Getting lots of mail accusing me of RINOism. Why is it that people who support Newt believe they are backing the more conservative candidate? Where is the evidence that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Gingrich has supported embryonic stem cell research, Medicare Part D, global warming legislation, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, an industrial policy, amnesty for some illegal immigrants, and ethanol subsidies, among many other apostasies. True, he has also changed (and changed back) some of those views. But does harranguing the press really count for so much?
Romney is not a solid conservative either. But unlike Newt Gingrich, who would drag the Republican party to defeat across the board, he has been moving consistently to the right for the better part of a decade and he doesn’t repel independents.
My guess, and I admit it’s only that, is that Romney would prove a far more conservative president than people imagine if he were to be elected. But, in supporting him, I’m faithful to the Buckley Rule. You can have your Newtist colonies on the moon.
To the moon, Alice!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis has baffled me as well. None of the guys running are all that conservative (not counting wacky Ron Paul). But any of them will be worlds better than Obama. The only thing that matters is who can unseat Obama. And that ain't Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've got news for you: It ain't Romney either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe think Newt is more conservative because, well, he *is*.
Where is Romney's Contract with America? Nowhere and he'll never enact a single part of one.
It's Romney that will have no chance against Obama. Once Romney has to endure a fraction of what Newt has had flung his way, he's gone.
in the Class Warfare battle, he loses at the first shot.
And Obama and Co will insure that it's Class Warfare and Racism 24/7.
Gingrich can survive this; Romney cannot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the Newt of 1994 was conservative.
In the world of Newt, that was moons ago.
Now he's to the left of Romney and most of the party on immigration, on the environment, and on serious entitlement reform proposals such as Paul Ryan's. And he stopped supporting a Federal individual mandate about a year ago while Romney has never supported one.
As far as the Contract with America, check Dr. Coburn's book to see that some of those kept promises were only kept because conservatives such as Coburn forced it on Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReagan's America, considering the fact that Newt just got his can handed to him in the last debate, and by Romney the RINO no less, I think perhaps it's time for you to sit down and have a reality talk with yourself. Gingrich is a wife-cheating beltway plutocrat who has relied on politics to make his living for the last 20+ years. Romney is rich because his Dad was good at business and Romney is good at business. Gingrich is rich because he went to D.C. and became an "insider" like so many others before him, though he did make some token effort to resist the allures and honey traps for awhile. Mitt knows economics, wallops Gingrich solidly. Mitt also has far broader appeal to moderates and independents -- crucial for securing the White House. Beyond the antagonists of the Anyone-But-Romney crowd, who does Gingrich attract??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, in 2016, the columnists who are basically 100% wrong for a living will come back to tell us the next moderate in line is the only one who can win.
They think that way because they don't think conservatism can win elections.
Now, that requires them to ignore the record of GOP success when it actually runs a concerted, conservative campaign.
But they press on, because they don't really like conservatism.
Conservatism ruffles their feathers of politeness. There is something crude about it. So, better to put forward someone who apologizes for it, or who is luke-warm about it.
Either that, or they are hell-bent to prove Hayek was right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMadisonian, Exactly right. And sincerely good folks like Mona nonetheless seem tired and bubble-headed. For example, attacking Gingrich for attacking the media because it is 'old hat' to her is silly, because (a) it is effective, (b) media bias is real, and (c) us 'oldsters' need to be reminded how bad it is, and young folks may not be as tired out as Mona. Like you say, there's something "crude" about conservatism: it's called 'conviction.' It's real belief. Whatever Mona believes in, her invoking Buckley means that she proudly wears the badge of a compromiser. In that sense she is a Conservative In Name Only, and her sniveling about being called a RINO is part & parcel of what we see in the Punditocracy. Allow me to summarize: We the Cognoscenti write enthusiastically about conservative ideas for 3 years, and eagerly abandon same every 4th year. Is she tired of Newt's antics? Well, we're tired of hers and that of others here at NRO. Personally, I plan to write comments on her articles (if I care to even read them) asking whether she is serious or just posing. How dare I question her bona fides? Her pledge to Buckley may seem sophisticated and loyal to NRO, but to me it is a confession to being a dilettante, nothing more. I don't even like Newt but at least he's a fighter. Keep plenty of bleach in the laundry room, Mona, to keep the flags you're waving nice and white.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThink again. A conservative does not attempt to advance Marxist class envy and the language of the left to attack success in private business. Newt lost me when he started the ridiculous Bain attack in South Carolina. Even last night with his innuendo of a Swiss Bank account (which was NOT secret and on which Romney has reported to have paid US taxes), he was attempting to promote greed and class envy.
If you look at Newt's ideas and proposals, they're big government focused and incentivized (e.g. the moon colony), not market focused.
Some conservative!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou truly believe that Newt Gingrich will survive the use of President Obama's very best communication skills and tons of cash to remind Independent voters over and over and over again of Newt Gringrich's lack of good judgment, lack of self-discipline, lack of commitment and lack of honesty? I hope you're right, but it's likely you'll be disappointed. Beating up Romney because he's a successful man will lose its appeal coming from another successful man, but beating up Gingrich for being a cheat and a liar won't lose its appeal coming from a man who, as far as we know, is a faithful husband and devoted father.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMona, when some "conservative" voter's pet person falls behind in polls or is clearly not going to win, "RINO" is the knee-jerk reaction and battle-cry. Next there will be the whining sofa-sitters who will "stay home and not vote" on election day against the socialist in the most important election of our lives due to the "elite establishment" who does not honor the Tea Party.
Guess what? My guy was Perry but I am voting Romney on Tuesday in Florida. I voted for Marco Rubio in 2010, supporting him from the start (yet...I am a "RINO").
In 2008, my guy was Thompson then Romney (who would have won Florida if Crist had not betrayed Guiliani and endorsed McCain). Then, after Romney lost in 2008, I voted for the "RINO" McCain who'd chosen St. Sarah as his running mate (which still did not appease the couch-sitting people who allowed Obama in the White House). Rinse. Repeat.
It is not cool to go against the grain and admit who you are voting for. Either join the herd or be labeled a RINO. Welcome to the club.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wouldn't call you a RINO, Mona, but you are like the majority of NRO pundits who have mistaken smearing Gingrich for vetting.
As a regular NRO reader, I can tell you the whole GOP race so far it has been extremely disconcerting to read the offerings here. NO attempt whatsoever to fair but all about convincing us that Romney was our ONLY choice and all the others crawled on their bellies like snakes in the grass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll echo this. NRO, in general, has been on the Romney train from the get-go. Heck, Jonah opened to door for the Right to begin yelling "Raaaaaacist" right along with the Left with his 2 week beat-down of Ron Paul's "letters."
Instead of slamming and ridiculing the non-Mitts, NRO should have been picking the good bits from each of them and pushing an across-the-board Conservative message and, with it's National Review might, influenced the field.
I understand it's easy to devolve to base tribalism and go all out for your man, uber alles, but this is ridiculous. I'm more down on the future of the "Right" after this election cycle than I've ever been. It seems winning is the only thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't have a problem with those newsletters?
As a pro-life fiscal conservative, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I have a hard time believing that he didn't know anything about the contents of his own newsletters.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't so much have a problem with the "gist" of the newsletters, but we are looking at them today, after much ratcheting to the Left of our language and much more Political Correctness.
My reason for bringing it up is that Jonah made it his job to bring up the race issue over and over again. This is something we constantly bemoan the Left for doing and for making "everything" about race. Now, I suppose, it will be common on the Right to see who is the biggest panderer... and Jonah even wrote a book about Identity Politics and falls right into it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis articulates my thinking exactly. I'm less "Pro-Gingrich" than I am "Anti-Anti-Gingrich."
I have come to the conclusion that Newt is probably not the right guy to win the primary. But the unrelenting hostility towards Gingrich exhibited by many of the editors and writers here, their (your) unwilligness to give him credit for anything substantive, and your failure to hold the other candidate(s) to the same standards of perfomance you've held Gingrich to displayed a weirdly personal agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrecisely right, Donna.
The only candidate left in the GOP field for which I will vote if nominated is Rick Santorum. Bachmann, Cain, and Perry are all gone so he is the last conservative standing. Even he is not someone I can support wholeheartedly given his endorsement of Arlen Specter at the RINO Establishment's behest---but I do believe he's learned from that experience given it cost him a Senate seat.
That said, it has been absolutely disgusting to watch these lying, sniveling, NRO weasels deny, deny, deny they are in the tank for Mittie Rich the Poor Liberal Rich Boy while slamming every non-Romney frontrunner and now pulling out all the stops to end the candidacy of the one man most responsible for the GOP's present viability. Before Gingrich, this was the party of Nelson Rockefeller and Bob Michel---and a permanent minority party in Congress. After, it has become the governing party of the body. That is far, far more than Mittens has ever done for both the GOP and the conservative movement.
Meanwhile, there is a more conservative and more appealing candidate in the race and National Review treats him as though his is a clown candidacy. They pretend he doesn't even exist. Why? Because they want Little Lord MittleRoy.
It doesn't matter that Romney's a liberal with a far more leftist governance record than the last RINO they trotted out. It doesn't matter that Romney avoids conservative media outlets like the plague. It doesn't matter that, unlike prior RINOs running, Romney hasn't even done conservative outreach and has spent the primary running to the left, or that what support he has had comes largely from bored liberal Democrats crossing over in open primary states to make mischief. It doesn't matter that Rick Santorum even LOOKS more presidential than Romney. Mitt Romney is a member of the Ruling Class---and that's all that matters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI couldn't agree more.
Gingrich is playing an Obama like game now hoping people will project their hopes for a fully conservative leader onto this, very flawed, person. Yes, he's succeeding but even as he marginally improves his competitive position he is bold enough to baldly lie about his past as if he were the reincarnation of Bubba.
Well he's Bubba without the charm, the narcissist who's got permanent self-esteem issues (always "teaching" audiences with obscure bits of history to prove his "intellect"). Romney is a disappointment in many, conservative, ways but I'll take him over a preening, lying, narcissistic Clinton wannabe any day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMona, I'm not often on the same page with you, but I absolutely agree with you on this. As a tea partier, I've been pretty dismayed at the level of support Gingrich receives among my peeps. The man is, in my opinion, a technocrat on the worst order, completely egomaniacal and unpredictable, and overall a conservative only when it suits him. I understand completely the desire for a fire-brand. It's how we roll. But I think a lot of folks are looking at Gingrich's ability to deliver a nice rhetorical take-down and not so much at the man himself. Sounds a bit like people who voted for Obama b/c of his "style." I'm no Romney fan, and I kinda keep pining for a brokered convention and "someone else." But I realize the reality of the situation. Gingrich cannot beat Obama. I'm going with Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou could go with Santorum, and shuck off this "myth" that Romney is the only one who can beat Obama.
That was a myth created in 2008 by Mitt's managers.
There is not one shred of evidence to suggest it's true, just repetitive utterance of it.
I would urge you to vote for Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse