For Republicans, it's Gingrich vs. Romney

L.V.R.J. | 12/25/2011 | J.C. Watts

[TBBT]

For Republicans, it's Gingrich vs. Romney

[Jim Robinson]

Not much of a choice for tea partiers?

Let's examine the evidence on the record:

Newt: Pro-life Reaganite, led the Republican Revolution, took the congressional majority from the Democrats who had held it for 40 years. And even with a democrat president (Clinton): cut taxes, cut spending, cut the national deficit, cut welfare, balanced the federal budget four years running, cut regulations, reduced unemployment, blocked socialized healthcare (HillaryCare) and encouraged the Reagan economy to flourish throughout his term and beyond. Not a bad conservative record at all. We can use some of this now!!

Newt is a veteran of the Reagan Revolution and leader of the Republican Revolution. His record of actual accomplishments shows that he was a tea party type rebel before the tea party even existed. And, your gratuitous assertion aside, he's actually a leading conservative base and tea party favorite:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

Romney: Pro-abortion Reagan denier, crossed the aisle to promote abortion, gay rights, gun-control, liberal judges and actually advocated for and installed a socialist healthcare system (RomneyCare) which became the model and impetus for ObamaCare. Saddled his state with unnecessarily higher healthcare costs, busted budgets, busted Republican label, liberal activist judges, tax payer funded abortion, first in the union gay marriage, and individual mandates against the previously free citizens complete with tax penalties for non-compliance. Not even a moderate record. Romney is a liberal progressive, even to the left of his ideological ally, the late Ted Kennedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU

[Parley Baer]

“Mitt is a no go”

I agree. Voting for Mitt is voting for the status quo. With Newt you will get change and in the right direction. GO NEWT!

[txhurl]

No. You only think you are.

You are actually voting for Romney.

---

Care to explain that?

[Jim Robinson]

"yet the “Tea Party” is going Newt...whiskey tango foxtrot."

Tea partiers are going Newt over Romney due to their records of actual accomplishments.

Comparing their actual accomplishment records in evidence:

Newt: Pro-life Reaganite, led the Republican Revolution, took the congressional majority from the Democrats who had held it for 40 years. And even with a democrat president (Clinton): cut taxes, cut spending, cut the national deficit, cut welfare, balanced the federal budget four years running, cut regulations, reduced unemployment, blocked socialized healthcare (HillaryCare) and encouraged the Reagan economy to flourish throughout his term and beyond. Not a bad conservative record at all. We can use some of this now!!

Newt is a veteran of the Reagan Revolution and the leader of the Republican Revolution. His record of actual accomplishments shows that he is a natural Tea Party Revolution fighter and was a fighter even before the tea party existed.

And it's true that he actually is a leading conservative base and tea party favorite:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

Romney: Pro-abortion Reagan denier, crossed the aisle to promote abortion, gay rights, gun-control, liberal judges and actually advocated for and installed a socialist healthcare system (RomneyCare) which became the model and impetus for ObamaCare. Saddled his state with unnecessarily higher healthcare costs, busted budgets, busted Republican label, liberal activist judges, tax payer funded abortion, first in the union gay marriage, and individual mandates against the previously free citizens complete with tax penalties for non-compliance. Not even a moderate record. Romney is a liberal progressive, even to the left of his ideological ally, the late Ted Kennedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU

[Diogenesis]

Carville(D):
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."

Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."

Mitt Romney wins much coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement

---

Truthful Milt Romney:

"I'm very clear I think, to the people across the Commonwealth
my "R" didn't stand so much for Republican as it does for reform."
(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)

---

MITT ROMNEY - THE PROVEN BAD GOVERNOR

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]

---

“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday.
The cause of death: failed leadership.
The party is survived by a few leftover legislators
and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists
who have been ignored for years.
Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow.
In lieu of flowers, send messages to Republican voters
warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006

---

"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,”
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006

---

"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005

---

Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>

---

"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I think both say compassion is forgiving ILLEGAL aliens of their past crimes.. possibly requiring a small fine as "punishment." So if that is compassion then..

What the hell to you call leaving American citizens in prison for the same crimes?!

[heiss]

Geng or gong. Which one should I support?

Frankly, what’s the difference. Both are anti-conservatives with 10 year history of allying themselves with nancy pelosi, dede s and al sharpton.

We can still nominate a conservative. That’s an idea.

[CainConservative]

Ahhhh...wake up!!!

See Jim's #44

[MikeSteelBe]

You are so right. The GOP (Going On Progressive) party will fix nothing.

This whole GOP vs Democrat show has become a bogus spectacle like “Pro” wrestling.

They just spew talking points to their bases to trick the sheeple into believing they are actually represented in our government.

The republicrat oligarchy will only do one thing, that is maintain their power to keep getting re-elected and rich.

They do not give a rat’s ass about this country and it’s people anymore.

[TBP]

Not necessarily; not a single vote has been cast yet.

[TBBT]

No. You only think you are. You are actually voting for Romney.

Care to explain that?

An explanation? I would have thought it obvious.

I'm tired and repeating myself... seems... well... repetitive and tiring...

So go here. Read.

Poll: Romney Well Ahead in N.H. (Mitt-39, Newt-17, Paul-17, Huntsman-11)

Look at my original post in that thread. Also, read reply #8.

If that doesn't make it clear for you, then you're hopeless and will be voting for Romney whether you realize it or not.

[TBBT]

There’s two strong Tea Party candidates left, Bachmann and Santorum I'm supporting Bachmann. She stood her ground against raising the debt ceiling. And she has stood up to the homosexual agenda, something that may appeal to a lot of people are tired of having it forced on them.

You're also supporting Romney... Whether you like it our not. Romney is counting on you and you're damned determined not to let him down.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Given how this has gone back and forth before any meaningful votes have even been cast, there's no telling who the top anti-Romney candidate will turn out to be when the votes start to count. We still have time to support the candidate of OUR choice and see how things turn out before defecting to the leading anti-Romney choice.

[duffee]

I only speak for myself. I am a Tea Partier who happens to also be Conservative and a Republican. I’m FOR Newt not because he’s a “NOT Romney” but because he is the best candidate for the job at hand.

[txhurl]

Exactly.

I’M not hopeless.

[TBBT]

Time... If you are in Iowa time is running out. Polls historically get fairly accurate this close to voting. The lay of land is very unlikely to see a miraculous change at this point in the game. And a miracle is just about the magnitude of change that will be required for one of your second tier hopefuls to pull this out.

The longer that Romney is successful at keeping the Not Romney’s fractured the better the odds of his success. You clearly indicate that you want to help him prolong it.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

From what I've seen, polls like this one and this one that have Newt beating Romney in the primaries having him LOSING to Obama in the generals. If we carry your scenario to its conclusion, then we either vote for Romney in the primaries, or by voting for Newt we ending up voting for (losing to) Obama the generals.

If that's the choice, I'll vote on principles. But, if it makes you feel any better, I'll support Newt once it becomes clear the only other choice is Romney.

[TBBT]

From what I've seen, polls like this one and this one that have Newt beating Romney in the primaries having him LOSING to Obama in the generals. If we carry your scenario to its conclusion, then we either vote for Romney in the primaries, or by voting for Newt we ending up voting for (losing to) Obama the generals. If that's the choice, I'll vote on principles. But, if it makes you feel any better, I'll support Newt once it becomes clear the only other choice is Romney.

You apparently don't realize that Obama vs. Generic Republican or Obama vs. Republican Candidate polls are totally worthless at this point. Most analyst will tell you as much. They're worthless for many reasons - most of which can be deduced with common sense.

However, these type polls still serve a purpose to those that promote them (media, establishment, opposing candidates). They can be used as a tool to create perceptions and create/destroy momentum for a target candidate amongst the great unwashed. Based on your comments, when it comes to these stated ends, you prove that they work...

[TwelveOfTwenty]

You apparently don't realize that Obama vs. Generic Republican or Obama vs. Republican Candidate polls are totally worthless at this point.

The polls I posted to you were not generic. The respondents specifically stated who they would vote for between Obama and Newt, and between Obama and Romney. As as you pointed out in post 56, "Polls historically get fairly accurate this close to voting."

However, these type polls still serve a purpose to those that promote them (media, establishment, opposing candidates). They can be used as a tool to create perceptions and create/destroy momentum for a target candidate amongst the great unwashed. Based on your comments, when it comes to these stated ends, you prove that they work...

How do polls that say "Obama tops Gingrich by 46-40 percent in the new poll." and "Obama would defeat Gingrich, 51 percent to 38 percent." prove that generic "Obama vs. GOP candidate" polls work on anyone?

I understand the need to rally around one candidate to prevent the left from choosing Romney for us, but I'm not yet sold that Newt is that candidate.

[TBBT]

I understand the need to rally around one candidate to prevent the left from choosing Romney for us, but I'm not yet sold that Newt is that candidate.

First, the fact that polls are not used to report reality, but to create it, is self evident.

Secondly, I've already made this point, but I'll make it again - The odds for one of the second tier hopefuls to have a phoenix like resurrection at this point is ZERO. Even if one of them performs well in Iowa, that success will not translate down state. You got one candidate left standing that can stop Romney. You make your choice...