Free Republic

You do realize that it’s a parody, right?

Can we please stop posting crap from this homo's blog? in 2008, he promised us the PUMAs were going to rescue us from Obama, and that Hyde Park would be empty on election night. How did that work out?

This time he promised us that the Obamas can't stand being in DC, WANT to lose the election, and have already picked out their post-Presidency residence and Library location in Hawaii with preparations being made to move in January, 2013. He said Obama picked their Election Night location for a loser.

How did that work out?

Then he spreads all kinds of rumors from his homo friends as fact because "he's in the know".

The "guy" obviously has "issues". I would no more post his crap here than somebody like, say, Alex Jones.

Go Mitt and God Bless the USA!

Where do you get +11% dem?

"The great myth though is that Romney is a moral man".

Oh, do please bless us with your infinite wisdom on how immoral of a man that Romney is.

If it were a GOP incumbent President accused of murder by these parents the weekend before the election, the media would be going after it like pit bulls on a pork chop. NBC would devote a 3-hour primetime special to them and then re-play it in a continuous loop through Election Day.

Do you seriously think GARY JOHNSON would make a better President than Romney? GARY JOHNSON?! Are you kidding me? Whatever you are smoking, I'm sure it's illegal but part of Johnson's platform. Seriously, there are TWO choices in this election. TWO. Grow up and deal with it. We need EVERY vote we can for ROMNEY, not some guy who could hold his nominating convention in a phone booth. Even if you don't think Romney has a chance in New York, we need as a convicing national win over Obama as possible to give Romney as big of a mandate as possible, and to repudiate Obozo as much as possible.

Don't be "cute" and piss your vote away. Make it count. For all you know New York could be in play. Or New Jersey. Or any other state for that matter.

As conservatives we had our chance to get as conservative of a nominee as possible. We didn't get someone as conservative as we would have liked to oppose Obama, but Romney is what we have. Next time fight harder for someone more conservative if that's what you really want. But this time around it's ROMNEY or OBAMA.

Now go grow a pair and pick one.

(A) Romney speaks out strongly on the issue and LOSES the election because he gets off message on the economy and the media accuses him of politicizing dead Americans. The truth of what happened is never uncovered.

(B) Romney stays silent on the issue for now and WINS the election. The GOP in Congress then turn the heat up on Obama like never before for the last few weeks he's in office, and Romney promises to turn over every stone to get to the truth once he's sworn in in less than 90 days.

Pick one.

the networks other than FOX won't declare him the winner

You give Fox way too much credit and too much nerve. They wimped out in 2004 in a nearly identical situation, and they will this time around as well should your scenario turn out to be accurate.

In 2004, they had already called Ohio for Bush while the other networks refused. On the other hand, Fox would not give New Mexico to Bush despite the fact that EVERY OTHER NETWORK HAD. Why wouldn't Fox give New Mexico to Bush? Because it would have put him over the top since they had given Ohio to Bush, and they didn't want to be the only network declaring Bush the winner. It was simple as that. Once the other networks begrudginlgy gave Ohio to Bush, they declared him the winner since they had long ago given him New Mexico. What did Fox do when the other networks gave Ohio to Bush? Viola! Suddenly New Mexico was no longer "in doubt". LOL They gave New Mexico to Bush and declared him the winner as well.

Fox had no good reason to do those shenanigans other than not want to declare the winner when the other networks weren't, even though they said Bush had won the state (Ohio) the other networks said was the only state in doubt. I have no reason to believe Fox has got any braver since then. They offered no explanation for their actions then, despite my many queries to them and some of their announcers, such as Sean Hannity.

Can’t find the tabs but ZOgby is exactly 180 degrees out from Pew and Gallup on those who already voted.

Exactly. How can all 3 polls be accurate?

Let's hope these guys are on to something. In their other polls...

National: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 47%

Ohio: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 47%

Wisconsin: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 48%

Colorado: Mitt Romney- 51%, Barack Obama- 47%

Minnesota: Barack Obama- 49%, Mitt Romney- 46%

Nevada Barack Obama- 50%, Mitt Romney- 47%

However I am concerned (as others here will be) that Brit Hume announced it on FNS today that it would show Romney +5, and it missed by 6 points (as it now shows Obama +1). I sure as hell hope I am worrying about nothing, but these guys have a solid track record over the last 5 Presidential elections:

As was pointed out previously, there's a difference between their "poll" and their "prediction" (the one you take as gospel). Their ridiculous "poll" does show Obama up by 1, but only when they include those who are only at least "somewhat likely" to vote and who are only at least "likely" to vote for Obama.

Their PREDICTION out today (no doubt the one Hume was referring to) is...(drumroll please)...ROMNEY 52 OBAMA 47...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-poll-projects-romney-52-obama-47_658066.html

Even they know a poll (even their own) showing Obama +1 is a joke.

What a foolish, foolish thing to say. These guys are HIGHLY respected Republican pollsters. Karl Rove speaks very highly of them too.

I don't care who does or says what. When you look at the internal numbers you realize what a joke the poll is. And I'll ask again...do you know the difference between a poll and a prediction?

do some homework and you will see their final projected numbers are VERY close to the actual numbers

Dude, do you know the difference between a poll and a prediction?

Those final projections from Battleground are not poll numbers. They’re predictions.

EXACTLY what I was going to point out. Additionally, looking at their internals...

Poll taken 10/22-10/25. Stale.

Next, anybody that said they were at least "somewhat likely" to vote was counted. Scientific? LOL Hardly.

Romney had better favorable and unfavorable numbers than Obama.

46% said they would vote for Obama, while 51% said they would either NOT for Obama or consider someone else.

Among those who are "definite" in their choice, Romney wins by 1 point. Only when they include those "likely" as well, does Obama go up by 1.

I'm sorry, but this poll is run by wanna-be amateurs.

I don’t like seeing O up a point in battle ground states.

It's a NATIONAL poll, not just battleground states. Do you trust these guys more than Rasmussen or Gallup? If so, why?

This is a whole of nothun' but wishful thinking by dems...

...record turnouts were reported in counties across Florida today, the first day of early voting.

So if it is a big statewide turnout, how does that help Obama again?

The Times' Adam Smith reported on Twitter, "More than 20k pple voted eary today so far in Hillsborough Co...In 08 biggest single day (11/1/08) was 18,736

And Hillsborough County usually goes GOP. It did go for Obama in '08 but perhaps many who are voting early can't wait to wash that bad taste of their mouths this time, along with people who never voted for the bum in the first place.

The other counties are heavy dem counties, but so what? Does it say it was dems mostly voting? What about the heavy GOP counties? Doesn't mention them, but does say the record turnout was stateside, so why focus on mostly dem counties? Could it be because that's the way this reporter/paper want it to read? Gee, who has the Times endorsed?

Without hesitation, The Tampa Bay Times recommends Barack Obama for re-election...

*GAG*

Just MHO, but I also believe there will be a fair number of people who still self-identify as a Democrat, but will either pull the lever for Romney or vote "present" on the Presidential race.

Indeed, looking at the internals of the most recent poll done here in Oregon, of the republican undecideds 40% said they would ultimately vote for Romney if they had to choose someone right now, while 60% remained uncommitted or would pick someone other than Romney or Obama. ZERO % said they would vote for Obama. When they asked the undecided democrats the same question, Romney and Obama BOTH got 21% of that vote, while the other 58% remained uncommitted or would pick someone else.

This would seem to indicate that, yes, many democrats will ultimately decide to vote for Romney, and that the undecideds will break heavily for Romney.

Other interesting numbers from the internals...

Have you had a chance to vote yet?
34% Yes
66% No


Of those who have voted:
47% Republican Mitt Romney
47% Democrat Barack Obama


Hmmm...this shows who is fired up to vote and who is not. As we get closer to election day when Oregonians have to mail in their ballots by, more and more democrats may be too demoralized to bother voting, especially if the Libya fiasco continues to simmer, and if it looks like Obama is going to lose. There really aren't any other issues on the Oregon ballot that should get a liberal really excited to vote on and check Obama's name while they are at it. Even the "legalize pot" initiative may take votes away from Obama and go to Johnson.

(IF UNDECIDED) IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAD TO CHOOSE TODAY, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN MITT ROMNEY OR DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA?

The undecided Republicans then say Romney over Obama 40% to ZERO%. You read that right, 40-0. The undecided Democrats split down the middle 21% each for Romney and Obama. The other 60% of undecided GOP voters and 58% dem voters refused to pick 1 or went with someone else. Also undecided "new voters" (haven't voted in any of last 4 elections) went for Romney over Obama 25% to ZERO%, with the other 75% remaining undecided or committed to someone else.

For some reason they asked this "undecided" group if they had already voted, and some said "yes"?! LOL Of those "undecided" voters who have already voted, they went for Obama 60%-40%. Buyers remorse? Stupidity to understand simple poll questions? All of the above? The undecided who haven't voted yet go for Romney 26%-9% with the rest refusing to pick between the two or picking someone else.

When pushed, undecided voters broke toward Mitt Romney almost 2 to 1.

THAT is the money-line of the article. There have been theories and studies about how undecideds break come time to grow a pair and make a decision. They don't always break for the challenger, but here we have good evidence that it will be the case this year.

Romney may not win Oregon even if the undecideds do break 2-1 for him, but if that trend holds nationally...we will be in for a landslide. Being an Oregonian I pray that Romney does carry the state even though he probably won't need it (and shouldn't count on it). We have a MAIL-IN ONLY election. That's right...you CAN'T go to the "polls" on election day in Oregon. There are no "polls" to go to. I think that probably favors the parasites who get their ballot along with their gubmint check in the mail, and we all know who they vote for.

"I think Obama is baiting Romney over Benghazi...not sure how this is being done, but something is going terribly wrong"...

Makes NO SENSE whatsover, and you have not ONE shred of anything that shows Romney is being baited. How is it even possible when Romney hasn't even been talking about it lately? Many trashed him for NOT talking about it in the 3rd debate despited numerous golden opportunities. Romney is holding fire, not being "baited", get a grip!

You really think all of this news about numerous calls for help were ignored at the highest levels of government is just some "set-up" to get Romney? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Put the pipe down and stop smoking whatever it is.

Instead of making up imaginery things to worry about that have no basis in reality whatsoever, how about using that nervous energy to pray for Mitt Romney instead?

And please quit clogging up FreeRepublic with idiotic vanity posts. No wonder the site is so slow.

I see a lot of back and forth on what the CIA director did or did not do, what he's guilty of or not, etc.

Here's the bottom line. Those under attack in Libya sent multiple requests for help. Seals in Libya requested permission to help. SOMEBODY (probably POTUS) told them to stand down. Repeatedly. This sealed the fate of those under attack. Did anyone defy those orders? Not the VP, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, or CIA Director. None of them had the guts to put their careers on the line. On the other hand, the Seals in Libya DID defy those orders, because they simply could not stand by and do nothing. They risked much more than their careers. They risked their lives, ultimately in vain because no more help came to back them up. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE OFFICIALS are pond scum, not worthy to lick the boots of those who gave their lives trying to defend other American lives in Libya.

The blood is on ALL of their hands and I pray it never washes off.

With those internals how does Romney NOT win Wisconsin?

...A week ago, the president held a slight 50% to 48% lead. Earlier in the month, he was ahead 51% to 49%. In surveys in Wisconsin since October of last year, the president has earned 44% to 52% of the vote, while Romney’s support has ranged from 41% to 49%.

Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters.

Among the 90% who say they’ve already made up their minds whom they will vote for, it’s Romney 51%, Obama 48%.

Romney has a six-point lead over Obama – 50% to 44% - among all voters in the state when they are asked which candidate they trust more to handle the economy...

You guys need to trust Nate Silver’s numbers.

Why? Because it's in the NY Slimes? Has he been picking the winners perfectly since 1980 like the U of Colorado professors who say Romney has a 77% of winning the popular vote and will have over 300 electoral votes?

Didn't think so.

Gary Johnson? Seriously? What a dope. Literally.

Obama will get no more than 35% of the popular vote and will not carry even one state. He may carry non states like DC, PR or even Guam, but not one state and no more than 35% of the popular vote.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I’d sure like to see MN move from the likely obama column to “toss up”.

It's already moved from "Likely Obama" to "Leans Obama".

"I'm sorry this is our last debate because I REALLY love kicking your ass on national TV."

"Tell Michelle to get in all the corners if you guys want your cleaning deposit back."

"I don't know about you, but I always like to get things over with, so feel free to use tonight's closing remarks time to make your concession speech."

Hmmmm....I don’t think she gets “inside info” from the Obama campaign, so I don’t know why she would have the “heads up” if they had something cooking. IF, on the other hand, the Romney folks have something...hehe...

I’m not Catholic but what are the implications for Jesus’ mother, Mary?

Interesting article. Unfortunately, it’s from 1989. I wonder if those numbers have held since then?

Excellent analysis. I have been telling people that Romney would not take a “political” approach to picking a VP (i.e., who would help win this or that state), but would make a “business decision” and pick someone to be VP like he’d pick a VP as CEO. I think he’s done exactly that. I wasn’t really honed in on Ryan before the pick, but I know see it as a brilliant choice. I’m no Romneybot, either.

Suddenly I’m getting this sinking feeling that you are going to disappear from this thread after your whiny post was obliterated.

And if your ancestor was a slave owner...does that make you a slave owner? I’m missing the point of tying this belief to an ancestor of Mitt Romney.

Nite-nite, Sleep Train. RIP.

A classic example of why Newt has to be and will be the GOP nominee. He's probably the only one of the candidates that even know this is the truth, and he's certainly the only one willing to say it.

He's playing 3-dimensional chess, while the others are still trying to figure out the rules to checkers.

Can't wait for the Gingrich-Obama debates. When Newt is the challenger in a political race he is absolutely unmerciful. He's playing nice with the other GOP candidates, but it will be "gloves off" time against Obama. Newt will be unrelenting on offense, continually pounding Obama on his record.

To compare Gingrich and Reagan in the same sentence exposes what you don’t know.

On the contrary, it shows what I DO know. I know that Reagan led the Reagan Revolution, aided by Gingrich in the 1980s, and that Newt continued the conservative vision with the Republican Revolution that started in 1994. Newt was the architect of that, and every single item on the Contract with American was checked off in the 1st 100 days of Newt's speakership. So, no, I don't have to go back more than 30 years to find something good Newt did. All I have to do is look at the last time he was in office. In case your calculator broken, the mid-90's is actually less than 30 years ago.

If you can't give credit where credit is due, that is a problem with your honesty, integrity and/or intelligence, not mine. I am just stating fact.

But, please, go ahead and humor me - what living conservative has DONE more for conservatism? Yeah, forget the talking points and platitudes. Look at the RECORD. It's not even close, which is why I'm assuming you haven't come up with a name thus far. There is no living conservative that has DONE more in office than Newt Gingrich. That is FACT. Again, it's not even close, and it's not arguable.

He was extremely effective as SOH during the Republican Revolution. I've already detailed all that he accomplished in a previous lengthy post. JimRob said it was a "must read". I'm afraid though, it was a waste of time since the very next day you see new idiots making the same lame arguments that are laughably false.

I give up. Some people can't be schooled. Yes, Newt isn't perfect, so he must be a RINO. Forget all that he accomplished for the conservative cause the last time when he was in power. All that matters is that he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. *YAWN*.

You Newt haters, feel free to continue in your delusions and ignorance. Luckily, it looks like enough conservatives have the brains vote for someone that can knock out Romney, and then beat Obama like a red-headed step-kid.

Cry and stomp your feet all you want. Gingrich is a brilliant political strategist, helping Reagan in 1980 and 1984, then leading the GOP Revolution in 1994, kicking asses all the way, and he's about to do the same to Romney and Obama. I don't know why so many supposed conservative "experts" and pundits worry that Newt will self-destruct. Uh, he did manage to win a few elections, helped Reagan get elected twice with brilliant strategy, was the author of most brilliant election stragegy - Contract with America - in memory. Yeah, we don't want THAT guy being our nominee! LOL

Get on board, get out of the way, or get run over. Makes no difference to me.

I am speechless...forget his record...forget his lobbying... Just listen to a politician on what he says he is going to do and all will be well!!! Newt Gingrich is 100% progressive establishment...HE HAS EVEN SAID IT. Get your head out of the sand...time is running out.

You are kidding, right? You are the one needing to pull your head out of somewhere. Forget the record?!! Again, ARE YOU KIDDING?! Have YOU forgot Newt's record - leading the Republican Revolution in 1994, author of the wildly popular and successful Contract with America. He pretty much game-planned Reagan's re-election in 1984, and that was after Reagan took up Newt's suggestion in 1980 to ask Americans if they were better off after 4 years of Carter, which made him the slam-dunk winner in the debate.

You should be speechless because you don't have a clue. Let me repeat - NOT A CLUE - of what you are speaking of. Has Newt made mistakes? Sure, so did Reagan, but the final tally shows that Reagan, and then Newt are the 2 most important and effective conservatives during the modern movement. Period. End of discussion. It is not arguable. There is nobody alive even close to the conservative accomplishments of Newt, and that's before he takes the White House. Oh sure, some conservatives can talk a great game, but I want someone who can GET IT DONE. Newt GOT IT DONE before, and there's no reason to think he can't do it again.

Politicians say all kinds of things and sometimes those things get them trouble. Maybe they were mis-quoted, mis-understood, mis-spoke, or revealed their true selves accidentally. Newt Gingrich can be shown to have said some things that don't sound very conservative, so naturally some conservatives have reservations about him as the GOP nominee and/or being President of the United States. Gingrich wants us believe that he's the best choice for conservatives, while Mitt Romney wants everyone to believe that he's the true-blue conservative in the race. Actions are much more important than mere words. Since both have been in powerful positions in government before (Newt as Congressman and Speaker of the House; Mitt as governor of Massachusetts), wouldn't the best gauge of how they would govern as President be how they legislated and governed in the past?

Gingrich is known as a brilliant man with a million ideas. That has served him well in campaigns and in the halls of Washington.

Remember when Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people during the Presidential debates of 1980, "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" The obvious answer was a resounding "Hell NO!" and is one of the most remembered and effective lines ever delivered in a Presidential debate. Want to guess who suggested to Reagan that he ask that question during the debates? It was a freshman congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich that sent a memo to Reagan's advisors offering this bit of debate advice. Reagan liked the idea and used it to sum up the election with 1 simple question. Reagan trailed Carter before the debates, but won going away afterward. I'm not suggesting that Reagan owes his election to Newt Gingrich. I am simply stating the obvious - that Gingrich has a brilliant strategic political mind who was on board with the Reagan Revolution and playing a key role from Day 1. That sounds like a conservative to me.

In 1983, Gingrich founded the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group that included young conservative House Republicans. The group expanded over time to comprise several dozen representatives who met each week to exchange and develop ideas. Gingrich's analysis of polls and public opinion identified the group's initial focus, and used the group as a thinktank to form conservative ideas and legislation. Ronald Reagan adopted the "opportunity society" ideas for his 1984 re-election campaign, supporting the group's conservative goals on economic growth, education, crime, space exploration and social issues, which he had not emphasized during his first term.

Once again, Gingrich was there, playing a key role in Reagan's election.

Reagan even referenced the "opportunity" society in the first State of the Union address of his second term, giving credit where credit was due.

How many times have you seen republicans, even stout conservatives, allow themselves to get pushed around by democrats, liberals, and mainstream media? How many times have you wished for a conservative who would take the battle to them, instead of playing defense all the time? That is exactly what Gingrich did time and again in office, driving the democrats to hysteria.

In 1988, Gingrich was among those who brought ethics charges against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, who was alleged to have used a book deal to circumvent campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. Gingrich's success in forcing Wright's resignation was in part responsible for his rising influence in the Republican caucus. Is this the mark of someone trying to "play nice" with democrats?

In 1989, Gingrich became the House Minority Whip. This was his first formal position of power within the Republican party. He stated his intention was to "build a much more aggressive, activist party." As time would tell, that is exactly what he did.

In the 1994 campaign season, in an effort to offer an alternative to Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party, Gingrich and several other Republicans came up with a Contract with America, which laid out ten policies that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first hundred days of the new Congress, if they won the election. The contract was signed by Gingrich and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues such as welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in United Nations missions. Every single item was from the conservative wish list.

Once again, Newt's campaign strategy paid off big time. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954. The midterm election that turned congressional power over to Republicans "changed the center of gravity" in the nation's capital, and Newt Gingrich was made Speaker of the House.

How many times do politicians say one thing to get elected, and then develop amnesia once they get into office, or come up with some other excuse why they can't fulfill their promises? How about almost every time? Not so, with Newt's Contract. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, even though most legislation was initially held up in the Senate. Over the objection of liberal/progressive interest groups and President Clinton, who called it the "Contract on America", many aspects of the proposal were implemented in subsequent legislation.

Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services.

A central pledge of President Clinton's campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation. Again, we had a powerful republican who was not afraid of liberals, democrats, or the media. Led kicking and screaming, Clinton finally signed a welfare bill into law on August 22, 1996.

By 1997, the Gingrich-led Republicans forced the Democrats and President Clinton to agree to a federal spending plan designed to reduce the federal deficit and achieve a balanced budget by 2002. The plan included a total of $152 billion in Republican sponsored tax cuts over five years.

In 1998, the increased tax revenues from the tax cuts helped reduce the federal budget deficit to below $25 billion. Gingrich then called upon President Clinton to submit a balanced budget for 1999—three years ahead of schedule—which Clinton did, making it the first time the federal budget had been balanced since 1969.

Also in 1997, Clinton signed into effect the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history. Gingrich has been credited with creating the agenda for the reduction in capital gains tax, especially in the "Contract with America", which set out to balance the budget and implement decreases in estate and capital gains tax.

Among the first pieces of legislation passed by the new Congress under Gingrich was the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which subjected members of Congress to the same laws that apply to businesses and their employees, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. As a provision of the Contract with America, the law was symbolic of the new Republican majority's goal to remove some of the entitlements enjoyed by Congress. The bill received near universal acceptance from the House and Senate and was signed into law on January 23, 1995.

Gingrich was to drag Clinton to the signing table on some measures, but not on others. That led to a government shutdown when Gingrich refused to cave to Clinton. Reflecting on the impact of the government shutdown for the Republican Party, Gingrich later commented that, "Everybody in Washington thinks that was a big mistake. They're exactly wrong. There had been no reelected Republican majority since 1928. Part of the reason we got reelected ... is our base thought we were serious. And they thought we were serious because when it came to a show-down, we didn't flinch." The government shutdown led to the balanced-budget deal in 1997 and the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s, as well as the first re-election of a Republican majority for the first time since 1928.

We had a strong conservative promising a strong conservative agenda and delivering. The conservative Gingrich Republican Revolution of the 1990s was a continuance of the conservative Reagan Revolution started in the 1980s. Newt was an integral part of the first and the author of the second. I would challenge the Newt-haters who insist that Gingrich is some sort of liberal to name the 3rd most important conservative political figure in modern American politics. You can't. It's because Reagan is #1, Gingrich is #2, and everyone else is so far back everyone else is essentially tied for last.

Has Newt Gingrich said and done some less-than-conservative things, both privately and publicly? Absolutely. So did Ronald Reagan, by which we all measure a politician's conservatism. Reagan brought us Sandra Day O'Connor, amnesty, and some other mis-steps, but the good things that he has done so far outweigh his mistakes that we revere him today. Do you Newt-haters also hate Reagan? If not, why not? Because of Reagan's overall record? The one that Newt helped make possible? How is Newt's overall record any less conservative than Reagan's? It's not. Again, the 90's Republican Revolution was getting the 80's Reagan Revolution back on track after having been derailed by Bush I and Clinton.

Now then, let's look at Mitt Romney's "conservative" record. Forget what he's saying now. Let's look at what he actually DID the last time he won an election.

First, Romney tried to ride Gingrich's coattails in 1994 by running for Senator in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. He did not, however, follow the Gingrich gameplan and tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Is that how a conservative runs a campaign? Even riding a 1994 GOP tsunami and the pandering to the Massachusetts liberals, Romney lost.

He did get in the door in 2002 as governor of Massachusetts, using his work in the 2002 Olympics as his main resume enhancer. Romney's Olympics omnipresence irked those who thought he was taking too much of the credit for the success, or had exaggerated the state of initial distress, or was primarily looking to improve his own image.

As governor, he made his mark immediately by picking his cabinet and advisors more on "managerial" abilities than partisan affiliation. Evidently he just couldn't find any good conservatives who were also good "managers", although I'm sure he looked really, really hard. Again, is that the mark of a true conservative?

Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, gun licenses, and gasoline. The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship. How's that for a conservative?

Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state, despite not having even campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance. A surprise bonus for liberals! Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal heath coverage his life's work and who over time developed a warm relationship with Romney,[108] gave Romney's plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to work with it. We know how Ted Kennedy loved to cozy up to those rascally conservatives!

Romney again campaigned as pro-abortion and pro-gay and governed that way as well, which is why he was endorsed by numerous abortion and gay-rights groups. Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club. Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's "Gay Pride" events. Romney supports homosexual "anti-discrimination" laws. Romney opposes the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual scoutmasters, and even barred the Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics. Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration. Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges. Romney rewarded one of the state's leading anti-marriage attorneys by making him a judge. Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools. Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior. Romney issued a proclamation celebrating gay "Youth Pride Day. Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality. Romney's Dept. of Social Services honored a homosexual "married" couple as adoptive "Parents of the Year". Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman. Romney unnecessarily and unconstitutionally implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts. Romney's administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!

Again, is this the record of a conservative? This is the kind of liberal that Newt Gingrich seeks out and destroys, not emulates.

While Newt successfully built a Conservative army that stormed Congress, what did Romney build? Mitt had an utterly dismal record as the Republican leader in Massachusetts. He pledged to build the stateRepublican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature. In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War. During the four years of Romney's tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000. Romney was really "winning" the day, wasn't he? In the 2006 state elections, most offices were not even challenged by Republican candidates. The party's slide was so precipitous that Republicans did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office than the Green-Rainbow Party. In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign. He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate the day before the general election!

"Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing," said Jim Rappaport, former chairman of the state Republican Party.

Again, if you want to know what a politican will DO in office, look at what they have already DONE, not what they SAY.

Anybody who suggests that there is no difference between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, or that somehow Newt is more liberal than Newt is completely ignorant of recent political history, a bald-faced liar, or both. Comparing the two would be like comparing Gerald Ford's presidency to Ronald Reagan's. Mitt Romney doesn't belong in the same universe as Newt Gingrich when it comes to discussing a politician's conservatism.

Next month, we'll stop taking polls and start taking votes. In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and on. Unless something dramatic changes you will have 2 realistic choices for the GOP nominee - Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Simply based on how effective their campaign strategies have been for themselves and other republicans, who do want running against Obama? Simply based on what they accomplished legislatively the last time they were in office, who would you want for President?

Despite all of his faults, I'll take Newt Gingrich in a heartbeat without thinking twice. He would lead another revolution while Romney will lead us further into the wilderness.

You Newt bashers can dig up things he said from 1987 or some other comment you don't like and try to put him in some little box of your own creation, but when you look at his actual RECORD, nobody, including Romney can touch him when it comes to conservative accomplishments.

Did you hurry and stick your fingers in your ears as soon as she was past Santorum so you didn’t hear her “endorsement” of the other candidates as well? LOL

Thank you for confirming my earlier suspicions regarding your policital “insight”. LOL

I never said Mitt was a conservative, I said Newt is even more liberal than he is.

*SIGH*. Play with words all you want. Saying Newt is more liberal than Mitt is the same as saying Mitt is more conservative than Newt.

In either case, you obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Might as well ask someone who's never watched a football game who the better QB is between Brady and Manning.

Newt is more liberal than Mittens, yet for some reason many FReepers give him a free pass.

What a whopper. Mitt governed as a Massachusetts liberal, bringing us gay marriage, government-mandated health care, and was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion. All Newt did was LEAD conservative Republican Revolution in 1994, authoring the brilliant strategy behind the Contract with America that swept the GOP into power and stopped Clinton's liberal agenda, including Hillary Care dead in its tracks. The GOP House went on to act on every last piece of the Contract with America. You are delusional if you think Mitt is more conservative than Newt. What HAVE you been smoking?!

Did you get all goose-bumpily when she sat down and got all chummy with Moogan McCain?

Most likely she will not be the GOP nomination but it does not diminish her patriotism.

Does it for any of the candidates?

Who cares what this little pig thinks.

Michelle Bachmann, evidently, for some reason.

and you could say that about almost every one of the Republican candidates seeking the office

So, Bachmann and most of the GOP candidates would do this...so...is there a point? Elect a republican in 2012? Oh, ok. Yep. Thanks for letting us in on the plan.

Really, was this was worthy of a new post? LOL

When Bachmann tabs Trump as VP...oh wait, never mind. I'm out of the trance. For a moment there I was Bizarro World where Michelle Bachmann actually had a chance to be elected President of the United States!

You forgot the part about Amnesty.

I'll make you a deal. Every time I write about Newt's position on illegal immigration, I'll mention "amnesty" if every time you write about Newt's position on illegal immigration you agree to mention Newt's fence, closing the border, mobilizing the National Guard, beefing up the Border Patrol, and deporting everyone else except for the few that would qualify for his "amnesty". Got it?

I’m a fan of Herman Cain the man, but not the Presidential candidate. I don’t think he’s qualified to be President, but I salute his conservatism and his work ethic. I think he’s naive and almost innocent in a way. 99% of men would be quilty of something more than a platonic relationship with the known circumstanial evidence; however, I think Cain is innocent of anything more than poor judgment and a soft heart. I think “Ginger” is a whack job making up the sexual nature of the relationship for fame or money in some way. If Cain drops out now, it will look like he’s got something to hide and would damage his reputation. I would hate to see that, as I don’t believe he deserves it.

I’m all for ENFORCING the current laws. I’m also for CLOSING the border. Are you? I’m for building a fence and whatever other measures we need to take. Heck, mobilize the National Guard, increase the Border Patrol, etc. Are you? Oh, wait, those are Newt’s ideas. They must be bad ideas...for some reason.