Newt Gingrich once again

There does seem to be a drift towards Newt Gingrich amongst the conservatives of the Republican party. This post by William Jacobson gets to the heart of the matter.

I believe that the primaries will come down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. As such, the choice is not between Newt Gingrich and some hypothetical more perfect conservative candidate, as Newt’s most vocal critics would have us believe.

I’m supporting Newt Gingrich as the most conservative Republican who is electable and most qualified for the position of President.

As interesting for me as the post itself was the quote he’d taken from a Melanie Phillips article also pointing to Gingrich’s virtues.

Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.

The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he does realise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator. He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle — beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure….

Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.

What particularly interested me in Phillips’ article was her observations on my fellow members of the most destructive generation. We have been a blight on the planet and the sooner we make our way out of politics the better things will be.

The west is now suffering from the baleful legacy of the ‘Boomer generation’, those born after World War Two and who turned with such nihilistic glee on the consumerist society that had nurtured them…. The Boomers created a culture of narcissism that has expressed itself on both left and right through failed or destructive economic and social policies. The resulting self-centred and debauched culture has created a vacuum into which the enemies of civilisation are steadily marching.

There is a recognition across the world amongst like minded persons of the conservative right, such as Jacobson in the US, Melanie Phillips in the UK and myself here in Australia. We haven’t sealed the deal but there is a convergence taking place over what needs to be done and who can best represent the values we each hold.

Update: The headline on Drudge this morning:

SHOCK POLL IOWA: GINGRICH 32% ROMNEY 19% CAIN 13%

Whether you can walk the walk, you must be able to talk the talk. Flawed though he undoubtedly is, Gingrich seems to be where people are beginning to line up.

(via Instapundit)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Newt Gingrich once again

  1. Rafe

    Speaking of our generation as a blight on the planet, we are not about to leave any time soon, you could say the worst is yet to come when we start making serious calls on the health and aged care systems, not to mention demands for larger street signs!

  2. Wayneofperth

    Aw gee Steve give us boomers a break will you. The only thing being destroyed as far as I am concerned is my retirement nest egg.

    Maybe you and Melanie need to read The Rational Optimist.

    The cup is half full Steve.

    Regards

  3. C.L.

    This has to be said:

    The American right is behaving like a bunch of scatterbrained adolescents with Stockholm Syndrome. Completely captive to the approved media narrative, they virtually undermine their own non-Romney candidates now without any prompting. The Tea Party movement has been dumped by many of them on the promise that Only Mitt Can Win. Such pusillanimous intellectual cowardice doesn’t deserve the laurels of victory. The election campaign proper is still a YEAR away. We’ll see where Gingrich is in a fortnight.

  4. Milton Von Smith

    Steve, what do you think of Gingrich’s “A Contract with the Earth”?

  5. JamesK

    Newt’s got a problem with $1.6million in consultancy fees chargedto Freddie Mac

    Completely legal no doubt but this looks really bad:

    Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac

    He’s also got the problen with the cozy advert with Nancy Pelosi on the couch for climate change and green energy.

    He’s extraordinarily intelligent but liable to breathtaking implosions.

    The base like him because he’s tearing the media to shreds and successfully for the moment.

  6. daddy dave

    I agree, CL.
    No balls, no conviction. Romney will clean up in the early states that favour moderates, further adding to the Romney-juggernaut narrative. But the primary is a long process and the grass roots could still give Romney the finger.

    The right-wing and pro-GOP bloggers are all against him, unanimously.

    We’ll just have to wait and see.

  7. m0nty

    What have they had now, eleven debates? That’s way too many. When debates frame the… debate narrative… you start to think in terms of who the best debater is. That’s Newt, no doubt. However, just because Gingrich could hold his own in a debate with Obama doesn’t mean he can overcome all of his other flaws.

    If there was a ceasefire on debates for a month or two, I’d bet you’d see Newt’s numbers back off, and a guy like Perry surge again because his record is superior.

    As for this passage:

    There is a recognition across the world amongst like minded persons of the conservative right, such as Jacobson in the US, Melanie Phillips in the UK and myself here in Australia. We haven’t sealed the deal but there is a convergence taking place over what needs to be done and who can best represent the values we each hold.

    “We haven’t sealed the deal yet”? What are you Steve, a Trotskyite? Talk of engineering a candidate outside democratic processes is rather bolshie of you. Ominous stuff.

  8. C.L.

    Look, Newt is smart. OK. Comparable to Nixon or Clinton for cerebral potency, no question.

    But this isn’t an American Idol process to see who kicks arse in a seminar discussion.

    Newt the decider? Newt the fiscal hawk? Newt the Commander in Chief? Newt the embodiment of mainstream American values?

    Maybe not.

  9. daddy dave

    What have they had now, eleven debates? That’s way too many.

    I agree with that too.
    It’s become a circus, and they’ve got 13 more to go.

  10. JC

    CL

    He speaks with a clear voice that people understand and has the amazing ability to explain complex issues in language people get.

    He would destroy Odumbo in debates. Absolutely destroy him.

  11. Bartelby

    Left wing powerful??? Rampant paranoia from the right!!!

  12. JC

    Why are so many debates such a bad thing? It helps people review the candidates more.

  13. JC

    STFU Bart, you moron. If you can’t add to a discussion you ought to fuck off and not post a useless comment.

    Idiot.

  14. Bartelby

    … if people are trained to say nothing, then so-called debates won’t go anywhere.

  15. m0nty

    Relax guys, Steve’s got it sorted. He’s part of the Soviet of United Conservative Kingmakers Inking Newt Gingrich. But they prefer to go by their acronym.

  16. C.L.

    Kennedy in 1960 (drugged to the eyeballs, as we now know) was the great explainer, the charming Mr Cool.

    He won the debate.

    Nixon would have made the better president.

  17. John Comnenus

    Hey Monty, that’s really funny…..not!

  18. m0nty

    Well, I swapped in Soviet, originally I had it as Federation.

  19. JC

    Monster.. stop posting silly stuff please.

  20. Viva

    Why are so many debates such a bad thing? It helps people review the candidates more.

    PJ blogger Roger Simon disagrees:

    “After what feels like the 938th Republican presidential debate, it’s a high time to do the obvious and end this tedious road show now. It only benefits one person — Barack Obama.

    “We already know (oh, how we know) that Newt Gingrich is the smartest student in the room, that Mitt Romney can look like a president, that Herman Cain was a business success, that Michel Bachmann adopted more kids than Cheaper by the Dozen, that Rick Santorum is a mean self-promoter, that poor Rick Perry is the worst debater since Sally-whatever-her-name-was in the third grade, that Jon Hunstman is a bore and that Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

    “Do we have to learn this yet again? Do we want to give yet another opportunity to mainstream media hatchet men to further tarnish Republicans before the real election, while serious issues are hardly given an airing.I think not.

    “Here’s my suggestion. Bag the rest of the debates.
    Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, and, alas, Perry should all go home. They have less chance of being president than your Aunt Minnie. I would say the same for Ron Paul, but getting Ron Paul to go home is probably more difficult than colonizing Neptune.

    “Next, let the three remaining candidates — Romney, Gingrich, Cain — debate each other. They should do this without the media. What do we need them for? To ask questions? What could be more pointless?”

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/11/09/end-the-david-axelrod-debating-society-now/

  21. m0nty

    Oh right JC, I’ll stick to flawless prose such as the following.

    STFU Bart, you moron. If you can’t add to a discussion you ought to fuck off and not post a useless comment.

    Idiot.

    Did Shakespeare write that, or was it Marlowe?

  22. Bartelby

    The thesis that the boomers created some sort of culture of narcissism is twaddle.

    This is a term invented by Lasch in the eighties to describe the post-boomer generation.

    Gingrich is a decadent narcissist par excellence!

  23. John Comnenus

    Yeah I must admit to not enjoying some of the profanity, but if you are going to be funny, then be funny. I don’t mind the rough and tumble even if I occasionally cringe at the abuse.

  24. JamesK

    PJ blogger Roger Simon disagrees

    Simon loathes Gingrich.

    Gingrich has consistently pleased the base in the debates cos he goes after the media and lefty questioners.

    Sometimes a little ott but the last one in Soth carolina on foreign policy as a doozy wheere he ripped the smug lefty to pieces.

  25. JC

    Great comment Bart, you retard. You first start off by dismissing narcissism and then accuse Gingrich. You retarded monkey. Have you bothered to even look at the narcissist moron in the White House who thinks he can lower the waters and accepted a Nobel prize 2 months into his presidency.

    go away as you are too dense to be posting here.

    ——

    Monster

    that also applies to you, you crushing bore.

  26. m0nty

    The problem with the endless debates is that the primary process is endless, and it’s a rather large industry in itself by now, worth many, many millions. At some point the process doesn’t benefit any of the candidates any more, it’s only pouring dollars into the pockets of apparatchiks and carpetbaggers. We have passed that point in the current GOP race already, and it’s not even half over!

    The parties should stop pushing out the deadlines for nominations and other steps along the line. Tighten it up a lot and you’d get a far healthier process, and a candidate with a better shot at the White House.

  27. Bartelby

    The fact that Gingrich is himself a narcissist has nothing to do with the culture of narcissism thesis as he is a baby boomer, not a post baby boomer, so there is no contradiction in my argument.

    Obama is a narcissist but not in the self-evident way that Gingrich is as he tends to connect his politics with his life story, rather than with ideas. As a person, he is not in any way narcissistic.

  28. JamesK

    The problem with the endless debates is that the primary process is endless, and it’s a rather large industry in itself by now, worth many, many millions

    what’s endless is m0nty’s inane drivel

  29. JC

    Obama is a narcissist

    As a person, he is not in any way narcissistic.

    As I said, death row and lethal injection if stupidity was a crime.

  30. m0nty

    Taking a break from lecturing us about your discovery of the unified field theory in the other thread, are we JamesK? I’m sure your Nobel is in the mail.

  31. Bartelby

    Narcissism is understood usually in the psychological sense and in this sense Gingrich is a narcissist and Obama is not.

    In a more contemporary cultural sense, narcissism can be linked to the culture of focusing on the self and its vantage point.

    This is also called narcissistic, perhaps confusingly, but my distinction is clear.

  32. Infidel Tiger

    As a person, he is not in any way narcissistic.

    Of course not. He’d only “written” two autobiographies about himself before he’d even achieved anything. That’s very normal behaviour. Nothing to see here, move along.

  33. JC

    but my distinction is clear.

    So is mine. You’re an imbecile.

  34. Bartelby

    Internet culture is all about the self and its vantage point, as JC and IT amply demonstrate, and one can call this narcissistic.

    Abbott is also narcissistic when he spoke politically at a state function because he was incapable of acting as a function of his position.

  35. Infidel Tiger

    Look at Barry’s use of personal pronouns. The bloke would be rendered mute if he was banned from saying “me”, “my’ and “I”. Every moment of not only his Presidency but American history he tries to frame in reference to the historic occasion that America elected a white boy from Waikiki.

    He’s the ultimate narcissist.

  36. JamesK

    Taking a break from lecturing us about your discovery of the unified field theory in the other thread, are we JamesK? I’m sure your Nobel is in the mail.

    Like I pointed out on the other thread numbnut, you have never posted anything original or thoughtful on this blog in the last few months.

    Can you give us an idea when and if you ever plan to say something intelligent or interesting?

  37. Boris

    “Nixon would have made the better president”

    Is this a joke contest?

  38. C.L.

    You’re not very well-informed about history and politics are you, Boris?

    Just partisan.

    As anyone remotely familiar with the persons and events involved will tell you, Nixon was about 100 times smarter and more capable than drug addict John F. Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs goof-ball whose missile rhetoric led directly to the Cuban Crisis.

    That’s right – good old Jack nearly burned the world down because he was a lying douche-bag in the 1960 campaign. Did you know that Kennedy was privately offered military briefings so he would stop saying the US was behind the Soviets, missile-wise? Did you know he refused because he thought he was on to a good thing? Did you know that Nixon refused to publicly reveal the truth (that the US was light years ahead of the Soviets with nukes) because he didn’t want to encourage the enemy to build more? Did you know that Kennedy’s idiotic arms build-up rhetoric convinced the USSR it had to balance the equation? Did you know that having caused this dangerous debacle, Kennedy eventually surrendered (withdrawing US missiles from Turkey) – causing one high-ranking general to say that Kennedy should be impeached?

    Then good old Jack started the Vietnam War which Nixon had to try to win.

    No Boris, this is not a joke contest.

  39. Boris

    CL, I am not partisan. I admire presidents of both parties based on merit. I think the best presidents post WWII were Truman and Raegan. I know this does not make me friends of the left or right.

    Nixon was the only president in the 20th century who resigned from office in digrace.

    And BTW allegation of partisanship coming from you also falls in the joke contest department.

  40. Boris

    “many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.”

    It would be interesting who on Cat regards their political oponents as enemies.

    I don’t.

  41. JC

    Not enemies in a personal sense, Boris. However their ideology is inimical and they need to be confronted and a no prisoner approach should always be taken.

  42. C.L.

    So you have no reply to your frankly dumb comment about the 1960 contest, Boris?

    And BTW allegation of partisanship coming from you also falls in the joke contest department.

    I don’t claim to be non-partisan. Never have.

    You do, unconvincingly.

    Nixon’s resignation was brought on by a third-rate scandal whose origins were in his own flaws and, more importantly, in the actions of traitor Daniel Ellsberg whose criminal behaviour set Nixon up for a liberal campaign of hatred over Vietnam – the war begun and bungled by the Kennedy brothers and Lyndon Johnson.

    That he resigned is a minor disgrace compared to their unwillingness to do so.

    Fast & Furious is a far worse scandal but you won’t see Obama drummed out of office because of it.

  43. Boris

    Some time ago one of Cat right wingers (forgot who) made an important point:

    Most mainstream right-wingers regard their mainstream left-wingers as misguided,

    while

    Most mainstream left-wingers regard their mainstream right-wingers as evil.

    I thought this is a very good observation. Is it?

  44. C.L.

    I would add that Kennedy and Johnson were easily the most egregiously criminal presidents of the twentieth century. Starting with the pay-offs and corruption that ‘won’ the election for Kennedy.

  45. Boris

    “Then good old Jack started the Vietnam War which Nixon had to try to win.”

    And lost.

  46. m0nty

    That is a Comical Ali performance by CL there. Bravo sir, grand entertainment! Encore!

  47. m0nty

    As for JamesK, do tell us when you’re about to be flown to Sweden to accept the medal, we’ll all be watching on video link as the committee grants you your well-deserved standing O.

  48. Boris

    “Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media ”

    References to media bias are a great pastime of losers (on both sides).

    Left-wing media have left wing bias. Right wing media have right wing bias. Left wingers mostly read left wing papers. Right wingers mostly read right-wing papers. No one is changing their vote.

  49. C.L.

    That is a Comical Ali performance by CL there. Bravo sir, grand entertainment! Encore!

    Blue ribbon ad hom and phony triumphalism, Monty.

    Almost as unconvincing as Boris’s capitulation.

    The Vietnam War was politically lost in the 60s under Democrat buffoons Kennedy (a drug addict) and Johnson. Nixon had to salvage what he could from their epic incompetence. What he managed under the circumstances was extraordinary. In effect, he won the war but there was no international insistence on the rule of law and no commitment to the endeavour from what was by then the far-left wacko Democrat Party.

  50. C.L.

    References to media bias are a great pastime of losers (on both sides).

    No. Nice try with the phony bi-partisan “both sides,” though. There is such a thing as media bias (which is a form of corruption) and it favours left-wing causes and ‘social democratic’ parties. This isn’t a theaory. It is a proven fact. And one doesn’t ignore it. One names it and challenges it for what it is.

  51. Oh come on

    That is a Comical Ali performance by CL there

    Which part, Monts? Be specific, please, and include a reasoned rebuttal.

  52. Bartelby

    The Vietnam War was deservedly lost.

    It was started with a lie and based on a lie to disguise another attempt by the American empire to extend its reach.

    Only the left opposed it not the Democrat-Republican imperial establishment.

  53. Oh come on

    Why are you being so vague, Bart?

  54. Bartelby

    Nixon won the Vietnam War – don’t they teach Hayekians history anymore?

  55. m0nty

    OCO, I wouldn’t dream of interrupting CL when he’s in his flow. More! More!

  56. C.L.

    Nixon won the Vietnam War…

    In effect, yes – you’re right.

    Military victory of the kind that ended in catastrophic, blood-splattered defeat for the communists at the Tet ‘Offensive’ wasn’t secured, however – something that would have taken a non-corrupt United Nations and a bi-partisan commitment from the Democrats, by then a far left party vectoring towards the glamour and the intellectual power of Jimmy Carter – a president who famously had perforce to flee from a rabbit.

  57. Bartelby

    Jimmy Carter through the Trilateral Commission helped save capitalism.

  58. Oh come on

    Come on Monts, you’ll have to do better than that. Otherwise people might start to conclude that your ideology is blinding you to reason.

    Same for you, Bart; eight word slogans that could have been lifted from a North Vietnamese propaganda poster don’t carry much water ’round these parts.

  59. Bartelby

    There’s no Norh Vietnam – there was and is only Vietnam.

  60. m0nty

    There’s a good lad CL, just kneel over the bowl and keep going until there’s nothing left. Better out than in. You’ll feel better afterwards.

  61. Boris

    Barter, maybe South Korea is also invented by American Imperialism?

  62. Bartelby

    The Korean situation is not analogous to the Vietnamese one. The reference to points of the compass got you all lost and confused.

  63. Boris

    CL, seriously, allegation of partisanship from you look hilarious. It is in fact meaningless to discuss whether my view is partisan or not. You can argue that you disagree with it and why, why you think I am wrong etc. This is fine. My view may be right or wrong, but I have no idea how to determine if it is partisan.

  64. C.L.

    Just back from a classy holiday to Graceland and Wally World and he knows nothing about the country’s history.

    Poor old Monty.

  65. Boris

    “There is such a thing as media bias (which is a form of corruption) and it favours left-wing causes and ‘social democratic’ parties. ”

    Here we go again. Let’s say 70% of the media has left-wing bias, but only 50% of voters are Democrats. Who is then reading and watching the left-wing media?

  66. C.L.

    CL, seriously, allegation of partisanship from you look hilarious.

    It always amuses me how you return to your already debunked arguments like a dog to its vom, Monty.

    As I’ve already said (and have always said), I make no claim to being non-partisan. I am a partisan supporter of the Republican Party and the Liberal Party (all things being equal).

    You, on the other hand, pretend to be non-partisan.

  67. C.L.

    Here we go again.

    Yes, indeed.

    In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.”

    Now look at the graph that plots the results:

    http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

  68. C.L.

    It always amuses me how you return to your already debunked arguments like a dog to its vom, Monty.

    Boris, rather. (In this instance).

  69. Boris

    “Nixon’s resignation was brought on by a third-rate scandal ”

    “Fast & Furious is a far worse scandal but you won’t see Obama drummed out of office because of it.”

    Nixon did not when the scandal came out. He resigned facing an imminent impeachment. Obama is not facing anything like this yet.

  70. Boris

    CL, why do conservatives read/watch liberal press?

  71. Boris

    when they have WSJ, Fox, etc.?

  72. Boris

    In my personal experience, those Americans with conservative attitudes tend to watch Fox, and those with liberal attitudes, tend to watch something else.

    It is harder about the papers, since people tend to read local papers.

  73. Boris

    It always amuses me how you return to your already debunked arguments…, CL.

  74. Fisky

    The criminal shenanigans of Kennedy/Johnson only reinforce one’s convictions that social democrats should not be allowed to run for office under any circumstances. Permanent non-leftist rule, backed by military force, is what all decent countries thirst for and deserve.

  75. Fisky

    The American right is behaving like a bunch of scatterbrained adolescents with Stockholm Syndrome. Completely captive to the approved media narrative, they virtually undermine their own non-Romney candidates now without any prompting.

    The media will have to be brought to heel as well. A new fairness doctrine, where every single article in major newspapers must make at least one reference to a Communist atrocity before continuing on with the main topic, would be a welcome step forward.

  76. Jim Rose

    criminal shenanigans of Kennedy/Johnson

    Nixon.

  77. .

    Is Bartelby coming down off a lot of ecstacy or just a troll? Discuss.

    There’s no Norh Vietnam – there was and is only Vietnam.

    You sickening fucking apologist. How many brown people have to die so you can win your argument and never work a day in your life and live off centrelink and never graduate?

    You pathetic little turd. The only good thing Hanoi ever did was fuck up the Khmer Rouge, which you no doubt view as an “illegal invasion” blah blah blah…you realise the Hanoi regime has killed ONE MILLION Vietnamese?

    You odious little prick.

  78. Jc

    No Bart is just a sickening leftist twat. No drugs.

  79. People who pay attention to CL may recall that he seems to swing wildly in his assessment of Kennedy, depending on – who knows what? – amount of beer consumed, time since last cigarette?

    I have pointed this out to CL before, only to get a denial.

    Proving my case would require too much time to find comments in threads from earlier this year, as well as dipping into Currency Lad. Suffice to say, CL was in one of his more severe “anti Kennedy” mood swings last night.

  80. Alan Moran

    Ann Coulter nails Newt with this, “In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton’s impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts — one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized “poverty pimps,” and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros’ candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan’s plan to save Social Security “right-wing social engineering,” we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

    Talk about flawed! However in the Anyone But Obama and Anyone But Romney stakes he is a player. Cain is more consistent but his 9-9-9 scheme would come unhinged if the US commentariat ever analysed it closely and he carries the apparent baggage of knowing less about foreign policy than Ron Paul.

    Perry is still the best (yes I know about….) both in promoting small government as a principle and in a proven track record of operating it. Can he return? Well there were times in the Reagan run when he was written off.

  81. Gab

    People who pay attention to CL may recall that he seems to swing wildly in his assessment of Kennedy, depending on – who knows what? – amount of beer consumed, time since last cigarette?

    I have pointed this out to CL before, only to get a denial.

    Proving my case would require too much time to find comments in threads from earlier this year, as well as dipping into Currency Lad. Suffice to say, CL was in one of his more severe “anti Kennedy” mood swings last night.

    You do realise you sound completely besotted with CL, don’t you?

  82. Driftforge

    Saw this post and rolled my eyes. What is with the heady ‘follow the spotlight’ interest?

    Sure, Gingrich might displace Romney. It doesn’t really change anything about the contest.

    The reason few candidates are able to do more than pop and fizzle is that this contest is philosophical. And both philosophies have their ‘champion’ in place. Gingrich may displace Romney, but the two philosophies are still at odds; only the representative has changed.

    It now appears likely that Ron Paul will win Iowa; Romney will win New Hampshire.

    Cain is losing it. Perry has already lost it. Bachmann is irrelevant. Huntsman, Santorum were never in it.

    So.. sure, Gingrich could displace Romney. What effect will that have?

  83. Gab, please. There is a much plainer case to be made for your infatuation with CL.

    My quite sincere dislike of the way he conducts himself at this blog, and very real psychological issues that he puts on display, contains no hidden meanings.

  84. m0nty

    I have to agree with Coulter there. Perry has always been the logical conservative candidate. His debating gaffes are a whole lot less toxic to his candidacy than Gingrich’s record in the long term, no matter how bad it looks during the current news cycle. Right wingers should be a lot less craven, and back their boy through the stuttering and forgetfulness.

  85. C.L.

    People who pay attention to CL…

    Steve then continues:

    CL… Currency Lad… CL… CL…

    People like Steve, in other words.

    No, Steve. My line on Kennedy is always the same.

    Very bright but practically foolish, brilliant speaker, unmatched for elegance, legitimate war hero, incredibly brave as regards his own physical afflictions, never disloyal to Joe McCarthy, the last Democrat President who was, despite it all, a US patriot.

    Praxis: a disastrous president whose bungling of missile rhetoric, Cuba, civil rights and Vietnam make him one of the worst post-war presidents. He also allowed himself to become hooked on drugs and had – in the words of Malcolm Muggeridge – “the morals of an alley-cat.”

  86. Feral Abacus

    I’d still rate Kennedy above Johnson. He was a fucking disaster. A behemothic federal government, overspending, and a prolonged, micromanaged slog in Vietnam… Should’ve picked Goldwater in ’64, America.

  87. Infidel Tiger

    I’d still rate Kennedy above Johnson.

    Too right. Economically Kennedy was very good. LBJ helped pave the way for today’s ruin.

  88. Infidel Tiger

    I have to agree with Coulter there. Perry has always been the logical conservative candidate.

    I’m going back to Perry. Once this marathon debate bullshit is over Perry will be able to run on his very admirable record as Governor of Texas.

    It’s really hard to beliave that it’s looking like a contest between Gingrich and Romney. Maybe the US deserves a little bit more Obama.

  89. C.L.

    Agree.

    Johnson was an appalling socialist. A traitor to America, really.

    And we don’t know what a second Kennedy term would have looked like. The turd Oswald saw to that.

  90. AJ

    CL is roughly correct about Kennedy’s foreign policy. The best that can really be said for him is when given the choice he didn’t blow up the world.

    Nixon normalised relations with China, which has turned out to be one of the best FP decisions of the last 100 years.

  91. JamesK

    You can see why Romney who is most likely going to win the nomination can’t break 25% and why people pleaded with Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels ansd even RINO Governor Chris Christie to run:

    http://drawfortruth.com/category/mitt-romney/

  92. Oh come on

    There’s no Norh Vietnam – there was and is only Vietnam.

    Another 8 word (well, 10 word) slogan that could have been lifted from a North Vietnamese propaganda poster.

    Boris, you do seem horribly ignorant as to what went on there. It seems as though you are aware of this, because you continuously refuse to provide any argument to buttress your talking points.

  93. Boris

    “There’s no Norh Vietnam – there was and is only Vietnam. ”

    “Boris, you do seem horribly ignorant as to what went on there”

    sorry this was not my quote. I would never say such a thing.

  94. Oh come on

    My deepest apologies, Boris. You’re quite right; it was Bartelby.

  95. Boris

    Johnson ended segregation.

  96. JamesK

    Newt describes the differences between OWS and the Tea Party quite well:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-on-difference-between-ows-and-tea-party/

Comments are closed.