I smell a "Saturday Night Live" skit involving flow-charts, mirrors and that one guy who does a good impression of Gingrich saying things, un-saying things, modifying or denying what he just said or saying that what he just said was a "mistake."

I'm sorry - a "colossal, stupendous, jaw-dropping mistake of the highest caliber, even though I am the smartest man in America and the only one who can save us from whatever it is I'm against this afternoon. Until I something to the contrary. In which case you're clearly committing slander by pointing out what I just said. Because it was a colossal, stupendous, jaw-dropping mistake of the highest caliber...."

Yes, down with Newt simply because he doesn't bow to the (un)elected Prince of the Establishment. How does he dare to doubt that anything that can be, no matter how remotely or borderline-abusive, called "free market" isn't holy, holy, holy?

I strongly suggest reading Peter Ferrara's "RINO Romney is the least electable" article in today's American Spectator.

A small excerpt, but the whole thing is worth reading.

Those Gingrich Republican Congressional majorities then balanced the budget the supply-side way, cutting tax rates, on investment, and cutting spending. They adopted the largest capital gains tax cut in history, reducing the rate by nearly 30%, from 28% to 20%. Despite that cut, actual capital gains revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997-2000 than projected before the rate cut.

Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4%. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5% in just 4 years, from 1995 to 1999. Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by 12.5%, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years.

This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old New Deal AFDC entitlement program. The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. Those block grants replaced the old federal matching funding formula with fixed finite funding that left the states responsible for 100% of increased spending, but gaining 100% from any savings. With those radically reversed incentives, within a few years two-thirds of those on the old AFDC program went to work, ultimately saving taxpayers 50% from where spending was heading under prior trends. But the poor going to work benefitted as well, with documented income increases of 25%. This is a model for further entitlement reform today. Gingrich also led his Republicans to adopt a phase-out of Depression-era farm subsidy programs through Freedom to Farm, which was later unfortunately reversed under Speaker Hastert and President Bush after Gingrich left.

As a result of these policies, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, a positive turnaround of $5 trillion.

This is what we need again today. But that is not what we will get from Romney's establishment Republicans, who like the Bourbons of France, forget nothing, and learn nothing.

The other day Newt said the entire Bain model was "indefensible" that it was a "vulture" and that it "undermined capitalism." Today we get this Orwellian moron who says, nah, that's not what Newt said.

? <---------------

Exactly, the Texas Teachers Retirement System being one of the larger investors in Bain and in Private Equity generally.

Perhaps someone should ask Texas governor Rick Perry about that.

In an odd way, you could lay fault for the emerging craziness in this campaign at the feet of Bush I and Bush II. Not for the obvious reasons, but because they're both persona non grata with the grass roots. And because they are, we don't have any party elder that can put a stop to this.

This also underscores the tragedy that was Reagan's Alzheimer's disease. Not only did it rob him and his family of quality post-presidency years, it robbed the party of an authoritative voice of reason and common sense for two decades. It created a vacuum that has yet to be filled.

Without a Reagan, there is no one who can pick up the phone and tell Gingrich to check himself.

Keep digging, Newt...

I see the consensus seems to be that in the world of ideology there is no place for nuances, for fine-tuned judgment. If Gingrich dared to doubt the absolute veracity of the Holy Capital as enacted by Romney, he should be committed, taken down, etc.

When it comes to this paradigm, too bad Newt Gingrich has decades of a strong conservative, concrete record to run on. As an American Spectator article shows, this is a man who walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

Those Gingrich Republican Congressional majorities balanced the budget the supply-side way, cutting tax rates, on investment, and cutting spending. They adopted the largest capital gains tax cut in history, reducing the rate by nearly 30%, from 28% to 20%. Despite that cut, actual capital gains revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997-2000 than projected before the rate cut.

Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4%. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5% in just 4 years, from 1995 to 1999. Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by 12.5%, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years.

This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old New Deal AFDC entitlement program. The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. Those block grants replaced the old federal matching funding formula with fixed finite funding that left the states responsible for 100% of increased spending, but gaining 100% from any savings. With those radically reversed incentives, within a few years two-thirds of those on the old AFDC program went to work, ultimately saving taxpayers 50% from where spending was heading under prior trends. But the poor going to work benefitted as well, with documented income increases of 25%. This is a model for further entitlement reform today. Gingrich also led his Republicans to adopt a phase-out of Depression-era farm subsidy programs through Freedom to Farm, which was later unfortunately reversed under Speaker Hastert and President Bush after Gingrich left.

As a result of these policies, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, a positive turnaround of $5 trillion.

This is what we need again today. But that is not what we will get from Romney's establishment Republicans, who like the Bourbons of France, forget nothing, and learn nothing.

Dear Newt,

Please switch parties and challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination so that you can properly wage your angry jihad against Romney without having to subject us to more "with friends like these" ordeals. Huntsman isn't doing it himself, so it's all yours. Be the liberal Democrat you clearly want to be and enjoy the fact that having a couple of ex-wives you stepped out on is a plus factor for Democrats.

Sincerely,

America

It's not about Mitt Romney's character. It's not about Mitt Romney at all. Newt Gingrich has been a Catholic long enough to have a guilty conscience about his lobbying, but not long enough to admit it to himself. It's all about Newt, like everything else seems to be that he does.

I think this is called "transference." If Newt Gringrich wants an effective campaign he should examine his conscience, go to Confession, do his penance, open his heart to Christ's inexhaustible treasury of compassion, and forget about his past mistakes. Then and only then will he find a better way to attack Mitt Romney.

I say these things as one who admires both these men, but wouldn't vote for either of them unless President Obama were the only alternative.