08 December 2011

I Hereby Endorse Newt Gingrich for President of the United States

In this most vital of US presidential elections, many conservative Republicans are quick to tell you that the two current GOP front-runners are less-than-ideal choices...

And I agree: it is indeed unfortunate that a more conservative candidate will not be the GOP's nominee in 2012... primary performances emanating from the party's TEA Party right have left much to be desired. But if Obama manages to get re-elected next year, it will most likely be because of people who refused to accept our party's nominee- and thus vote independent or simply stay home on election day

Yes, Liberty's (second greatest) enemy from January 2012-onward very well could prove to be lack of GOP party unity.
By not enthusiastically promoting (and turning-out for) the Republican nominee -even if it's Romney- we will surely help Obama win... and that can't happen.

Our near-mortally-wounded country cannot afford another four years of this vile and destructive regime. In Obama we found ourselves a radical, hyper-political monster -one stuck in permanent campaign mode- and nothing like a good-faith, capable leader who was willing to become engaged in the job, get his hands dirty, and work across party lines.

Since this narcissist nut-bag has such infinite faith in his own brilliance, he never learns a damn thing from anybody or anything... nor from his own numerous grave errors. Clearly not up to the job, Obama is in way, way over his head- but rather than being a resourceful manager and taking some advice, he lectures, mocks, belittles, blames, and slanders those he obviously ought to be collaborating and seeking constructive synergies with.

This president has been more than a disappointment.. he is a complete and utter disaster. America under Obama has become a diminished, dark, depressing, and divided place.
We surely must rid ourselves of this lunatic and his henchmen if we are to ever revive the American spirit and return this country to some semblance of normalcy.

Politics has always been about taking the good with the bad and choosing the lesser of the two evils. If I'm in a different place re. Newt than many of my fellow conservatives today, it's because I've come to accept that none of the residual second-tier candidates (pending surge or not) have skill-set required to decidedly defeat Barack Obama.

Truth be told, Michele Bachmann has long been my first choice... it's sad to see the dearth of momentum for this beloved
TEA Party hero- sure would make a dandy VP, tho.

The only other 'checklist conservative' remaining in in the race is Rick Santorum, who lacks the charisma necessary to inspire a following... as the poll numbers have long attested. Rick Perry has been a disappointment to say the least, while Ron Paul is a non-starter for me (and millions of others) due to a warped foreign policy perspective and odd, charmless demeanor.

That leaves
Mittens, but I reject those who's calculations tell them Romney's the most electable in the general. His record of wishy-washy statism and mediocre political achievement has got conservatives uninspired to the extreme, despite a respectable economic acumen and Ultra-Brite smile. His recent angle that Newt is too much a part of the Washington Beltway crowd rings hollow as well. Getting desperate in a hurry, Romney is now sending out surrogates to attack Gingrich, i.e. John Sununu yesterday.

On the debate battlefield of 2012, our candidate must possess the spirit of a crusader, with a glimmer in his eye like the beast of prey... and it's Newt Gingrich -not Mittens- who's got the fire, intellectual power, and resilience required to rip the Bolshevik Boy Wonder and his specious arguments to shreds. Gingrich -with his thorough grasp of the issues, intelligence, and Gipper-esque communication skills- is the one who will make clear the benefits of a new direction to a tired and confused electorate.

Newt is also a far more unpredictable opponent for Team Obama to have to try and deal with than would be a Romney. Surely they're unsettled by the power that seems to be driving the former House Speaker's amazing comeback and continued rise in the polls- something seems to have been unleashed, and nobody knows quite where it might take him.

But Newt Gingrich closed the deal for me yesterday by pledging to bring on -if elected- my hero John Bolton as Secretary of State. This immediately had this peace-through-strength Republican thinking I'm in now: time to relax and watch the Georgia doughboy kick Obama's bony rear end all over the CNN stage.

We need a true warrior for 2012, as the other side will be fighting dirtier than you can imagine.  If you want to label Gingrich a RINO for his past mistakes,  go ahead- that inch-thick skin would prove useful this rough-and-tumble election cycle, too. 

The narrative that Newt has matured well rings true to me, and imo Gingrich has accounted well for his sins -both political and personal. As a fellow Catholic, I am forgiving him, too... as long as he can bring this country back to a constitutional democracy and restore our might economically/militarily, he's aces with me.

Another thing you get with the Speaker is a genuine 'idea man': alas, like many creative and innovative people, not all of them have been good. Yet unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office, Gingrich possesses at least a modicum of self-awareness and tends to learn from his mistakes.

Some of this brilliant, accomplished -yet imperfect- candidate's most well-publicized missteps (Scozzafava, Pelosi climate ad, criticism of Paul Ryan's budget proposal) weren't all that terribly long ago, either. Although he's come right out and admitted them to conservatives, we will need to cast a watchful eye on a President Gingrich (that's what bloggers are for) to ensure product performs as advertised for the full 4-year warranty period.

As for his chances, Newt Gingrich holds double-digit leads over the rest of the Republican presidential field in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida – three of the first four states that will vote in primaries or caucuses next month. In Iowa, Gingrich leads Romney 33% to 20%... in S Carolina he outpaces Mittens 43 - 20%. Romney is watching Newt's taillights get smaller in Florida, too... he's trailing by a full 23 pts there as well (48 - 25%).

Theoretically facing-down Obama next fall, Rasmussen already has Newt Gingrich up 2 pts over Obama nationally... while reports filter out of a panicked White House that just wasted three years preparing for what they thought was going to be a battle with Romney.

Go get 'em, Newt... and bring it on home:

Last month Dr William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection 
posted his endorsement/case for a Gingrich nomination... 
pretty straightforward, still relevant, and a good read.

Official Newt 2012 campaign site:

Loot for Noot -here-


richard mcenroe said...

Newt violated campaign law with his offer to Bolton.

Newt has divorced two wives in the throes of major illnesses and resigned a House seat he had just won. When it matters, Newt will abandon you.

Newt co-sponsored 418 bill with Nancy Pelosi. What kind of champion of small government is that?

Reaganite Republican said...

Ah, my first hater- that was quick!

Welcome, Richard~ who might you be FOR, then?

Something tells me you didn't read the post...

The Progressive Heretic said...

Are you insane? Gingrich's flaws are so deep and numerous it's hard to know where to start. Yes, I'd love to see him debate Obama as well, but you and I know that the MSN and Obama's minions will never let that happen. Any "debate" between the two (and guaranteed there won't be many) will be highly staged, to the detriment of any attempt by Newt to engage with Obama on anything of substance.

Meanwhile, we'll be treated to endless stories about why Gingrich was fired as Speaker by his own Party members, why he led the charge against Clinton's infidelities even as he was cheating on his own wife, why he got paid millions to deliver history lectures to Fannie and Freddie executives, why he sat on that couch with Nancy Pelosi, and on and on.

He'll depress the Republican base and scare the mushy middle by pontificating at great length about his statist "conservative" solutions for every problem that ails us, including granting amnesty to illegal aliens depending on whether they've been to church or not and forcing innocent children to mop the floors at school.

The best that you can say for the guy is that he forced Clinton to balance the budget for four year in the 1990's. That's great, but don't you realize that in doing so, you are making much more of a case for keeping a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress than anything else.

Nominating the "Grinch" seems like about the dumbest things that Republicans have done since . . . nominating John McCain. If all of us could be as lucky to have the sorts of opponents in life that Barack Obama has.

Reaganite Republican said...

Who are you for? Otherwise you're wasting my time

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

My Primary is WAAAY off. At this time I endorse the Republican (but my favorite being Michele Bachmann). I like Newt, and I feel he would make a great President. I choose to wait still the same.

The Professor said...

I happen to like most of Ron Paul's policies. He is reminiscent of Barry Goldwater which is nice. His foreign policy is slightly "off" and he has absolutely zero chance of winning. Given that, id vote for Newt. The guy I wish I could vote for : Chris Christie.

Randy-g said...

His tease of John Bolton peaked my interest...A lot!

Reaganite Republican said...

Less than a month to Iowa, Odie...

And I agree with you on Paul's fiscal views... Palin was right to praise him for it I gotta say

And did you see the Christie video at Breitbart yesterday? Were the guy in the crowd accuses him of planting questioners?

Christie says "Why the hell did I call on you, then?"


The Professor said...

I saw the video. The first thing it reminded me of was Reagen's "Aww shutup" line.

Reaganite Republican said...

Surely an inspiration~

Toaster 802 said...

I hope you know how much I share your fondness for Reagan. While I think He was the greatest president of the 20th century, there was things he did I disagreed with. No candidate is perfect. That is the nature of things.

Reagan's finest pre-presidental moment was when He gave his speech in support of Goldwater. When I hear that, I can compare it to only one candidate currently in the race. Barry Goldwater was a strict Constitutionalist. So is Ron Paul.

Now before the poo flinging starts, let me say I Vehemently disagree with a healthy portion of his foreign policy. That being said, I agree almost 100% with his fiscal and domestic policy. If I look around at the lesser of two evils, Ron Paul carries a lot less evil that directly effects ME and my family. Do I wish he had more support for Israel? Do I think he will treat them 1000 times better than Obama? Hell yes. Would I like to see a harder line towards Iran? Hell yeah. But MAD with the evil empire worked for 60 years and counting. A clear message to the jihadi's that any use of nuclear weapons any time, any place results in the total destruction of their country does the trick. The danger is that the mullah's don't take a weak sister like BHO seriously.

Say what you will. Newt, mitten's, Bachmann and the rest are statists. In case you haven't noticed, we are racing towards a total third Reich police state with the latest outrage being indefinite detention coming our way. I am worried about the debt, the bloat of government, and the same government who now seems to think We the People are the terrorists. That is NOT a Reagan Value.

I was stampeded to vote for the marginal McCain in 08. Just to have him co-author the new Hanoi Hilton bill. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Maybe after this display of insanity by McCain we are better off to have had the election go the way it did. I will waste my vote this time rather than voting out of fear. Your right to say this country cannot survive another four years of Obama. It also cannot survive another four years of establishment Republican rule.

Ronald Reagan did not define things in mediocre terms. He did not promote Big Government as a solution. He did not play to Carter's base. Newt and Mitten's are unable to do anything else but play to BHO's. That is not the solution to winning this election. People DO want hope and change. They do not want them as currently conducted. To have Newt and Mitten's agreeing on the individual mandate is not acceptable.

The statist Republican's hated Reagan for his Constitutional views. Just like they hate Ron Paul's. Paul is no Reagan, but far closer to his domestic policy views than any other person in this race. He is not close on Reagan's peace through strength. But, look how much Obama has had to adjust his foreign policy in the cold light of realities. The same will be done by Paul.

And as far as "wasting" my vote, if the current state of the state continues, I would rather the next civil war/ revolution would take place under a Demo-rat administration. Rather than a Republican one. Over the top? Maybe. I hope it is.

Thanks for allowing me to say my piece.

Mark Adams said...

Not too many here will side with you, RR. I however will.

There are no conservatives left, except Bachmann and she's had to many mis-steps for the American people to get behind her.

Cain's out, so who are we really left with? Newt. And that’s OK with me, too.
Romney would be my next pick, if I had to stoop down that low. :))

There will be NO perfect candidate on the Republican side. And anyone that is expecting that, shouldn’t even go to the poll in Nov.

Some Cons will nitpick some of Newt center positions. But if any of you understand elections, if you do not appear to be a even somewhat of a center right person, you'll never get the independents, WHICH you need to win.

Good piece here, RR. It’s like I wrote it. LOL

pamibe said...

Right there with you; I'm for Newt. No candidate is perfect and while he is certainly not, the alternative is deeply unpleasant.

His 'baggage' has been pumped up in the media but if you look closely, much of it is manufactured.

Reaganite Republican said...

Yeah- I expected the heat for sure, that's why I put it out sooner than later... it's great for traffic lol

But there are plenty in agreement with us too, Mark... how else to explain double-digit lead nationally


Josh Painter said...

Courageous, common-sense endorsement, RR. It's Newt or Mitt, and Mitt is no conservative. He's not a liberal, either. He's just an opportunist who will say or do whatever will win him votes at the time.

Newt forced Bill Clinton to sign balanced budgets and welfare reform. Plus, he was in the trenches with Jack Kemp and other young tigers back in the day in support of Ronaldus Maximus. Gingrich made a lot of GOP enemies when he fought against Bush41's "Read My Lips" tax increase, one of the main reason why the GOP establishment despises him.

Like Sarah Palin, Newt has all the right enemies. Unlike Palin, he was old enough to have known Reagan personally and worked with him.

Reaganite Republican said...

Thanks Josh

Maybe Sarah will bring an Newt endorsement...?

They always seem pretty close and say a lot of nice things about each other, who knows

Reaganite Republican said...

Right on Pam- and let's just get the airport luggage scale out and check that baggage vs Obama's maybe, huh

Rezko, Blago, down-low buddies snuffed at Rev Wright's church... we'll just get it all out there

Reaganite Republican said...

@ Randy

John Bolton is THE MAN

Watch our enemies quiver---

LibertyAtStake said...

Amen, brother. Now, if we can only get the Ron Paul devotees to support a nominee not named Paul, and keep Donald Trump from starting a Trump Party in the general.

“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

The Progressive Heretic said...

Your continual response to critics with, "who are you far" is sort of childish, but if you must know, here's how I would rank the candidates still in the race:

1. Gary Johnson
2. Buddy Roehmer
3. Ron Paul
4. Mitt Romney
5. John Huntsman
6. Michelle Bachman
7. Newt Gingrich
8. Rich Perry

I will vote for the highest ranked candidate still in the running when my state's primary comes up.

Reaganite Republican said...


The whole point of the post -if you read it- is that Newt is the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate

Now that I've read your list and see you're clearly on drugs, sorry I wasted my time lol

Reaganite Republican said...


thx- two excellent points

imho Trump will endorse Newt

TPP said...

I still do not understand why the Tea Party and Grassroots conservatives are buckling to pressure and going with the less than stellar Gingrich. Bachmann and Santorum, as pointed out by Levin are clearly the most conservative candidates in the race. I keep hearing this mantra that they lack the "it" factor, makes too many gaffes, are unelectable, etc.

You're a professional blogger so it seems like you may know more of what you're talking about. So I'll ask you the same question I've asked others concerning Bachmann and Santorum's (un)electability, using mathematics and numbers to back it up.

Clearly, if anything in Newt's rise has taught us, it's that the Anti-Romney candidate has a solid advantage over Romney, in both polls and the potential race for delegates. The voters are there. There is no need to compromise. If people would just vote for the most conservative candidate who could win, we would be fine.

That is NOT necessarily Newt Gingrich. In fact, looking at the Electoral Map, whomever we nominate (Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum) is pretty much GUARANTEED to start off of a base of 219 Electoral Votes.

This is because none of these GOP contenders are going to lose any state McCain won in 2008. Of McCain's 22 victories, only 3 (MT, GA, MO) were less than 8%. Two of those states (MT/MO) have key Senate races that will further drive out support for the GOP nominee regardless of who they are. But in any case, all of them would carry the McCain states. If this isn't the case, then please tell me which states McCain carried that Bachmann/Santorum would lose, including demographic and voter information to back it up.

Additionally, all of the GOP candidates are going to get IN, NC, and VA back. Obama barely won IN and NC in a perfect storm that won't exist in 2012. And Tim Kaine doesn't want to be seen anywhere near Obama in his Senate run against George Allen. History has shown that when you have a conservative at the top of the ticket, these states are pretty much blowouts. When you run someone like Dole and McCain, then it gets dicey. In any case, Bachmann and Santorum would win these three supposed battlegrounds.

Then there's FL, a must win for the GOP. A Tea Party guy won a 3 way Senate race there in 2010 between a liberal and a RINO, almost picking up a majority. Both West/Rubio will get looks at the VP slot, but still, because of the economy, the GOP has the edge here. What people are telling me is that it's better to run a Gingrich in FL than a Bachmann or Santorum. However, the numbers don't support this. Whenever you run a less than stellar conservative (Dole, McCain, Crist Senate), they don't win. However, when you run an actual conservative, they usually do win, and comfortably. Newt is like Charlie Crist and Bachmann/Santorum like Rubio, so you're telling me it's better to run Crist in FL than Rubio?
McCain performed poorly in Duval County, the I-4 corridor, and SW FL than regular Republicans. These areas are much more conservative than reported on and pretty much made the difference in McCain's defeat in 2008. Bachmann and Santorum would easily outperform McCain in these area and have just as good a position to win FL that a Romney or Gingrich would.

That gets any GOP nominee to 248 Electoral votes. Every one of them will look to OH and 1 other state to win the election. To say that Bachmann and Santorum could not accomplish that task, while Gingrich could is a fallacy. They all can do it and pretty much have the same map to work from.

This is not 1964. Additionally, some people want to attribute the demographics of New Castle County Delaware or Clark/Washoe Counties (in regards to O'Donnell/Angle) to the demographics of the entire country when trying to argue that Bachmann/Santorum can't win. Again, this is a big fallacy.

Because of this, I am supporting the most conservative candidate in the race who I KNOW can win, and that's Michele Bachmann.

RightKlik said...

newt would probably suffice... on a short leash

Faith Iyaz said...

I enjoyed reading through your posting. I need to say that it was the 1st article on your blog I genuinely enjoyed and in which I had a feeling of agreement, know what I mean? In any case, keep the posting and I’ll be back once again.

Maggie Thornton said...

I really liked the Bolton pick. Good analysis RR. (I see the trolls are at your place too.)


anticsrocks said...

Very good post, thoughtful and honest. I too am backing Newt. I liked Cain, but since his campaign got derailed by the MSM and Axelrod, I have to turn to the person who would trounce Obama in any debate, particularly the Lincoln-Douglas style format.

I like Newt's idea of channeling Lincoln in that he will follow Obama around and debunk his rhetoric, class warfare filled speeches until Obama caves and debates him.

That alone is worth the price of admission.

The American electorate is hungry for someone to stand up to Obama and Newt fills that bill. That is why Trump got the buzz he did early on, because he took the fight to the 'Bamster.

All-in-all a very good OP, RR.

Reaganite Republican said...

Thx Maggie

And @anticsrock, we are on the exactly the same page on everything you note, except I was leaning Bachmann myself.

I've been saying I wanted a 'fighter' for over a year now... just didn't reckon it would be this one

andy42302 said...

Interesting arguments.
For starters, RR is correct to ask "who are you for" to those that oppose Newt. The choices seem to be pretty much etch in stone (although anything's possible) so if not Newt, who? And why?
While it's true that Newt is running away from the pack, good lord, look at the pack. But alas, this is the best of the best that the GOP has to offer which is quite disturbing. With that, I would think you'd have to look at who's the most electable.
Pambie's claim and RR's endorsement that Newt's baggage has been "pumped up" is utter gibberish, anyway you slice it. The dude's baggage follows him by rail car and we all know it. He's gotta lot of splainen to do. It's something he's going to have to do the best he can with and not try to pretend it isn't there. Otherwise, the media and Dems will eat him alive.
To pretend that Bachmann has a chance in hell or would compliment Newt as a VP contender defies logic. While I understand her firey red meet attacks is entertaining for you, it just won't stand up on a national stage. She's an unaccomplished legislator with a do nothing record, seems to only have the support of the Tea Party (who have recently asked her to step down), has alienated gays, many Hispanics, and many Independents, has championed a fight against socialism while being exposed as a "socialist queen" for excepting mega government handouts for her own benefit, and is, well (borrowing a left talking point), batshit crazy. She is totally unelectable and as a VP, would only burden an already suffering Newt run.
TPP, you make some good points. When you look at many of these individual states, one might look at how people feel about their recent GOP majorities and/or governors. Ohioans are certainly going to take another look at the GOP with their displeasure of Kasich. It should be obvious that Floridians have buyers remorse over Scott. Consider Michigan. How many Hoosier workers would support a Danials endorsement? One has to realize that the recent GOP leadership is going to be more of a liability than an asset.
Oh, and as to who I would vote for? Not a damn one of them.

Reaganite Republican said...

As for baggage, Americans tend to be very forgiving re. personal matters- I honestly don't think it's anywhere near a deal breaker.

Most people have much more dire concerns at this time, he's been married to Callista for 11 yrs already

Bachmann's attacks on Newt have me now thinking she's blown it on every level- kind of burning bridges too, there's no way he'll choose her

andy42302 said...

RR, I tend to agree with you to an extent on the baggage. The point I was making was that it can't be dismissed as something "pumped up" by the media.
You do have a point that people have much more problems on their plates than Newt's runaway harmones. With that said, looking back at the originators of those problems along with the failures to address or repair those problems, that creates an even tougher hill for a GOP candidate to climb. As I recall, Newt's pretty "shut the government down" orinated.
We could scabble all day over who's to blame for the economy but at the end of the day, Bush thrashed Clinton's success and then handed the ashes to Obama. As we speak, the past 21 onths have had solid job growths, dispite a constant GOP obstruction in order to make Obama a "1 term president".
This will indeed be an interesting election.

Reaganite Republican said...

I surely don't share the concern I see from the MSM/Paulbots/Perrybots/Santorumites- or yourself

To me it's 'pumped-up' plenty by all of them.

The ethics charges could be exploited to better effect perhaps, if that's how they choose to try and stop Gingrich... but they're really kind of obscure and don't sound like a crime to normal, unbiased people

You seem real light on Newt's accomplishments... which are substantial, no?

Your analysis re. Bush and Obama doesn't ring with me, either: Bush had a collapse on his hands triggered by the Franks and Dodds of the world, and the mortgage bubble these morons created- everybody and his dog know it

Bush spent a little too much, sure... but Obama doubled -then tripled- down on spending as revenues tanked. Then we get disingenuous charades of 'deficit committees' while he keeps the spending, spending, pedal to the metal.

Obama pledged jobs and spent a trillion $ on Porkulus to do it... more than the cost of the entire Iraq war! And for what... unemployment climbed another 2+ points from there, exactly opposite of the hollow promises (saved and created!)

And re. Bubba's success: ALL came from Reagan's investment-based incentives which paid off HUGE over the long run, while NEWT GINGRICH rammed welfare reform and a balanced budget down Clinton's BigMac gobblin' throat lol

The best things that ever happened to him was having HillaryCare stopped cold then being forced to adapt the Gingrich agenda... maybe that's what you're trying to spin the other way, (sure sounds like it) sure wouldn't want people to start figuring out all Clinton's 'successes' were delivered by the GOP Congress

Now Be Gone, Lib... I'm sure I'll be seeing plenty more of you trolls here trying to avoid the shredding of Dear Leader a Gingrich candidacy would deliver upon a shellshocked O'bummer in the very first debate... and every one subsequent. Small wonder you'd rather face Mittens.

How sweet-it-is to contemplate the progs coming demise- really

black3actual said...

I have to wonder: if you place your hopes on a Progressive, will you still support him if and when he does what Progressives do? I understand your intent, I just don't believe he will keep his word this time anymore than he's kept it in the past. Here's to hoping you're right and I'm not.

raiders1670 said...

Reagan didnt support individual mandates but Newt has. So if you are a true Reaganite explain that one ?

andy42302 said...

RR, it's hard to give a rebuttal as your response bounces all over the place. I'm suppose to give accolades to Newt's accomplishments for you? You mention that Bush "had a collapse on his hands triggered by the Franks and Dodds of the world" when he entered office yet you dodge what Obama inherited.
Obviously, a reasonable debate isn't likely to happen here. "Bush spent a little too much, sure"????????? What really needs to be addressed is what one spent the money on. We could throw links and sound bites at each other all day but it doesn't change history. Bush walked into an economy on solid ground, solid job growth, a budget surplus, and an economy on track to eliminate the entire national debt by 2010. What Obama walked into was an economy in freefall, 2 wars, people losing their homes in record numbers, a huge deficit and budget disaster, a health care system on track to add $trillions to our debt, the auto industry hanging by a shoestring, our global reputation laughed at, a history of almost daily scandal and corruption from the oval office, and gross incompetence from years of cronyism.
In short, Bush crashed the bus and handed Obama the repair bill. Obama had no choice but to get the bus back going again. And hacks like you are blaming Obama for spending to get the Bush crashed bus going.

Reaganite Republican said...

I don't like the mandate... sure glad he got away from that

edward oleander said...

It's almost like a lab experiment to see you GOPpers suffering from the same internal bickering that gets us Libs in a bind so often. And for the exact same reasons too...

We're going to win, you know. You just don't have someone that can pull it off, and it's your own fault for letting the 2010 elections go to your collective heads. Us Dems have been there, so we know it when we see it.

Bachmann is batshit crazy. I'm next to her district in MN, so I've been listening to her for years... "Newt Romney" can't win either because half of him is too mamby-pamby, and the other half WILL get sunk by his baggage. He is unethical, has no integrity, few morals, and lacks the stability needed to lead this country. He would be our version of Ahmadinejad. All fiery and out of touch with reality.

Who else have you got? Despite TPPs analysis, which was quite interesting, but failed to take some basic voter pysch tenets into account (whole 'nother post), so is pie-in-the-sky, ivory-tower, wishful thinking.

The GOP has failed on the economy in the eyes of the electorate. Supply Side is revealed as a paper tiger that never really worked, so you can't win on those grounds. you need to give up this time around, and run someone in 2016 who won't get laughed at when they claim to be moral, and understands a consumer-spending-based economy.

Note: I was a Reagan Republican in 1980, but became Liberal over the rest of the '80s, mainly after nearly earning an Economics degree that I abandoned when I realized the myth of Supply Side...

Run whoever you want... this one's ours...

~edward oleander

Reaganite Republican said...

Whatever you say, Ed-O

Mike said...

You guys are crazy !
Newt means FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES - which we need !
Other candidates mean it will go on and on with
the same bunch of idiots ruling the country
since 1992 ...

Post a Comment

The Reaganite Republican welcomes your comments...