM repeatedly questions Romney about Romneycare.

  36. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed that somebody like Paul Ryan, or somebody else from the 2010 or 2012 elections, will prove to have the media savvy of a Christie or a Gingrich, coupled with the principles and policies of a actual small-government conservative. I’d love it if the candidate was able to back-burner the more divisive social issues and keep the focus on tearing down the bureaucracy, but YMMV.

    The important thing to me, on the media front, is less about having a candidate who looks good on TV (a la Lurch or Silky Pony or Mittenz), but rather having somebody who knows how the media will come after him, and who can anticipate, parry and riposte those attacks. The majority of the attacks are just silly, but get blown all out of proportion by people pretending that they’re substantive. A candidate who can puncture that particular bubble with a smile and a gleam in his eye will go far.

  37. Blake,

    Heck, I wish the rest of the GOP field would question Romney about Romneycare, much less the MSM…

  38. Colonel John, Santorum did try to question Romney about Romneycare and got batted away with “it’s not worth getting angry about”.

  39. I know I don’t – and I don’t believe you do – want to engage in that long existential scream of rage that the Left did in the mid-2000?s. It feels good for a little bit, but it’s only destructive, not constructive, and I think it is kind of obvious that I prefer being constructive.

    I’m not so sure, actually. That long existential scream of rage wasn’t really all that long, and it got them their dream candidate and the largest Congressional majority either party has had in a generation, so from their point of view, it wasn’t all that destructive.

    I think we’re about 87.5% in agreement.

  40. Lord may be clear about how the Establicans look down on the little people, but he also just engaged in some astounding sophistry to defend Newt against the kosher food robocall debacle:

    the Gingrich ad that says:
    As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes.

    ….is, gasp! correct.

    Is this correct?

    Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.

    No idea. But if Holocaust survivors were included among those in this group, then…sorry, but yes, the Gingrich ad is correct.

    You didn’t take five minutes to find out if people were forced to eat non-kosher meals? Because Mitt’s actions wouldn’t have denied the seniors kosher meals: it just would have provided a more cost-effective means of doing so.

    Enough people in the comment section point out that Newt lied outright such that Lord should retract this bit of stupidity, but no.

    If you can’t admit that Your Guy lied, your Not Credible Anymore.

  41. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher

    This line of that ad sounds like nonsense. They ate kosher during the War? In the camps?

    Great catch, though. Mitt’s not only a flipper, he’s a liar.

  42. if they’re eating welfare food the state is buying for them they really can’t be too picky I don’t think

  43. Wait. Newt’s a liar.

  44. If you can’t admit that Your Guy lied, your you’re Not Credible Anymore.

    ::is ashamed::

    Great catch, though. Mitt’s not only a flipper, he’s a liar.

    Leigh, it’s NEWT who is lying about Mitt in this example, and it’s Jeffrey Lord who’s dishonestly parsing the robocall’s text to say that it’s technically accurate, so what’s the big deal?

    Even though it’s NOT accurate in the least and definitely deceptive in its intent.

  45. Yeah, I corrected myself.

  46. Too bad we can’t nominate a conservative; they’d clean up.

  47. Too bad we can’t nominate a conservative; they’d clean up

    My thesis is that this is precisely why the GOP power elite is working so hard to make sure we do not nominate a conservative.

    Small govt conservative with a mandate? The party’d be over, boys. And that’s much worse than having Dems in control.

  48. And that’s much worse than having Dems in control.

    Being in the minority only slows the gravy train temporarily, whereas nuking the levers of power that make politicians so desirable to Big Entities?

    Can’t have that.

  49. You’re right, it kills the tiny little bit of boy scout left in me to admit it but you are right.

  50. Though some in the Establishment might be trying to hedge their bets a little.

  51. The first mention of the Romney veto is by a Democratic Party group, the National Jewish Democratic Council which used it as part of an attack on Romney back in Feb. 13th 2007 after he announced he was running for President then. It was picked up only by the Palm Beach Post in their Feb. 14th issue, which is behind a paywall.

    In recent days there is this NY Post piece which seems to be quoting only Democrats being outraged by the Romney veto. I couldn’t find any mention of the veto in the McCain 2008 opp0 research file at scribd. I wonder if this piece was fed to Gingrich’s campaign by Democrats? They seem to be the only ones who have shown up in the press about this subject. Still a stupid robo-call. Gardasil like.

  52. apparently nobody missed any meals

    certainly not Newt

  53. you can tell cause of how chubby he is

  54. “Too bad we can’t nominate a conservative; they’d clean up”

    I’m changing my name to “Generic Republican”. Who’s with me?

  55. newt: retro wm howard taft. fat is the new black.

Leave a Reply