Good morning, sleepyheads - let me get all the party favours and confetti swept out of the airlock, and we'll get to the more recent stuff.
First up - Jim Rob is still throwing a hissy fit about Romney.
Me? I can't wait for the day Romney gets the nomination. We'll have to all work double shifts to clean the exploding head detritus off the iso chamber walls.
The day the tea party embraces Mitt Romney is the day the tea party accepts defeat
Vanity | Dec 17, 2012 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:08:08 PM by Jim Robinson
First there was the Reagan Revolution, then Newt's Republican Revolution, and now the Tea Party Revolution.
Then the Palin Phenomenon, then the Perry Phenomenon, then the Cain Trainwreck, then the Bachmann-Turner Overreach. How is this trend looking to ya so far, Jimbo?
In each successive revolution, the lovers of liberty threw off a bit more of the yoke of the oppressive ruling class to reestablish some vital part of our God given liberty and freedom.
But enough about Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
Pro-life, small government, big defense Ronald Reagan set and accomplished the goal of bringing down the socialist Soviet Union as a threat to the world and reestablished free America as the dominate superpower. He rescued America from the hapless Jimmy Carter who had dragged the nation down into to the depths of despair.
And all this time I was thinking that Reagan was president in 1982.
Reagan taught us that our best years were indeed yet to come. He reinvigorated our economy by reducing government regulations and taxes and created a free market environment ripe for capitalism to flourish.
Um - the corporate giveaways and capital gains tax cuts occurred in 1981.
A lover of life and freedom, he fought off the socialists and merchants of doom and death at every turn
Nah - that was just him confusing movies he was in with reality.
and sparked the beginning of the decades long Reagan Economy. He was a champion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and he delivered us from evil.
While sleeping at Cabinet meetings and ony waking to spin multiple plates on sticks while singing the Catalina Magdelina Hoopensteiner Wallendiner song, yes, yes, we get it.
Pro-life, small government, big defense Reaganite, Newt Gingrich, set and accomplished the major goal of wresting the congressional majority away from the socialist Democrats who had held it for forty years. His conservative Republican Revolution cut the taxes, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut unemployment, blocked President Clinton's progressive agenda, blocked HillaryCare, reformed welfare, defended life, and balanced the budget four years running, ensuring that the Reagan Economy flourished and stretched throughout his term and beyond.
Mitt Romney set goals of protecting and sustaining abortion as safe and legal in America. He sought to be more radical than Ted Kennedy in respects to "gay rights." He swore to defend Massachusetts' strict gun-control laws that "kept us safe" and promised not to chip away at them. He set and accomplished the goal of bringing big government healthcare solutions to his state and mandating that all formerly free citizens must purchase a government approved product or suffer a tax penalty. He loves mandates against the people.
He stated that he was an independent during Reagan-Bush and he was not returning to Reagan-Bush. And he didn't. Instead, he delivered taxpayer funded abortion, gay marriage, gun-control, socialized healthcare, busted budgets, ruined economy, liberal activist judges and a destroyed Republican label.
It's funny as fuck, you bunch of losers complaining about somebody else destroying the "Republican Label".
Nice of you to admit that it's just another product with a shitty ad campaign, though.
Romney was and is demonstrably per record an anti-Reagan, pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-gun-control, anti-liberty, pro-socialist healthcare, mandate-loving, liberal judge appointing, budget busting progressive.
He is without a doubt the exact opposite of Reagan, Gingrich, the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution and the Tea Party Revolution.
If the Tea Party now embraces Romney, it will have accepted defeat and surrendered to the ruling class.
There is a reason why the elite establishment GOPers are pushing the anti-Reagan Romney and rejecting the pro-life, Reaganite Newt Gingrich. And I guarantee you, it's not in the best interest of the Tea Party or the Liberty we seek.
Not on my watch!! No Romney, no way!!
(Dec 29) But the Rasmussen Reports survey contained additional positive data for Romney. The poll showed 75 percent of those who identified themselves with the tea party movement supported Romney over Obama.
Why does the Tea Party hate America?
Rebellion is brewing!!
To: Jim RobinsonIf the Tea Party now embraces Romney, it will have accepted defeat and surrendered to the ruling class.
What if Romney eventually becomes the GOP nominee, and in Nov. '12 it's either him or another 4 years of America's Chickens Coming Home to Roost?
Should the Tea Party very begrudgingly mumble some kind of wet napkin support for Romney, or write off the White House and focus on Conservative House/Senate candidates to thwart the Executive Branch?
Just askin'24 posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:26:57 PM by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)..To: montyspythonWhat don’t you understand regarding the term ZOT?
If people get ZOT'd merely for expressing a different opinion, you don't have to ZOT me. I'm outta here.
(Proud to be FReeper since Dec 3, 1997)
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
(An entirely free service)..
> What the Tea Party needs is to pack the Congress with like minded conservatives.
Excellent point and one that bears repeating.
I’m not spending anything on the Presidential race. The field ranges from iffy to horrible. I’m saving my bucks to spend on Congressional races where we have a chance to turn the tide.
I suggest we all do the same. Congress is where we can override Zer0 or a capitulating RINO.
I remember a time not too long ago when Ann Coulter was welcomed at FR; there are still pictures of her with FR members somewhere back in the archives. But here she is, solidly in bed with Romney and the other northeastern RINO’s/liberals.
Whether its her love of Chris Cristie (She likes an obese person? Add their two weights together and divide by two and you have that of a normal person) or what, I don’t know. But she has abandoned conservative principles and now joins those who shun Newt and other Tea Party conservatives. Besides the above linked article, she appeared on O’Reilly’s show last night to hammer home her conversion. Even Rudy (whose fate on here we know) has defended Newt which shows how far out in the Boston tide flats Romney has walked.
All my posts until after Florida must be prefaced with: “If this race boils down to Newt vs Romney, then I’m all in for Newt!”
Just get tired of typing it in.
There's this wonderful new invention that just came out - it's called "macros".
Any official endorsement from me can wait another month.
Not that it matters.
To: Jim RobinsonNo matter how you feel about Gingrich, I'd keep another anti-Romney candidate in your back pocket, Jim.
Given that the SEC just filed a fraud suit against Freddie Mac's Richard F. Syron on Friday, you've got to know that the MSM is going to turn over every rock laboriously to find a way to connect to Newt Gingrich's very real payments from Freddie Mac to Syron's malfeasance. Newt was taking heat for those payments when Syron wasn't identified as a crook. Imagine what's going to happen IF they prove that Syron & Newt were longtime friends and associates -- which is how Newt got the job at Freddie Mac in the first place -- and then the messy details of how Syron screwed American taxpayers starts invading every headline.
I could be wrong but I don't see this ending well for Newt at all.84 posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:15:05 PM by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)..To: Bokababe
Anyone but Romney or Obama... or Paul. I’d be delighted to see Romney as a one percenter and the other more conservative candidates competing for the nomination. However, as of this moment, Newt appears to be the genuine Romney killer. And if it’s still a two way contest between Newt vs Romney after the early primaries, I’ll probably go all in with Newt. We must begin building our conservative coalition as soon as possible lest we end up with Mitt as the last man standing, ie, as in what happened last time with McCain.89 posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:25:51 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)..To: Jim RobinsonAnyone but Romney or Obama... or Paul
I know that you are going to hate it, but in terms of support within the Party and ability to beat Obama, I predict that it is going to come down to Romney or Paul.
I really can't imagine Santorum, Bachmann or any of the others catching fire at this late date and it's going to be too late for anyone else to jump in as Republican. ANY third Party candidate will just dilute the Republican vote & give it to Obama.
This election is going to be a wild ride.
To: Jim RobinsonHis (Gingrich's) conservative Republican Revolution cut the taxes, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut unemployment, blocked President Clinton's progressive agenda, blocked HillaryCare, reformed welfare, defended life, and balanced the budget four years running,
I hate revisionist history. The federal debt has gone up every single year since 1957. Sure, Gingrich passed some balanced budget on paper and then voted for supplemental and emergency spending bills. And don't forget, they spent every dime of the large Social Security surpluses during those years, leaving behind massive IOUs. If it comes down to Gingrich or Romney I'll vote for NAFTA / WTO Newt, but I'll need a designated driver to get to the polls.
Newt Gingrich’s Assault On The Judiciary outsidethebeltway.com ^ | Sunday, December 18, 2011 | Doug Mataconis
Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:04:09 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Over the past few days, Newt Gingrich has stepped up his rhetoric against the Federal Judiciary, exemplified by his comments during Thursday’s debate. Over the weekend, for example, Gingrich suggested in a conference call with reporters that were he President he would feel free to ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagreed with:
Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.
“I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.
In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of “judicial supremacy” and restrain judges to a more limited role in American government. “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful,” he said in Thursday’s Iowa debate.
It's almost as if we lived in a nation of laws, rather than Presidential Fiat.
As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.
Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court’s 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.
“That was clearly an overreach by the court,” Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court’s decision “null and void,” he said...To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Newt just puckered the sphincters of every lawyer in America.
It is past time to rein in the terror of The Black-Robed Priests, and put the Constitution first again.
Murgatroyd - this may come as a shock to you, but the Constitution that you claim to revere so was written by a bunch of lawyers!
As much as I hate the out of control Judiciary, Newt’s claim that he would have US Marshal’s go and arrest Federal Judges is the height or dictatorial nonsense!
Only one other President in our history did such a thing — and he WAS a dictator, for all intents and purposes. He swore out a warrant on the Chief Justice of the United States, who had ruled against him (quite correctly in this case) on a Constitutional issue, and ordered Federal Marshals to apprehend him. The Warrant was NEVER executed because no Federal Marshal was ever found that would actually enforce it, or alternatively, those who would have enforced it were met by either military forces or other law enforcement who would have “shot back” if they attempted to take Taney by force.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice — 84 yr old Roger B. Taney. The President — Abraham Lincoln. The case — Ex Parte Merryman, in which Taney excoriated Lincoln for his suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus (protection against false or indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial). Taney said the suspension, if it TRULY was “in the public interest,” MUST be approved by Congress. Congress NEVER approved it. The SCOTUS ruled against it. Lincoln IGNORED BOTH and EXPANDED the suspension of Habeas Corpus, along with other Civil Rights.
This just demonstrates two major truths: (1) Newt Gingrich, for being a History Professor, does NOT understand the Constitution, or if he does, he’s on the WRONG side of it! (2) Abraham Lincoln was the BIGGEST Tyrant who ever sat in the White House — and Newt aspires to be just like him! (Of course, so did Newt’s hero — FDR!)
He also brought up as an example the 9th circus court declaring “under god” unconstitutional. Is that an “extraordinary” situation as well?
Again, who decides what is “extraordinary”? Would you really want the president (i.e. Obama) to decide. I don’t think so!
We have to be very careful about this stuff. It’s easy enough to want that when one of our guys is in power, but would we want that when some lefty lunatic is in power?
..as opposed to a righty lunatic?
Again, I’m sympathetic to reducing the courts power, but so far I haven’t heard any proposal that improves on what we have. Giving the president (think Obama) the power to arbitrarily dismiss a court’s decision would be a nightmare.
Newt’s war on the courts Hot Air ^ | December 18, 2011 | Jazz Shaw
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:40:44 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Given Newt Gingrich’s rather curious comments on the judicial branch of the federal government during last week’s GOP debate in Iowa, and the fact that he has doubled – if not tripled – down on them since then, two serious questions remain. While they draw raucous applause from conservative debate crowds, are these even remotely viable proposals and, perhaps more to the point, is he even serious?
As to the first matter, there’s more than ample evidence that these latest products rolling off the production line at the idea factory that is Newt Gingrich may have skipped over the Quality Control station checkpoint. Should federal judges not serve for life? Should they be subpoenaed to explain their less than satisfactory decisions to Congress? Can the president simply ignore their decisions if he/she finds them unacceptable? To get the full history of these suggestions – which are actually far from new – attorney Doug Mataconis provides an extensive tutorial. As usual, it’s fairly long with a lot of material to go over, but you’ll find the history of court cases and historical vignettes which provide the backdrop to where we stand today. But for a shorter summary, Gerald Shargel dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.
What Gingrich ignored last night, and what was only noted briefly by Ron Paul, is that under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life. Only personal misconduct can result in impeachment and removal. A judge may not be removed because of decisions with which Republicans disagree. Gingrich should be smart enough to know that subpoenaing judges is neither legal nor workable. But this historian also knows that the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.
And exposed the GOP as the party of Paranoia For Profit and Scapegoating For Ratings...
Doug himself concludes with some of the weightier consequences.
In his position paper, Gingrich engages in a wholesale attack on the structure of American government as established in the Constitution, and as it has existed for the past two centuries, proposing to replace it with a system where majorities are given even more control over the levers of state while minorities are increasingly denied access to the one branch of government most likely to protect them from a rapacious and oppressive majority. It is an attack on the Constitution, on the Rule Of Law, and on individual liberty. The fact that it received so many cheers last night is very disturbing.
There’s more to it than that, though. One of the classic episodes from American history where this question arose early on was the 1832 SCOTUS decision in Worcester v. Georgia, where the high court held that individual states didn’t have the right to seize Native American lands. Andrew Jackson, already engaged in a process of effectively purging the indigenous tribes from Georgia and Florida was incensed beyond consolation. Jackson is recorded as responding by saying, “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
It’s easy to write this off as a dusty trivia question from the early 19th century without pausing to consider just how terrifying that moment truly was. It wound up passing, but that period of executive revolt raised a question which has come up many times in our nation’s history during times of constitutional crisis. The Executive branch controls not only the military, but the civilian department responsible for law enforcement. What becomes of the courts if they can find no agent to enforce their decrees? Are they to pack up their black robes in hobo bindles and flee to Canada? At that point you may as well take down the tents, dim the lights and pack it in because the Great American Experiment has ended.
But none of this may wind up mattering very much in the case of Newt Gingrich, which brings us to the second question posed above. Is he really serious about this? To answer that one, I find myself reminded not of some historical figure from the early days of the nation, but the modern day master of bombast, Rush Limbaugh.
Some years ago, Ed Morrissey was discussing Rush with me and he provided a fairly lucid explanation for the man’s behavior. The vast majority of the time, he told me, Rush is pretty much just this guy who covers and comments on current events, politics and government news from a very conservative perspective. Sure, there’s the occasional story which enrages him and gets him shouting, but it’s nothing really out of line. But every once in a while he lets slip with something that gets the liberal blogosphere and the MSM setting their hair on fire. Depending on the comment, his critics will accuse him of being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or whatever the flavor of the week may be. But Rush always manages to somehow tiptoe the line so that it’s more of a dog whistle than an actual bark.
So does this mean that, deep down, Limbaugh is a racist or whatever? The answer is probably no, because what Rush is – first and foremost – is a showman and a businessman who knows that controversy is good, attracts more listeners and gets people talking about him. The same can be said for politicians trying to attract the high “ratings” of the voting public. As Shargel notes above, the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.
Still, as we find in a more recent update, Newt was back out on the trail today doing the Sunday morning shows and pitching the same ideas. And he manages to do it with a straight face.
Newt is hardly a stupid man, and he’s probably forgotten more American History than most of us will ever learn. He doubtless has not lost track of Article III. The more likely explanation is that this is something which was a designed play to create precisely this type of outraged conversation and earned media which keeps his name in the headlines without spending a dime of campaign money. And it doesn’t hurt that his most conservative primary voters and Tea Party enthusiasts, long frustrated with various decisions by the Supreme Court, eat it up with a spoon.
If Newt wins the nomination – and eventually the presidency – I expect this particular issue will be one that fades away down the memory hole as he becomes more busy with real world affairs. So maybe it was a crazy idea… crazy like a fox...
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; JesusBmyGod; buffyt; Whenifhow; rom; persistence48; Hanna548; DvdMom; ...I am heavily offended by this tripe!
I have listened to rush every single day, for every hour is show has been broadcast. Ever since he was still broadcasting in Sacramento I have listened to him, minus a vacation now and then, or when I was too sick to stay awake to hear anything. So when I read this quote from the article,..............what Rush is – first and foremost – is a showman and a businessman who knows that controversy is good, attracts more listeners and gets people talking about him.
I could only come up with one conclusion, neither Mr Shaw nor Ed Morrissey, have ever listened to Rush for more than a few episodes after the MSM has brought his name up. That being said I just lost a TON of respect for these two writers at HotAir. From hence forth I will never ever read another article written by them, because they are not conservatives, they are RINOS at best like George Will.
No true conservative Gingrich
would consider Rush just another showman who is looking to just get ratings, and awareness by being controversial. True conservatives will always get attention by just being truthful.
Something Liberals and Rinos, like Mr Shaw and Morrisey would never understand, because they always put their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before commenting on a subject.
WSJ SLAMS House Republicans For Payroll Tax Cut Debacle, Says ...Throwing 2012 Election To Obama Business Insider ^ | Dec. 21, 2011 | Zeke Miller
Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:19:29 AM by Qbert
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board is slamming House Republicans today for their hard-line position on the payroll tax cut, writing that GOP lawmakers are throwing the 2012 election to President Barack Obama before it even begins.
House Republicans are refusing to pass the bipartisan two-month extension of the tax cut that passed the Senate on Saturday, demanding a year-long increase. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he'll only reopen negotiations on a longer deal once the House passes the Senate bill — and removes the immediate threat of a tax increase for most Americans.
At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.
The Journal's criticism of Boehner will only strengthen the Democratic position, and is sure to be trotted out by Democrats and even some Republicans to pressure the Speaker to pass the bill — and put an end to the legislative nightmare. That said, Boehner hasn't caved to Democrats yet, and is likely to take these negotiations up to the brink.
********************************Funny how the WSJ always brings out the long knives against Republicans anytime there's a showdown like this in Washington.
What in the world has happened to the WSJ?? Are they nuts?6 posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:24:14 AM by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))..To: Qbert
The WSJ has apparently gone to the Dark Side...To: QbertHouse Republicans are the dumbest, most politically tone deaf idiots in the world. I have never seen a group so bent on political suicide. How can anybody be so unaware of how this plays out in the eyes of the electorate???
Boehner, Canter, and Ryan along with McConnell and Graham have got to be the most destructive force in the Republican Party. When they should be standing firm, the roll over and when they should be flexible, they plow forwards like a ship sailing into a hurricane.
We are going to lose this election in a land slide and it will be the fault of the Republican "leadership."
Governor Of The Year – Scott Walker Governor's Journal ^ | 122311 | GoJo Staff
Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 1:40:33 PM by Fred
(Madison, WI) – In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker(R) served as the embodiment of the state by state battle to balance budgets and the best symbol of the struggle between the two political parties about how best to meet those fiscal challenges. His first year will extend well into his second year, quite likely culminating in a recall election to remove him from office.
He has dominated the political debate on both sides. Defining the issues. He is cited by both Democrats and Republicans as the best of example of what is wrong, or what is right with a conservative approach to government. Although they will never admit it, many Democratic governors are different from Walker only in a matter of degrees.
Nearly every governor, regardless of party, began the year saying the current path of expensive pension and benefit packages for public employees is unsustainable. The way the issue exploded in Wisconsin is as much a function of the legal and legislative tools at Walker’s disposal as it is about the specific route he chose to take.
This is why Governors Journal has selected Scott Walker as the 2011 Governor of the Year.
He’s my choice for POTUS
I have great admiration for him... he sticks to his guns like none other.
Help me out, WI FReepers.. just so I have some argument points vs. a couple libs from WI... what is the deal with the lost jobs over the past few months?
Yeah - what is the deal with the lost jobs?
Is it due to unease over the possibility Walker will be recalled, or is something else at work?
Just trying to get a handle on it. Thanks...To: Jean S
My family vacationed there this summer. Someone hacked the computer system at the resort and all of our credit card numbers were stolen. If that news got around, it may have affected tourism. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if some lib did it for that reason.
It's the end of the year and time for "of the year" awards. Wouldn't you know that our own college washout received a "Governor of the Year" award from Governors Journal. Impressive.
It's not "Time" or the "Academy Awards", but it's a prize and that's nice.
The article states that Walker is "the best of example of what is wrong, or what is right with a conservative approach to government." Then it goes on to a superficial overview of the fight in Wisconsin following conservative talking points that our political unrest is all about pension contributions.
The Siren's cat knows more about it than it's author, Dean Pagani.
So it made the Siren wonder what is Governor's Journal and who is Dean Pagani?
Governor's Journal has been in business for approximately one year. Founded in December of 2010 it's only is employee is Dean Pagani himself. It has no Board of Directors, it has no staff or faculty type listing.
Pagani is the head of Pagani Public Affairs - a media consulting firm - who also seems to have no employees beyond Pagani. It does list some references of Pagani's associates, Tom Foley who lost as the GOP candidate in the race for Connecticut Governor in 2010 and Ross Garber who was the Republican candidate Connecticut Attorney General. Garber not only lost big, but was slapped with a defamation suit by his opponent.
Both sing Pagani's praises of political communication expertise despite the outcome of their elections.
The one reference Pagani leaves out is his longtime day job as Communications Director and Chief of Staff for the Connecticut Governor's office from 1996 to 2004. Weird, it's an important job. He doesn't even name the Governor he worked for in his LinkedIn page.
Could be because that Governor was none other than Republican, John Rowland? Pagani's employment was cut short because Rowland resigned over corruption charges and wound up going to jail for 10 months. Doh!
Yep, the guy who was Chief of Staff to a jailbird Governor for eight years, who went on to run sleazy campaigns for other Republican losers, opened himself up a one-man website devoted to the new wave of Republican Governor's has named Scott Walker "Governor of the Year."
Well, he should know. Merry Christmas. Posted by rootriversiren at 9:46 AM
I'll see you good people next Monday - have fun!