Love that quote, and will broadcast it wholesale.
By the way, for those of you who have friended me on Facebook, I owe you my sincerest apology; it appears I am related to a Paulbot. I swear I didn't know...
... and it's probably a telling sign that I'm more concerned about apologizing to you for her than I am about apologizing to her for having savaged her over it.
I retract an earlier comment. You do know how bad the nominee is going to be. As does Hawkins.
But he loses me somewhere in the general vicinity of:
[I]t's not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, run it into the ground, and walk away with an enormous profit while the business goes under and hundreds of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs
So who is the TEA-making candidate, anyway?
Taranto noted Huntsman's own Twitter post as part of a Bye-ku that JH "believes scientists on Global Warming." If he meant PhD's like Mann and Jones then he failed science class.
Not to pile on Jon History, but when comparing him to the 'presumptive one' a TS'er must wonder: shall I vote for a guy who governed like a conservative but is running like a liberal or the one who governed like a liberal yet is running like a conservative?
It's a problem only slightly less sticky after the bye-ku's strains have drifted off the stage.
My whine, nb, is that there has never been one. Brother jg seems pretty warm toward Speaker Gingrich, I am leaning toward Rep. Paul albeit with strong reservations. Brother ka is stickin' with Gov. Perry, I think Brother ac could play his old PA Senator and we could have a whole debate! (The Refugee is holding his cards vestward but his party pragmatism speaks toward Romneytolerance.)
The Tea Party Patriots on Facebook are pushing OpenConvention.org, I think mostly as a tool to get Gov. Palin nominated. I am pretty skeptical but the options are running out.
It speaks to ennui in the Party. Sure people get grouchy late in the season when their candidates are culled -- but this seems a high level of disappointment in the first week.
And the TEA candidate is (at least in South Carolina) Newtzilla. Copied from the Twitter window:
3SourcesJG @sarahpalin joins Todd in @newt2012 endorsement. #SCGOP Time to rally TEA Party! #3src azstarnet.com/news/national/… 52 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite
The TEA Party is a loose confederation at best but if it has a leader she is Sarah. IMHO this is a monumental shift that could hand SC to Gingrich.
I respectfully disagree. Not that Governor Griz's endorsement will carry weight, but that the Speaker represents the Tea Party.
Gingrich champions activist, technocratic government -- not "limited" in the Tea Party, Madisonian sense. That was okay in 1994, pitching Gingrich's good ideas versus President Clinton's bad ideas. But even the 104th had to provide guardrails.
I remember his advocating that the government buy a laptop for every child in public housing. This was in the late 90s. Not only were laptops $1500, but it would have enshrined a "government standard" laptop that we'd still have today. 512KB RAM and a 3.5" floppy drive.
The attack on Bain was not a bad day but a window to his worldview. In conclusion, I'd like to say "Freddie Mac."
o. it is so on.
I'm thinking there's a "butt-whup" sandwich in my lunch bag today. Tune in around 12:30. :)
Speaker Gingrich does not "represent" the TEA Party but his off-again, on-again penchant for challenging various entrenched paradigms - political correctness, Wall Street mercantilism, nanny state redistributionism - makes him TEA Party friendly. This GOP primary has been a slow slog through ideological soup where none of the candidates emerged with the precise mixture to rally all the GOP factions. [How could they?] But South Carolina's primary is a watershed and TEA Party VIP Sarah Palin knows it is time to pick the best non-Romney and start pushing. Despite ideological preferences you and I may have, Ron Paul is not that guy - Newt is.
Some, even much, of what Newt espouses is anathema to TEA Partiers. This is irrelevant. He is a loose cannon but at least he's not shooting blanks. When he gets his "work not welfare" and "we're in this together but we're not our brothers' keepers" guns ranged in on Obama he can do some real damage.
Yes he's erratic, undisciplined and sometimes undependable. But he inspires greatness from time to time and is the only candidate I've heard receive thunderous applause in debate after debate. He connects with people and his appeal spans generations and classes. He has a strong hispanic following and will do better with the black vote than Romney could ever dream.
Who we nominate will dictate what issues will be debated in the public square. Instead of defending Ron Paul's age, frailty, haphazard prose and way out-of-the-mainstream ideas, or Romney's high-powered corporate fix-and-flip or fleece-and-fold "private-sector experience" I'd prefer to have debates like this with the New York Times. We may lose, but I prefer to believe we will win - the debate and the election.
True points all and well said. I'll counter with foolishness while I ponder the substantive issues.
Remember in '96 how all the anti-Dole commercials paired the moderately popular Senate Leader with the supremely unpopular Speaker? All the commercials opposed the mysterious Siamese twin "Gingrich-Dole." I found it odd as the Speaker was not on the ballot. I wonder if he is the nominee, whether they might bring in Bob Dole to tarnish him. I wonder if Mitt should try it.
You may have me, brother. Thankfully a couple weeks on the Atkins diet has given me a stronger constitution and resilient digestive tract. I don't think I could have taken any of this in December.
When [Newt} gets his "work not welfare" and "we're in this together but we're not our brothers' keepers" guns ranged in on Obama he can do some real damage.
Which he can do while supporting the nominee, yes? Palin does (well, she's even shrill comp. to him). Almost anyone can deliver this message, perhaps not as pithily, but neither with the caustic that's almost as much his brand as anything.
he's erratic, undisciplined and sometimes undependable. But he inspires greatness from time to time
In whom? Think about it, did he leave the GOP positioned for increased gains and a positive direction in the 90's, or did he mainly make a name for himself and lots of flotsam?
He's got thin skin, corruption in his background and can't stay on message. Ohh, but he does have stirring rhetoric at times ... is this sounding familiar?
is the only candidate I've heard receive thunderous applause
From GOP audiences and mostly when bomb-throwing.... we need the indies and a positive message delivered by someone who's an inspiring leader. Not to mention someone unflappable, with stellar morals and good instincts for what works in the real world. Character, my brothers and sisters, character....
He connects with people
TMI, brother. :-) Now if Palin could cause a rumble that would make Mitt stand up & out even more on conservative principles, I'd say the system is working our way, for once.
If Newt were nominee, I'd probably vote Libertarian. He would be awful and never get elected, I'm nearly certain of it.
Whenever I've been "certain" of something in politics, something has changed and upset my calculus. Sarah Palin's Gingrich endorsement was one of those events. Today I see Michael Reagan is endorsing Newt again.
We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.
It's time to choose.
Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies?
So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.
Christie, Halley - eastern Republicans.
Palin, Reagan - western Republicans.