Memo to the GOP Establishment: STOP trying to manipulate conservative voters (UPDATED)

Posted by: ST on January 27, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Most people who know me understand that I rarely ever use the terms “RINO” and “establishment” seriously.  And in the instances I do, it’s usually sarcastically to make fun of someone one who has mistakenly interpreted my disagreement with other conservatives as a sign of my alleged “RINO” tendencies.   The terms “RINO” and “establishment” have both, sadly, become the GOP’s version of the left’s “racism” cry – that is to say that I believe the terms have become meaningless because, like the left with the word “racism”, many on the right accuse someone of being a “RINO” or part of the “establishment” over simple disagreements that usually rise no where close to the level of someone being a “RINO” or “establishment” type.   As an example, I was frequently called a “RINO” during the immigration debates during the Bush era because I was more in the middle on the issue than most conservatives were.

Yeah, ME – a RINO.  Hopefully for most of you, it doesn’t even compute that I could possibly be an ACTUAL RINO. If it does, you clearly haven’t been reading me long enough. Get glasses or something. ;)

In any event, in this instance, I’m using the word “establishment” to mean exactly what I understand it to mean: old guard, Beltway-type politicos who have forgotten why they got started in politics in the first place who have gotten used to their positions of power, privilege, wealth, influence and the perks of political office, who don’t want to see the apple cart rocked – and who will fight anything and anyone who seeks to change the rules of the game … by any means necessary  I’ve never for a second believed their wasn’t an “establishment” in existence –  but I often got tired of seeing people so frequently misuse the term, especially those who blamed “the establishment” for things problems they had little to nothing to do with.

A couple of days ago I posted my commentary alongside a pretty scathing piece about Newt Gingrich’s time in Congress during the Reagan years that was written by Reagan’s assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams.  In the piece, Abrams painted a picture of Newt that was not flattering nor complimentary and made Gingrich appear to be someone who was anti-Reagan’s bold plan to defeat Communism – a plan we know was immensely successful.  In fact, it made Newt Gingrich hardly look like the Reagan Republican he makes makes himself out to be.   Later in my blog post, I noted in an update that another Reagan-era official, Jeff Lord, had written a piece in the American Spectator arguing that Gingrich was in fact a Reagan Republican – but it was a piece that didn’t persuade me much at all to his point.  All that I could see and hear in my mind was Newt Gingrich blasting one of the greatest Presidents we’ve ever had about how what he was doing was going to ultimately fail – and doing so at a time when Democrats in Congress were turning up the heat on Reagan’s plan to defeat Communism as well.

Since that time, Lord has been one of a few people who have responded forcefully to Abrams recollection of events during the time Newt served in Congress during Reagan’s two terms in the WH and it’s become pretty clear to me that Abrams piece was a snow job on Gingrich that took quotes out of context.   I’m still not comfortable with how Newt expressed that disagreement, but at least now I – and others – know that the context was a lot different than Abrams presented it.  Lord wrote today:

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of [Abrams’] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of theCongressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

So now I’ve read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

• “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom.

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

Not only has Abrams misrepresented (deliberately?) Newt Gingrich’s Reagan-era remarks, but a whole host of longtime GOP politicos like Tom DeLay and Bob Dole have come out of the woodwork to say Gingrich isn’t who we need, isn’t a Reagan conservative, yada yada.  The pile-on has come on rather, pardon the pun, fast and furious which almost makes me think it’s a coordinated attack by GOP power players who don’t want to see that apple cart tipped over and who – shockingly – apparently would rather see a snake in the grass like Mitt Romney, who has spent his every moment as a Republican apologizing for it, take on Barack Obama in the fall election instead of Newt Gingrich, someone whose conservative accomplishments during the Clinton years were and are legendary.

It boggles the mind, when you really, really think about it.

We’re at a time right now when a lot of Republicans are still trying to make up their minds about who they want to take on Obama, and the information flowing out there about the candidates is coming in rapid fire and, frankly, is hard to keep up with even for people who make their living writing and commenting on politics, let alone people who work 40+ hours a week who simply can’t keep up with it all – and who have precious little time to devote to fact checking, especially on PEOPLE THEY SHOULDN”T HAVE TO (hint: I’m looking at you, Elliott Abrams).   It’s expected that you can’t trust the mainstream media at all but especially this time of year, because their mission shifts from propping up Democrat politicos during non-election years to trying to keep them in office during election years (especially Presidential election years) by writing misleading piece after misleading piece about their GOP opposition (case in point).  And, yes, even though you’re not supposed to put your 100% trust in just anything written by Republicans and conservatives about politicos and policy you have reasonable expectations that what they say isn’t going to be almost 100% deliberately misleading and/or fact-free.  After all, we ALL as Republicans have the same goal and that is to have as our primary winner someone who has more often than not demonstrated conservative principles over the course of his or  her political life, right?

Wrong.

For whatever reason, establishment types like Abrams, Dole and others have decided that Newt Gingrich is too conservative for their tastes and they’ve put their money on Mitt Romney instead.    I have no idea what – if anything – they’ve been promised in return for their endorsements and hit pieces but whatever it is it’s a sell-out of the highest order that Reagan himself probably would have frowned on if he were alive and cognizant of what was going on today.  Though Reagan was a strong proponent of the 11th Commandment, that didn’t mean he wasn’t beyond taking his own side to task when he felt it was necessary – and at a time like this when the opportunity to defeat a radically far left President like Barack Obama has presented itself, he more than anyone else would be aware that it was time for “all hands on deck” and not a time to be playing around and misrepresenting the facts and lying about your Republican opponents.  Vigorous debate, yes, but misrepresentations and lies, no.

I still find Newt, like Mitt Romney, is a deeply flawed and untrustworthy candidate (most of what I wrote in this post still applies – he’s done a lot of questionable things the last 20 years that make me wonder about his conservatism and opportunistic side) and yes, he’s made some of the same unfair attacks on Romney that Romney has on him.  But Romney wrote the book on slandering opponents and I don’t anticipate Gingrich coming anywhere near that level in his campaign.  I’m satisfied thanks to what Lord and his ilk wrote in defense of Gingrich and his relationship with Reagan in the 80s.  At least on that issue, Newt’s not being dishonest.  His opposition most certainly is, and on an issue that is very near and dear to every conservative: Reagan conservatism.

Related to all this, ST reader Great White Rat wrote a comment yesterday that I think is worth repeating on the issue of Reagan and our current crop of candidates:

Look, the fact is, Reagan is NOT running, and NONE of the candidates measure up to his legacy. Out of the candidates left, I’d prefer whichever one has the strongest track record of holding to, and fighting for, conservative principles of smaller government, and a robust capitalist economy. Romney is probably very good on the second, but he’s by far the worst of the lot on the first.

I’ve also seen another good point made by others that not even Reagan himself could measure up to the legacy many of us have built up of him in our minds.  So while it’s ok to be nostalgic about Ronaldus Maximus and hope that candidates of the future share his love of country and passion for conservative ideals, perhaps now is as good a time as any to stop comparing our current candidates and any future candidates who run to him and focus instead on who they are and where they stand – even though so many of them will try to claim the Reagan mantle themselves, as we’ve seen happen so often.

As for GOP establishment politicos like Abrams, to see what they’re doing this week in an effort to put Romney over the top is deeply disappointing and in some ways disgusting, considering – again – the man has been an apologetic Republican practically his whole political life, something no one can say about Newt Gingrich.  Now more than ever we need someone who can give conservatism a foothold in the White House again at a time when socialistic left wing policies are becoming the norm.   Unfortunately, though, many establishment politicos have drawn their line in the sand and expect conservative Republican voters just to fall in line with them as they have so often in the past.   These people clearly don’t understand that the more they argue in favor of Mitt Romney, the more conservatives will push back against him and them – so in effect, the Abrams and Doles of this country are effectively doing what Newt has had trouble (up until recently) doing: getting conservatives to support the Gingrich candidacy.

And on that note, Newt gets my official endorsement at this stage of the game – for better/for worse (for what it’s worth – which is not much).  I will NOT pull the lever for Mitt Romney unless I absolutely have to – which means only if he wins the primaries.  The thought of him being President makes my stomach queasy, but the thought of Obama winning another term frightens the hell out of me and I will use whatever little influence I have to try and make sure that doesn’t happen.  That doesn’t mean I’ll be a shill for my candidate, but it does mean I won’t be so quick anymore to believe what I read about my candidate and even his opposition from GOPers who should damn well know better.

Update – 6:14 PM:  Sarah Palin takes on the establishment GOP here.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

39 Responses to “Memo to the GOP Establishment: STOP trying to manipulate conservative voters (UPDATED)”

Comments

  1. Neo says:

    When we get this kind of stuff coming from the Daily KOS, it’s time to ask if Obama isn’t laughing already …

    As you might have seen, yesterday Mitt Romney’s Super PAC began blasting out an ad attacking Newt Gingrich for only having been mentioned once—and not in a flattering light—in Ronald Reagan’s diaries. Today, National Review stepped it up a notch and actually claims Newt Gingrich “repeatedly insulted” Ronald Reagan.

    The thing that makes these attacks so absurd is that they are being made on behalf of Mitt Romney, who wasn’t a Republican when Ronald Reagan was president and specifically said in his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign that he was not seeking public office to support either Reagan or George H.W. Bush. Romney ended up getting trounced by 17 points.

    Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, was busy leading Republicans to their first victory in forty years in the House. And the following year, Nancy Reagan credited him with taking up the mantle of conservatism, saying Barry Goldwater had passed it to Ronald Reagan, and that Ronald Reagan had passed it to Newt Gingrich.

    I don’t say any of this to defend Newt. Rather, I’m pointing it out as an illustration of the pathetic absurdity of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

    This smells of a whole boatload of folks who have sold out conservatism. No wonder Palin is on the outside in this election cycle.

  2. Phineas says:

    Great post, ST. Couldn’t agree more. Those jokers have turned me into a moderate Newt supporter, whereas I’d been on the fence, just because I’m sick of them treating the voter like an idiot.

  3. PE says:

    Thank you ST for being so committed to the well being of our country. Note to National Review: what happened to your class? You used to have class.

  4. Wayne says:

    I will not vote for Romney period. This confirmed my suspicion that the GOP elite has seen the power that Obama has accumulated and want it for themselves. They are NOT for the people, rather they are for the PARTY. As an independent conservative I don’t give a wit about the party. Its no wonder George Washington wanted nothing to do with political parties.

    Newt threatens them probably because they can not control him.

    This is an article to bookmark. The GOP has been found out. They take us for dupes. But they had set up a net of deceit for a candidate that will make sure Obama wins again. Romney could not beat Mc Cain. Maybe that is better because only then can the Tea Party do what it needs to do and abandon the Republican Party.

  5. Terry in GA says:

    This was a very well thought out and written piece that brings together and deciphers several articles across the web. It also gives us even more reason for great pause in some of the sources we have previously trusted. I have personally never trusted Romney, but this mud slinging of distortions and half-truths does not help any republican or conservative who seeks a true leader who will stand up and fight for principles.

    It seems to me that it is time for a one-on-one 3-hour Lincoln Douglas debate between Newt and Mitt, allowing them both to duke it out to the end.

  6. Carlos says:

    In the words of the title to one of Cain’s books, “They Think We’re Stupid.”

    And in that regard the Republican elitist propagandist slavers are as much Democrat as anything else.

  7. Dave B says:

    Although ST is correct in her comments on an effort for some to sway votes in favor of Romney she incorrectly assumes this is the “establishment”. What about the attempts of others to sway voters for Gingrich? What about Newsmax in what has become a completely anti-Romney/pro-Gingrich operation? How about Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin evicerating Romney on a daily basis? I think the “anti-Romney” group has pulled a Left-Wing trick of defining supporters for Romney as establishment including people that are repulsed by Gingrich and his personal/political life, people that want someone with character, people that want someone with executive experience, people that just plain want a candidate that has the best chance to get this Socialist out of office, or GASP, people that actually believe Romney is really the most conservative candidate today when we cut through all the clutter.
    How about the utter and complete double standard we have all heard when it comes to dealing with Romney and his past statements? Gingrich, Santorum, and crew are cheered whenever they replay or recall Romney’s past statements but refuse to acknowledge that their present views on just about everything are identical. Yet Romney and crew are jeered for doing the same thing and Romney is tagged for being “dirty” for doing it. Gingrich is just “mad”.
    I didn’t see this “handwringing” in North Carolina when career politicians were coming out in droves to endorse Newt, dismissing his adulterous behavior to the point that would make Bill Clinton supporters blush. The attacks weren’t just on Romney, they attacked his supporters and even his religion. Non-stop attacks by Newt weren’t ridiculed and dissected, they were played over and over again and cheered because he was “defending himself.”

    Sarah Palin (who I love)carries a lot of weight with primary voters and told everybody to vote for Newt. She didn’t come out and say vote for Santorum, the most steady conservative of the bunch. She wanted voters to pull the lever for the candidate in North Carolina that could beat Romney. How is that one iota different from voters, politicians, and others that want people to vote for Romney because WE want people to vote for the candidate that WE think is the only one to beat Obama. So she got exactly what she asked for in Florida and now she’s appalled. I guess Romney should play “rope-a-dope” in Florida while Newt’s machine puts false ads out every day and just pray he wins?

    Apparently the “establishment” has been redefined to mean “anybody that supports Romney.” Tea Party supporters of Romney are “sellouts” or want something. Has anybody heard Fred Thompson or Sarah Palin being called “sellouts” or speculation they want positions in a Newt cabinet? Huntsman’s endorsement of Romney was “insignificant” while Perry, who got less votes than Huntsman was absolutely a “game changer.” Newt was supposed to win NC all along, just like Romney was supposed to win NH. One is “historical” while NH was “expected.” I could go on and on.

  8. CLS-in-Dixie says:

    Thank you, ST! My sentiments exactly. I’m so old I remember when the Republican Nominating Convention was actually interesting — back in the days before the GOP establishment chose our candidate beforehand. In recent years, in defense of my principles and in rebellion against having a candidate shoved down my throat by my own political party, I’ve voted Libertarian.

    Now if only someone with a national voice would expose what’s going on at Fox Cable News, where they’re in full-blown, pro-Romney campaign mode. Why on earth most conservatives think Fox is “on our side” is beyond my ken. For years I’ve watched Fox manipulate the news as skillfully as, albeit more subtly than, the MSM.

    A bit of effort and a couple of Bings is all it would take for conservatives to discover that Rupert Murdoch is a globalist with an agenda, and, honey, that agenda ain’t exactly what I call American. The Socialist/Democrat Party has George Soros; the Socialist/Republican Party has Rupert Murdoch; and the United States has a one-party government.

    It’s almost too late for conservatives to hack off the “servile chains” with which the usurpers of our Republic have bound our freedom and our individualism, but we can try. We must try.

  9. Drew the Infidel says:

    Like many others my only real input will occur on Election Day. I may not necessarily like my choices but, as stated above, four more years of this nonsense will disgust me more than has the past three. And I dropped my National Review subscription after one round of their blather.

  10. sickofrinos says:

    Thanks. The institutional republicans are in trouble. Income struggling rubes like me have a hard time finding something positive about mittens. Romney care is the same as obama care. And so Coulter.

  11. Dave B says:

    Before we start cancelling prescriptions, declaring that we actually know who the “Republican elite” are or what that even means, or vowing to sit out elections could we at least step back and look at the situation as it exists? The “Republican elite” are high ranking politicians or conservative leaders that endorse Romney. Anybody that doesn’t is not a Republican “elite”. Ann Coulter, that left wing nutjob has lost her mind and endorsed Romney and we should listen to Chuck Norris? We are demonizing each other because of who we choose as our candidate. Actually, if the truth be told, the “anti-Romney” people are demonizing other conservatives if they dare support Romney over the others. Nikki Haley “sold out”, Chris Christie isn’t a “real conservative”, Christine O’Donnell may in fact really be a witch, H. W. Bush is now senile, Dole is an elite that didn’t pay attention while he was in Congress to what was really happening, Senator Thune must want a cabinet position, and Rubio is just too inexperienced to understand. Brit Hume is “establishment” and doesn’t know what he’s talking about (might be the first time for him but what the hell?), Abrams has been misled, Lowry is a Romney zombie, and so forth. John Bolten, how about him? Can you get any more conservative and straight shooting than that guy? Let me guess. His moustache must have affected his thinking because he supports Romney. Every congressman that actually worked with Newt and doesn’t support him has a nefarious motive for coming out and telling us what the guy was like and all their warnings should go completely unheeded.
    On the other side Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin probably support Rick Santorum currently. I expect they would and I’m not questioning their integrity or sincerity for doing so. Michael Savage supports Romney but I forgot, he’s a “nut”.
    Republicans aren’t turning into liberal Democrats but it appears that the “anti-Romney” crowd is starting to show signs that they are perfectly willing to use Saul Alinsky’s tactics in making their cases and demonizing those that oppose them. It’s starting to feel pretty damn creepy. Conservatives are not “drama queens.” We are supposed to be pragmatic, fair, and logical. If candidate A, B, and C are identical in their current positions on conservative issues then we should choose the one that can most likely be elected. We don’t disparage people that argue for one candidate or another if they feel he or she is more electable like I see is taking place currently. We just make our argument and hope others change their minds and eventually agree. The Libs are the ones that try to destroy anyone that disagrees with them, not us.

  12. Dave B says:

    I got bounced out before I could make corrections in the previous post. Obviously I was talking about “subscriptions”. Regardless, I am reading closed ended statements here that trouble me. Cancelling a subscription instead of emailing them and making your argument, sitting out primary elections, or absolutely refusing to vote for a particular candidate because of the actions of others is not something our forefathers would have advocated. Getting Obama out of office so he can’t hurt this country further is the prize.

  13. James says:

    Obama’s campaign couldn’t have planned the Republican disaster better if they tried. A lot can happen in a year, but as of today, Obama would win and take some Democratic Congressional candidates with him.

    Right now, I would vote for Donald Duck if I thought he could beat Obama. Unfortunately, Donald isn’t running.

  14. skeptical says:

    Wait. You don’t throw around the words RINO and “establishment type” because they are meaningless. So then you define them and throw them around.

    And you tell Republicans who have a stake in the outcome of the election not to try to persuade fellow Republicans that their candidate is better. You do understand that this is an election, don’t you? Where political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and thus essentially limitless, including messages that are manipulative? You get that, right?

    And so rather than try to get your message out, you’re telling classes of citizens not to exercise their Constitutional rights.

    As a side point, everyone who is accused of being a RINO thinks they’re not a RINO.

  15. martin j smith says:

    Once you find one set of comments made by Establishment Leadershit Media there are sure to be others. Conservative talk Radio has been on this misrepresentation of Newt. I am not at all surprised to hear of this. Romney has not been given enonugh of the business to explain himself especially about Obama Care–which to me is a major issue and indeed something to be angry about. Obama Care is the elephant in the room that Romney and his supporters want to avoid and yet most American voters oppose it. Avoiding real issues is one thing but smearing opponents is really over the top. Romney ought to be Obama’s VP.

  16. Susan says:

    Actually, if the truth be told, the “anti-Romney” people are demonizing other conservatives if they dare support Romney over the others.This isn’t truthful. This well-written memo provides evidence that the manipulation cannot be more obvious.

    That said; Romney has created so much division within the Republican party that for sake of the country he should withdraw from the race.

  17. ST says:

    skeptical,

    What on EARTH are you talking about? I’m not suggesting anyone hold back on trying to advance their candidate to the general election. Just that establishment types in the old guard GOP shouldn’t expect to not be called out on what some suspect their motivations are. Nor did I say that rank and file Republican voters are part of the establishment. I read every day on Twitter and Facebook people who I call friends state their case for Romney. I debate with the ones who aren’t trying to insult my intelligence and have little patience with the ones who do.

    I gave a very clear explanation for my definition of “establishment” – perhaps you should read my post again, that is – if you even read it at all.

    Also, this isn’t to say that Newt is all of a sudden an “outsider” either – just that Romney is coming across as more of the establishment type considering the types of endorsements he’s getting, not to mention the types of attacks that are being waged against Newt by some of the endorsers.

  18. Drew the Infidel says:

    In response to comments about cancelling subscriptions, I cancelled for a wide variety of reasons but still maintain, and have extended, my subscription to Weekly Standard.

  19. WMP says:

    I will only vote for Newt Gingrich if he is the nominee. I won’t waste time explaining my reasons – many points on both sounds have been soundly given. That said – people who read these blogs and stay on top of all the campaign news have their emotions rise and fall on virtually every comment, article and interview out there. Whether you believe it or not, the majority of Americans still aren’t paying one bit of attention to any of this. They work, have families and are generally disgusted with the entire process. When the primary comes to their state – they will pay some attention and then in November will vote. They won’t remember any of the “Republican Disaster” in November. #11 Dave couldn’t have expressed by feelings any better.

  20. bob jones says:

    Anyone supporting Newt Gingrich may want to do a little homework first to understand what he really stands for. Do not forget his wonderful cap and trade, global warming ad he made sitting next to the equally despicable Nancy Pelosi on their little loveseat. Do not forget his failing grade with Gun Owners of America for his many anti-gun and anti- 2nd amendment stances. Do not forget that he helped Clinton get Republican support to pass NAFTA. Do not forget his huge personal flaws of cheating on all his wives while hypocritically attacking Clinton for the same. Do not forget he has called the Dem party the “party of food stamps”, yet he backed Bush in expanding the food stamp program in 2002. Do not forget his support of Obamacare. Do not forget he is a commited globalist who has often talked about his disdain for our Constitution and his open contempt for American sovereignty and freedom and his public endorsement of Alvin Toffler’s radically anti-American book “The Third Wave”, even recommending his fellow congressmen read it. Do not forget his hypocrisy of railing against federal spending while making his Georgia county one of the 3 highest federally subsidized counties in the entire country. So other than these and considerably more moral flaws, Gingrich seems to be the perfect candidate, just a little to the left of Obama, and not quite as honest or honorable. Quite a candidate indeed.

  21. Tina Ferrer says:

    This article nails it for me and most of my colleagues. The nation does not need a New England moderate posing as a conservative right now. All who agree with this know we need to create a solid conservative foothold in the molecular workings of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and is clear to anyone who lived the history Gingrich comes closest to effectuating this where Romney does not.

    The Republican establishment continues to irritate and summarily snub even moderate conservatives in the current econ-socio-political context which will I’m afraid defer a very large voting block that the party and candidate cannot win without. The closer we get to a final candidate disposition the more the establishment pokes us in the eye. The establishment should follow Jeb’s position and stay out of it, let Gingrich and Romney go at it.

    But no, the Establishment isn’t feeling any true pressure at this time. They’re not sensing the people’s anxiety and urgency to reverse course as they seek and expect this imperative vote. They know they’re hemorrhaging the conservative base yet they continue to think they could run Triumph the insult Dog and we would have no option but to coalesce around Triumph vs. Obama. Let me be very clear here establishment, should you continue to force feed us Romney and he becomes the GOP’s candidate then loses? At such an important point and the worst possible time in our history? You can bank that we the people will begin to take out the unconscious Arlen Spector wannabe trash rendering those eunuch’s dispatched having no voice whatsoever in any representative capacity going forward. No? Try us GOP…….

  22. Jiji says:

    What a broad range of opinions and speculation in here. I think it is the one thing that we can be grateful to Obama for; Obama’s administration is so corrupt, so anti-American, so foul that I believe a lot of people who never paid much attention to politics before are awake and trying to participate in the process. I can only hope it is not too late for the future of this great country.

  23. Carlos says:

    “…or GASP, people that actually believe Romney is really the most conservative candidate today when we cut through all the clutter.”

    And there’s the rub, Dave. By most “conservative” standards, none of them is a “conservative,” and each of us is left to twist or untwist words and sound bites into making our personal choices “conservative.”

    And if RR came back in a cloud of glory, most “conservatives” would still find things about him not to like/love (like expanding the government he swore he would shrink).

    And one more thing: I refuse to take at face value any attack on any of the Repub candidates, and also refuse to take at face value the self-promotional statements of any candidate.

  24. Y-not says:

    Thanks for this post.

    I was a Newt leaner since Perry dropped out, but unless Santorum shows me some reason to vote for him (which doesn’t seem likely at this stage) I’m supporting Newt.

    I hope the tactics Romney is using back-fire. He’s really starting to remind me of Nixon.

  25. Carlos says:

    Reminds me a lot of Obama, Y-not.

    And Kerry. And Algore. And Bubba. And…

    An almost indistinguishable look like a Democrat. I wonder why?

  26. Miroco says:

    Excellent piece, which generated thoughtful replies,why are there not more of us? We needn’t agree on every issue as long as we agree that the government does nothing well. Down to me and the Gov would pay the military and hire private contractors to build roads—end of conversation. My hope emanates from young folks like Sister and Phineas and my Daughter, they still want some government but they will learn;)

  27. EBL says:

    Neo–wow. Not only did you find that at the Daily Kos, but it is spot on right.