“It Was A Mistake”

Lately, Newt Gingrich has been surging in the polls, and into the top tier of GOP candidates for President. But he keeps having to answer awkward questions, and his response always seems to be the same: “It was a mistake”.

A couple of weeks ago on his TV show, Sean Hannity asked Gingrich why he sat on that couch with Nancy Pelosi in a TV ad, bleating about “climate change” (though Hannity didn’t ask it quite that way). Gingrich’s response? “It was a mistake”.

When asked why he called Paul Ryan’s budget proposal “right-wing social engineering”, his response? “It was a mistake”.

When asked why, back in 1995, he supported the idea of a government mandate that people buy health insurance, the equivalent of Obamacare, his response? “We were mistaken”.

His latest gaffe? In the GOP debate two days before Thanksgiving – a time when most people aren’t paying any attention to politics – he came out for, essentially, amnesty for illegal aliens. Yes, he tried to gussy it up, but there’s not enough lipstick in the world for that pig, as John McAmnesty learned three years ago.

What’s going to happen when people start paying attention to politics after the holidays, and he finds out how unpopular that position is? Is he going to admit another “mistake”?

How many “mistakes” does this guy get? How often does he get to be on the wrong side of the issues?

This is one of the big problems with Gingrich: he always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, and he’s arrogant enough to think that because he is, all he has to do is make a pronouncement and everyone else is going to fall in line and follow him blindly. He’s the personification of hubris. He believes his own press releases.

I’m not even going to raise the issue of his personal baggage, other than to say that if he went on a cruise, the ship would have to tow a barge behind to load it all in.

The fact that he’s polling so well illustrates one of the big weaknesses of the GOP: they always seem to fall in love – or at least lust – with whoever is the latest Stage Door Johnny with a line of patter and some snappy responses to the press … or in this case the debate moderators. Last time it was McCain the “maverick”; this time it’s Gingrich the “tough talker”.

When are they going to learn? Are they bent on being the Perpetually Stupid Party?

I take comfort in the fact that it’s still early in the race. At this time four years ago, it looked like Giuliani had it sewed up; McCain was on the verge of dropping out; Huckabee was running strong. Look how it turned out.

The GOP still has a chance to redeem itself.

Hopefully, they won’t have to say, “It was a mistake”.

 

© Brian Baker, 2011

 

Advertisements

49 comments on ““It Was A Mistake”

  1. CW says:

    It’s déjà vu all over again. Reading the commentary at your TH blog today brought back happy memories of 2008. Not!

    We’ve all been facing the same dilemma for many election cycles now and there’s no end in sight because of a simple statistic: 41%. That was the last number I heard for people polled who said they would re-elect Obama in spite of his performance. And the actual number may be even higher depending on who the alternative is. This of course means that the competing candidate has to get at least 42%, and this is a problem when the non-democrat base is divided between “moderates (i.e. people who identify themselves as republicans but who think like democrats),” semi-conservatives, bona fide conservatives and libertarians. Until we can find a candidate that pleases all of those factions, we are destined to repeat this fight every four years or more.

    A married woman makes a vow to be true to her husband. But if some other man puts a knife to her throat, she has to put aside the vows and consider what her best options are for survival. One woman may choose to give in while another might think her best chance is to fight. That’s not a decision over principle. It’s a decision over strategy. I look at this fight a little the same way. Two people who are equally conservative can come to different conclusions about the best way to fight off the Left. Some think it’s best to stand firm for a true conservative, even though we could risk losing the whole thing. Others think it’s best to go along with the most conservative candidate who can win, even though this virtually assures that we’ll make no meaningful progress towards the goal of reversing progressivism and reinstating the Constitution.

    I voted McCain in ’08 so I guess that makes me a phony conservative. I’m not saying that to pick a fight (my pink boxing gloves are in the closet). I get where you’re coming from on that. This time around though, I’m looking at things a bit differently. The problem with the “most conservative candidate who can win strategy,” I’ve realized, is that it becomes an almost automatic concession to the moderates. As long as they know you will give in in the end, the moderates have no reason whatsoever to re-think their own position. All they have to do is stand firm long enough and they’ll win.

    The deciding factor will be the degree to which moderates have had enough of Obama. I don’t know exactly how to gauge that, but certainly he doesn’t have the support this time around that he had in ’08. If there was ever a time for conservatives to stand firm, I guess this is it.

  2. BrianR says:

    Hi, CW. Good to see you again. And you are the absolute FIRST commenter here!

    Thank you.

    Please let me respond. You wrote: “I voted McCain in ’08 so I guess that makes me a phony conservative.”

    No way! And I’ve never meant to imply that in anything I’ve ever written. The fault doesn’t lie with you; you were given limited options and decided to cast a vote for the best candidate you could find. True, that wasn’t the candidate I voted for, but so what? You still, as a traditional conservative, cast your vote for the person you considered the best option.

    That’s great! I’m glad you did.

    We “Crispies”, as we were called at the TH site, had a different “strategery” in mind, that’s all. As you yourself wrote: “It’s a decision over strategy.”

    The problem doesn’t lie with either you or me. It lies with the Establishment GOP that refuses to pay attention to the lessons of history; we’re actually now touching on the topic of my next essay. I’ll even be more specific. You wrote: “… it becomes an almost automatic concession to the moderates.”

    Maybe…

    And that’s what I’m going to discuss this weekend.

    Once again, CW, thanks for the comment…. and thanks for BEING FIRST!

  3. clyde says:

    Let me say thanks so much for coming over here. Missed ya,pard. Got to where I could not do ANYTHING at TH. Onto your post. Have to pretty much agree with you,this is starting to look a LOT like ’08. We shall see if the damned GOP has learned ANYTHING. They coasted by on angst against Obama last year,this time around they MUST give people something to vote FOR.I don’t see it being Newt,nor Romney. While certainly better than Obama,neither of these two are close to what is needed. I sometimes wonder just WHY the republican party elites are AFRAID of conservatives. Too afraid we will see their TRUE motives,perhaps?

    • BrianR says:

      Clyde, thanks, pard.

      Yeah, no doubt about it. As far as blogging goes, TH has definitely jumped the shark. Maybe the whale.

      I got fed up to my teeth with the mindless drivel of the troll that somehow had a sense of entitlement to just post endless drivel about his braindead “thoughts”.

      I have to say, in all honesty and without wanting to offend any sane person, THAT GUY is the exact personification of the kind of Paulbot that helps to turn Ron Paul into a political running joke.

      _______________________

      Having got that off my chest: You know what? I really don’t understand why the Establishment GOP is so commoitted to just re-eneacting the same mistakes of the past over and over and over again. That’s why I talk about the PSP (Perpetually Stupid Party).

      As Einstein said in defining “insanity”: it’s repeating the same actions over and over while expecting a different result every time (a paraphrase).

      Who knows? Why does the national Chamber Of Commerce — a purportedly “conservative” outfit, allegedly “representing” businesses — sign onto so many of Bat Ears’s ideas?

  4. Gray Ghost says:

    I will again post my favorite quote concerning Newt Gingrich and how he is no more than a typical arrogant politician and clown:

    Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she’s a witch?
    Peasant: Well, she turned me into a newt!
    Sir Bedevere: A newt?
    Peasant: … I got better.

    First Brian, I will be monitoring your new site to see if I need to do the same thing with my “townhall” site.

    Second, unless something changes soon I believe that all Conservatives will be in the same boat in 2012 as we were in 2008. We will be forced to choose between a full-blown Liberal politician from the Democraps and a RINO from the GOP. Even talking to my brother-in-law (who is in the GOP party leadership in Mississippi), there appears to be no way to change what will occur. It now appears fairly certain that either Romney or Gingrich will be the GOP “standard bearer”. Perry still has an outside chance; but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    As to the election itself, I am now somewhat uncertain about the GOP’s chances of beating O’Vomit. I still believe that control of the House will remain in Republican hands. I also still believe that control of the Senate will transfer to the GOP. However, without a strong Conservative, the GOP’s chances of defeating O’Vomit are becoming less.

    • BrianR says:

      Gray, as always I’m very happy to hear your thoughts, and am further gratified that you’re posting them on my new (actually, not so, but for all intents and purposes…) site.

      Love that Gingrich quote! Why are “we” considering electing a young salamander to the height of office in the (formerly) most powerful nation in the world?

      ________________________________

      “… I will be monitoring your new site to see if I need to do the same thing with my ‘townhall’ site.”

      I have to say, I think this is the way to go. You’ll still get the exposure on TH — and I think that can’t be minimized, as I’m sure to a great degree that the TH junior blogger sites are monitored by a lot of biggies for opinions, having seen many of my own phrases show up in other media verbatim — while still being able to control the comment input there.

      I just got flat-out sick and tired with having to scroll down endless mindless drivel from a Paulbot d-head who thought it was cute to be a d-head.

      ____________________________________________

      You: “Second, unless something changes soon I believe that all Conservatives will be in the same boat in 2012 as we were in 2008.”

      Yeah. I agree. Are we doomed to repeating the same mistekes over and over again? Sheesh! Why?

      PSP!!!!!!

  5. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Excellent move!

    Glad you took my advice.

    heh, heh

  6. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Your hits might drop off but the ones that count won’t.

  7. ‘Bout bloody time you left Townhall. Blogger and WordPress are much better.

    As for the candidates, when I have gotten to the point of even occasionally giving any praise to Newt and Mittens, you know how bad the GOP has become. The fact that the only ones consistently getting over 10% in polls are Newt, Mittens, and that moron Paul mean that we must concentrate on getting conservative leadership in the House and Senate while electing “Anybody But Obama” for POTUS. Congress will have to take the lead in The Long Road Back to the Constitution.

  8. Hardnox says:

    Brian,
    Good post. I applaud your making the move. TH is a mess and for reasons unknown could never log in so like Clyde I gave up.

    My guys in the GOP tell be the same thing that Gray Ghost states. I’m still in the Perry camp even with his warts. I like that he’s a veteran and wants to shrink the government.

    I expect that we will have a mistake in the end since the GOP is hellbent to have the left media conduct the debates. I am at a loss to describe such stupidity.

    • BrianR says:

      Perry would be okay. I think his problem would be morer along the lines of whether or not he’d do well enough in debating against Bat Ears.

      For the life of me, I can’t figure out what they’re thinking in letting libs moderate those debates. That’s like asking PETA to recommend a good steak house. It makes absoplutely no sense whatsoever.

      • That’s why the only debate I really watched was this past week’s Fox News debate.

      • BrianR says:

        LOL

        That’s the only one I missed!

        Debate OD, I guess.

      • Hardnox says:

        Agreed, but a good debater doesn’t necessarily mean he’d be a good leader. Look where we are with bat-ears. Unfortunately, the debates are orchestrated to get viewers and ratings, never mind content.

        I’m not so sure that bat-ears would do all that well against Perry since there would be a TOTUS available. Seeing him speak on the stump is laughable. Perry is good on the cuff and should not be dismissed.

        Your PETA/Steakhouse analogy is perfect. I’m stealing that line.

      • BrianR says:

        TOTUS. Good point!

        Glad you liked the line. Feel free to use it. If I could figure out some way to charge for it, of course….

        LOL

  9. willibeaux says:

    Brian! Congratulations on getting away from the loons posting on your Town Hall blog. Some one sent this to me. What are your thoughts?

    “Pollster John Zogby tells Newsmax.TV that with a possible scenario of different winners in the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries — Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, respectively — winner-takes-all Florida is likely to be “the big kahuna” and deciding event of the Republican primary season. Scary huh?”

    Merry Christmas

    One vet to another

    • BrianR says:

      Hey, Willie! Good to see you.

      Thanks, man.

      As to the primaries, wasn’t that pretty much the way it worked out last time, four years ago?

      I think there’s a lot of merit to that analysis.

      Merry Christmas, my friend. Vet to vet.

  10. willibeaux says:

    Brian! Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that only 5% of all registered Republicans voted in the 2008 primaries; which had a very differing field of candidates to choose from. And if so, how in the world is anything every going to change; if only 5% show up to nominate our next candidate? I see so many comments that the “elites” chose our GOP candidate. How can the “elites” circumvent our primary process? Especially, if more registered Republicans participate and vote in the primaries? That is how our system works; candidate that wins most states in primaries ends up being the GOP candidate. How can we blame the “elites”, if no one is going to participate in the primary selection process? We have given up control; no one has taken it away from us.” I understand many Dems crossed over and voted in Repub primaries.

    Merry Christmas

    One vet to another

    • BrianR says:

      Yes. The problem is exacerbated by the way the guys who run the GOP — the “party” management — decide to spend its resources and which candidates they decide to support.

      They consistently back the RINO candidates, and of course the party faithful vote with their feet by staying away. It’s a very vicious cycle.

      Merry Christmas, man, vet to vet.

  11. clyde says:

    Willi,I’ve been harping on that every time it comes up. We absolutely MUST get ourselves,and EVERY DAMN ONE we know to the polls on PRIMARY day. Drag their asses kicking and screaming if need be. This coming year,it’ll be more important than ever. And,by some quirk of fate,we actually get a TRUE conservative nominee,we shall see if the damnable leadership from the RNC will actually support whomever. IF they DO NOT,then we have NO choice but to try to form a viable third party. While saving the GOP from itself may be noble,the blueblooders,and elitists are NOT going to relinquish easily.

    • BrianR says:

      That’s for sure!

    • willibeaux says:

      Clyde! You are making an excellent point. My personal concern is can our Republic stand another 4 years of the current resident of the WH if he is reelected? There is a story on the Free Republic thread that the Tea Party folks are supporting Gingrich.

      Here is the link:

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822324/posts

      I was relying on the Tea Party that Brian organized would come up with a real conservative.

      AT 82 years old I am faced with a real dilemma. Even if we control Congress, Obama can use Executive Orders to push his Marxist/Socialist agenda. He’s doing it now.

      • BrianR says:

        Wllie, I can’t answer for Clyde, but here are my thoughts.

        First of all, that linked article is misleading, IMO. Gingrich took 31% of the votes of the “activists”. But what does that also mean? It means that 69% voted AGAINST him. That’s not what I’d call a ringing endorsement.

        The problem always boils down to the same issue: what’s the point of electing someone who’s going to push the same policies of the guy he’s running against? Gingirch is for amnesty; Obama’s for amnesty. Gingrich believes in “man-made climate change’, and so does Obama. Gingrich thinks the Ryan Plan is “right-wing social engineering”, and Obama agrees with him. Gingrich is a Big Government guy, and so is Obama. They only disagree on what programs their version of Big Government will push.

        So… what’s the point in voting for Gingrich? Just so the nutjob in the White House has an “(R)” after his name?

  12. jevica says:

    Way to go Brian;

    A great idea.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Jev.

      It’s nice to be able to have a conversation without having to wade through all that troll’s lunacy to find genuine comments.

  13. Gunny G says:

    Good post and I agree, Thank GOD it is early in the race.

    Congrats for leaving TH. best thing I did and kudos to Craw for pioneering the move.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Guns.

      Bear in mind, I haven’t actually “left” TH. I’m still posting there, too. I’m firmly convinced that our blogs there were read my others, some of whom are in powerful positions. There are too many times I’ve seen my thoughts turn up, shortly after I’ve posted them, in other commentary by “first tier” writers and talking heads; often even using my same terminology. Stuff that I know was original to me.

      But all commenting can only be done here. That way I can give the trolls the boot.

      And I agree: kudos to Craw!

  14. clyde says:

    Willi,a lot of us have tried to get the powers that be in the national GOP leadership to listen,but to no avail.My FREQUENT e-mails have gone unaswered for several weeks,and NOT ONE call from the party. Not even for “Your most generous donation”.I think that IF we can drag them kicking and screaming a bit further from the left,we must,no matter what it takes. I do not think Mitt nor Newt hate this country the way Obama does,BUT their policies and positions on them are WAY too close to the left for me. While I DEFINITELY am going to vote in the primaries(which,to me,this season will be more important) NO ONE gets my vote in the general unless we are at LEAST 75% in agreement. I am under NO delusion that there is a “perfect” candidate out there. In fact,MY distrust of this whole thing has jaded me to the point of questioning their motive for seeking office in the first place. Hope that helps clarify my stand,Willi.

  15. willibeaux says:

    Brian! In response to your comments about Gingrich I had my research assistant look into the records.

    Newt has been allover the place in regard to globull warming..

    He did testify against it however in the congress. Cap and trade I mean. He had changed his mind about it at that point and thought it would cause a burden on the American people.

    Paul Ryan was on Greta and told her that Newt had apologized to him for his remarks about his plan and everything was cool between them and that Paul Ryan could work with Gingrich on the budget matters. So Paul Ryan is not upset about what Newt said.

    Amnesty is not a real thing with Newt I think. I can’t imagine throwing a family out of here who has been here for 25 years, paying taxes, and being good citizens. It almost seems completely cold and heartless to do such a thing. However Newt has said he wouild not give amnesty to people who have been in here not laying down roots and just collecting money and/or criminals.

    Who hates American more, Obama or Newt?

  16. willibeaux says:

    Brian! Here is an interesting link about former Congressman J.C. Watts

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822526/posts

  17. BrianR says:

    Clyde and Willi,

    Clyde, I couldn’t agree more. That was a perfect comment, IMO.

    Willi, I understand your frustration, amigo. But not only do I not find it persuasive that Gingrich is “all over the map”, and therefore it doesn’t matter what he said yesterday because we should only pay attention to what he says today… I think that’s a very BAD thing!

    What are we supposed to assume moving forward? That every time he gets a bug up his butt, if it turns out to be unpopular he’ll just say “It was a mistake”, just like I wrote in the essay, and that’s supposed to make it okay?

    All that means to me is that he’s a loose cannon. I really can’t stand the guy!

    As to the illegal aliens: first of all, I’m not interested in hearing about being “heartless”, tell you the truth. You saw how well that worked out when Perry said it. I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for illegal aliens. I don’t care how long they’ve been here, every day of it was illegal, and they should have been shipped out long ago. This is the same discussion we had back in 1986 when Simpson-Mazzoli was being debated, which ended up with a “one-time, never to be repeated” amnesty for over 3 million people. The result of that? Here we are, 25 years later, talking about amnesty AGAIN, this time for 12 million or so.

    Never, never, never, and I’ll NEVER vote for anybody who advocates it, under whatever guise or name.

    And whether or not Gingrich says it’s NOT amnesty, that’s the same crock of BS we heard from McCain last time. It didn’t fly then, and it won’t fly now.

    Lastly, as to Watts endorsing Gingrich: that doesn’t mean a thing to me, my friend. I don’t care at all who endorses whom. I make up my own mind based on the candidates’ stands on the issues.

    Sorry, Willie, but I gotta call ’em like I see them. And it’s okay for us to disagree. This forum isn’t just an echo chamber.

    Vet 2 vet, pard.

  18. willibeaux says:

    Brian
    You do bring up an interesting perspective regarding Newt and the times he has flip-flopped on certain issues; haven’t a great deal of politicians over the years? I think the comment I made early really didn’t bring out the bigger picture that I am trying to get across.

    There are no perfect GOP candidates; never has been and never will. We are all going to have disagreements with each and every Republican vying to be president forever. The point I’m trying to make and get other’s to understand is that this next election is not a typical presidential election.

    The 2012 election mirrors the year 1776. We had a King running our country back then and what few rights those Americans enjoyed were being taken away by a King. We now have a King in the White House that has already killed our 4rth and 5th amendment rights and as we currently breathe; he is working very hard to kill the 1st and 2nd amendments. How many amendments guaranteed to us by our constitution is our current King going to take away before there is no more constitution? He’s already illustrated he will use any tactic to shred up our constitution, if he doesn’t believe he can get it through congress.

    Just look at how many EO’s Obama has issued to go around congress in just three years!

    How many wars has Obama gotten us into by not consulting with congress first, but rather consulting and going along with the UN? Who is the first president in our history to try and take away one of our constitutional rights by going around congress and trying to sign a treaty with the UN? What other president in our history has bowed down to the UN more than Obama?

    This is just as a historical moment in our history as it was in 1776. It is my greatest wishes all of us Republicans can put aside our differences in this next and most critical presidential election in our history. We know Obama hates our country. We know Obama hates our constitution. Neither of these two statements can be disputed, after what we all have seen him do and he wants to do more.

    The King must go at all cost. I too am tired of not getting to vote for a GOP presidential nominee that really doesn’t get me fired up. But, this next election is not about a Republican candidate; it’s about saving our constitution. I can’t just sit back and watch our constitution go away forever and I honestly don’t understand how any US citizen could; after what we’ve witnessed the past three years. This election is about who will put our “constitution” before their “principles.” To me; that is the bigger picture I hope every Republican can see this election.

    Merry Christmas

    One vet to another

    • BrianR says:

      Willie.

      “There are no perfect GOP candidates; never has been and never will.”

      Agreed. The only person in the world with whom I agree 100% is me.

      “The point I’m trying to make and get other’s to understand is that this next election is not a typical presidential election.”

      The exact same thing I’ve heard in every presidential election I’ve ever been able to vote in.

      “This is just as a historical moment in our history as it was in 1776. It is my greatest wishes all of us Republicans can put aside our differences in this next and most critical presidential election in our history. ”

      The exact same thing we heard four years ago.

      “The King must go at all cost.”

      No; some costs are too high. If the cost is ceding to leftists that we conservatives have given up our war for our principles, and are willing to settle for a “truce” that allows a leftist to become President even if he’s a leftist wearing the “(R)” label, then we’ve lost the war and are only squabbling over how quickly we want to give up our liberties.

      I’m not at all willing to make that concession.

      Willie, you — like me — are a vet. When you wore the uniform, did you ever question the idea that you might have to give up your life in some battle in which you personally didn’t stand a chance of surviving in order for the larger mission to succeed?

      Somnetimes you have to lose some tactical skirnishes in order to win the larger strategic war. As far as I can see, this is no different.

      Four years ago the GOP was sent a clear message that the McCains — and Gingriches — were no longer going to be acceptable. If they’ve refused to pay attention to that message, they deserve to lose again… and again and again and again, until they either wise up, or are replaced by another party that WILL pay attention.

      Read my new essay, which I just posted today.

      Vet 2 vet, Willie, in a context I think we both understand clearly.

    • BrianR says:

      PR, Willie.

      Where are my manners?

      Merry Christmas, bro.

  19. willibeaux says:

    Brian! As we both know being vets, we took an oath to protect our constitution; period. We took no oath to protect our ideologies. That is the duty we both freely accepted and I still hold true to that oath I took so many years ago.

    Our constitution is clearly under attack and I am going to continue to uphold that oath. You are free not to do the same; that is another great freedom all US citizens are afforded by our constitution. You are hearing the same thing in 2012 that you heard in 2008, because so many knew Obama hates our country and our constitution, so why wouldn’t you expect to hear the same thing when the King is up for re-election again?

    I clearly see our constitution being attacked and destroyed and I’m going to stick with that oath I took. You obviously are going to put principles before our constitution, so I guess we’re just left with we have to agree to disagree.

    Merry Christmas

    One Vet to another

    • BrianR says:

      Willie, I have to say, your statement that you voting for, say, Gingrich, is some noble act of patriotism, and my refusal to do so (if that’s what I decide to do) is somehow an abandobnment of my oath is, frankly, pretty offensive. It’s also pretty sanctimonious.

      You need to think that through.

      First of all, it’s also a repeat of the same kind of criticism we “Crispies” took four years ago. But are you saying that anyone who doesn’t vote the way you do isn’t “patriotic”?

      That’s the exact same kind of irrational statement we hear so often from the Ron Paul supporters, and one of the big reasons so many of them are considered nutjobs.

      Further, I could very easily turn that accusation around on you, and say that because you and people like you are willing to vote for whatever candidate the GOP puts out there you enable that party to abandon its self-professed core principles freely. They know you’ll vote for the “(R)” out of sheer blind loyalty. And as they more and more easily abandon those principles, the country as a whole becomes more and more doomed because there’s no other viable alternative to rampant leftism than the GOP.

      But I DON’T do that, because first of all, I’m not interested in personally insulting anyone. I also understand that a lot of people aren’t going to agree with me or do the things I’m going to do, but that doesn’t mean they’re not reliable conservatives. They’re just as patriotic as I am, but they follow a different strategy.

      v 2 v

  20. BrianR says:

    Congratulations, Willie!

    You managed to write the first comment that I, as moderator, have deemed doesn’t meet the standards of normal decorum I describe on my home page. Therefore, your comment will never see the light of day. I trashed it.

    If you want to waste your time writing rants full of sanctimonious and personal insults, you can go somewhere else. Your comment is the very reason I decided to only allow comments on my essays here, and don’t allow them on my TH blog.

    Thank you for proving the wisdom of that decision.

  21. jevica says:

    BrianR;

    The candidate of the leaders [most of them] of them, http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/01/17/five_ways_conservatives_will_have_to_sell_their_souls_if_romney_wins/page/full/

    “Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins”

    Brian how true this is, “If you were trying to come up with the atrocious candidate imaginable to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama in 2012, you couldn’t do much worse than Mitt Romney. ”

    Newt does get some thing right, ““Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Newt asked a standing-room only crowd in Myrtle Beach, S.C…”

    It might be to late in the game to get someone [just one person] against this guy. I wonder how many on our side will hold their nose and vote for this loser?
    The only good thing is how bad BHO is. The PSP had a great chance to make this guy a one term POTUS but who do they want to go with? Another RINO clone.

    • BrianR says:

      Here’s the problem, Jev. Newt and his pompous question could be rephrased as “wht would you want to nominate someone who faced ethics charges as a congressman?”

      Newt isn’t in any position to be throwing stones at anyobe. He’s a pompous and hypocritical ass.

  22. jevica says:

    BrianR;

    My comment was not an endorsement of Newt.

    Could be Santorum might be the only one that MIGHT be acceptable.

    As for the rest, Romney, Newt I don’t think I could hold my nose tight enough.

    BTW “Machine Guns Vegas, the heavy-artillery range/ultralounge located just off the Strip, is now taking reservations for February 1 and beyond. The upscale attraction featured sixteen shooting lanes, sexy NRA-certified, ex-Air Force lady servers, and a designer boutique. Gun packages are themed, and include the “Mob Package,” with a tommy gun, a 12-gauge shotgun, and pistol with silencer, or”Full Auto,” featuring AKs, Uzis, M60s, and targets that apparently featuer Osama Bin Laden. ”

    I hope I’ll have time to check it out on my trip [with the wife] this year.

    • BrianR says:

      That sounds like a lot of fun. I hacven’t been to Vegas in years; I really need to get up there for a copuple of days, and that gun shop makes the idea even sweeter.

      You gotta go, man, and check it out!

  23. jevica says:

    BrianR;

    Off topic, “Is the Supreme Court Obliged to Follow Its Own Precedents?”

    Got this from Heritage.org,

    “Is Americans’ concern with precedents misplaced?”

    “No. The Supreme Court’s foremost duty is to uphold the commands of the Constitution. If the Court determines that one of its prior decisions was incorrect, it must overturn this precedent.”

    Right the Constitution is the guiding force behind our laws, the decisions of SCOTUS have to follow the Constitution [they should] sometimes they don’t.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/21/is-the-supreme-court-obliged-to-follow-its-own-precedents/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

  24. jevica says:

    “If whoever the nominee is doesn’t go conservative, it’s over. It’s just that simple. We’re not gonna go Moderate Lite and win. We’re not gonna go moderate and win. We’re not gonna go middle-of-the road and win. We’re not gonna win with going after the independents as our primary objective. It’s not gonna happen.”

    If they go with a Rockefeller Republican, RINO, Middle of the road, B. S. guy, it will insure BHO a second term. What fools these PSP be.

    The Republican Establishment Only Wants Conservatives on Election Day

    “What’s so maddening about the Republican establishment is how blind they are — willfully blind — to how overwhelmingly conservative this country is.”

    • BrianR says:

      “The Republican Establishment Only Wants Conservatives on Election Day”

      I don’t really get what you’re saying here, Jev. The problem with the Establishment GOP is that they don’t really care about conservatism as all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s