Replies

You wrote: “I will support Newt over Romney, but don’t ask me to be happy about it. I’m still hoping somebody beside Ron Paul surges or an acceptable outsider jumps in.”

Me too. bttt

We still have HOPE:

Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball
12/08/2011

2012 Republican Race: The Field May Not Be Closed

Conventional wisdom is that the Republican presidential field is set, and that it is much too late for a new candidate to enter the race.

In years past, that would be absolutely correct. Over the last few decades, dozens of primaries and caucuses have been shoe-horned into the opening weeks of the election year, with the tendency on the Republican side for the front-running candidate to score a quick knockout.

But next year, the arrangement of the primary calendar is much different. It is less condensed at the front, much more loaded with events at the back, with the prospect of a viable, late-starting candidate quite real.

[snip] Continue reading here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

<><><><><>

Could Sarah Palin Still Get in the Race?

“.....Feb. 14 is the last day that a late entrant could enter the race and reasonably be expected to do well in subsequent races.

The scenario looks something like this: http://voices.yahoo.com/could-sarah-palin-still-race-10634503.html?cat=9

Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/2818051/posts?page=19#19

<><>

Rush warns GOP not to pick candidate because they sound smart

The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011
Rush is convinced that Newt is high in the polls in part because he sounds very smart and has done well in the debates. But he says it’s not going to go well for us if we simply choose a candidate because they sound smart. In fact he says that once we get past the nomination, debates play a very small part in who becomes president:

VIDEO: http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-warns-gop-not-to-pick-candidate-because-they-sound-smart/

May 11th
http://theminorityreport.co/yid/category/rush-limbaugh-republican-jim-inhofeal-gorenancy-pelosiglobal-warming-john-kerry-newt-gingrich/

November 3, 2009

Top 10 Moderate GOP Moments: They All Lead to Our Losing and Democrats Winning
http://img.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110309/content/01125112.member.html

Dick Nixon resigning, Ford-Dole ‘76, Bush-Quayle ‘92, Dole-Kemp, Specter and Jeffords switching, Colin Powell endorsing Obama, —————Newt holding hands with Pelosi, Scozzafava, -————McCain 2008. .....
Why do people in our party allow themselves to be defined, manipulated, flaked, formed, shaped, whatever, by these Democrats?” ‘Cause they appease them. They want to be liked. They want to be accepted where they live, in Washington, DC, and in New York.

Mon, 08 Jun 2009
Explaining Reagan to Newt: We’re Conservatives, Not Purists

Reagan attracted the moderates and independents. He didn’t pander. (Rush 24/7 Members: Listen)

“For the record, -——Newt and the rest of you in the Drive-By Media———, I’m not a ‘purist.’ I’m a conservative. Yeah, Reagan got a lot of independents and Democrats, but how? He didn’t pretend he was one of them! Colin Powell endorsed Obama at a strategic moment to harm McCain the most. If Powell is the model for the party, there’s no reason to ever vote Republican again.” -Rush

1/19/2009
http://johnhames.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/rush-in-a-hurry-rush-refuses-to-join-the-obama-cult/

Last Man Standing: -——Unlike Newt and many other Republicans, Rush refuses to drink the Kool-Aid -—— and join the cult of Obama. If you oppose Obama’s agenda to socialize America and change it for the worse, why shut up? (Rush 24/7 Members: Listen Here)

Monday, July 26, 2010
Conservatism Over Republicanism — The difference between Rush and Newt.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/07/26/total_stack_of_stuff

September 14, 2010 The Limbaugh Rule: Vote for Most Conservative Candidate in Primary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2815916/posts?page=193#193

RUSH: “.....Let me expand a little bit here on the Limbaugh Rule, which needs to take over from the Buckley Rule. You know, some of these people on our side — who all of a sudden now — lovingly invoke the Buckley Rule are the same people who told us, ——”The era of Reagan is over.”~ Newt Gingrich -—— Well, Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan were inseparably good friends. Isn’t the era of Buckley over? Isn’t it amazing how selectively these people call up some of our heroes and use little slivers of what they’ve said or believed? Buckley ran against a RINO Republican for mayor of New York knowing full well he had no chance of winning. He violated his own rule then! “Buckley says you vote for the Republican most likely to win.” ...”

Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Newt of the ‘80s Wouldn’t Get Tangled Up in This Mandate Mess
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2721974/posts?page=6#6

RUSH: “....Then it all came to fruition when we won the House in 1994 and all these guys are sworn in, and they’re in the leadership of the House of Representatives. And all of us familiar with what had gone on in the eighties, the special orders, we’d blown the place up with the House bank and the House post office. We had exposed that, some of the most profound corruption around on the Democrat side. And it seemed like there would be nothing stopping this conservative advance.

And then, fast forward to a couple, three years ago -———and Newt Gingrich is among those saying the era of Reagan is over-———, and I can’t tell you how that devastated me. The one man who was single-handedly leading a movement to defend Reagan to the American people, who understood Reaganism as much as Reagan did, the economics of it, the social issue side, cultural side. Somebody like Newt who had once been able to articulate from the heart all those things he was saying, to say that the era of Reagan was over, it did not compute with me, because it’s never been over as far as I’m concerned. ....”

November 23, 2011
Newt Says Let Illegals Stay, Drawing Raves from CNN Liberals for Having a Heart
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/23/newt_says_let_illegals_stay_drawing_raves_from_cnn_liberals_for_having_a_heart

“....You don’t just come up with idea after idea and throw your ideas out as policy. There’s a big difference in having an idea and having the idea become official policy.

This is what got Newt in trouble with the individual mandate. Out of the blue, “Oh, yeah, I think everybody ought to be forced to have skin in the game.” He probably hasn’t even thought about it, just off the top of his head, bammo, but it assumed it was official Newt policy. The same thing with global warming on the couch with Pelosi. Whatever the calculation was, it was of the moment. We’re talking about immigration. The fact is — and we’ve been over this countless times — you must first and foremost secure the border. Any non-enforcement approach is going to be a magnet. So, how would Newt do that? ....

.......Before we start talking about deportation or what to do with the people that are here and however long they’ve been here, we’ve got to secure the border. That remains the sieve. That remains the ongoing problem, national security problem, immigration problem. And so securing the border also means dealing with the pro-illegal alien lobby, and they’re big out there. A bunch of people who are pro-illegal alien who don’t want to secure the border.

So this has now become ———something that people are shooting at Newt at, which stands to reason, and I’m not criticizing anybody shooting at him for it.——— He’s put it out there, and he’s done it in a debate, first time anybody’s ever of heard of it now as a policy statement rather than idea. If Newt had said, “I have been thinking about this. One of the things I’m thinking about is,” and then mention this, “we have to think about it a little further,” it would be reacted to in an entirely different way last night and today. But the way he threw it out there, as full-fledged policy, -———okay, that means we can shoot at it.———— .....”

Newt makes no apologies for his support of the climate change myth, ——despite criticism from all over the right including Rush Limbaugh, who argued on his radio show that the former Georgia congressman had been aiding the “enemy.”

He's pretty quiet about his upcoming book titled "Environmental Entrepreneurs" which one of his co authors Terry Maple says is expected to come out in 2013.

We already know that Maple is a greentard loon and "environmental psychologist" but Katherine Hayyhoe (Climate Scientist) and author of "A climate for change" is another co author who deserves a look.

Katherine Hayyhoe, Climate Scientist

Katharine Hayhoe is a highly-respected expert on climate change, one of the most pressing issues facing the planet today. An expert reviewer for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, her life’s work has been dedicated to discovering and communicating the realities of a changing climate to those who will be affected most by it.

As an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, Katharine develops new ways to quantify the potential impacts of human activities at the regional scale. As founder and CEO of ATMOS Research, she also bridges the gap between scientists and stakeholders to provide relevant, state-of-the-art information on how climate change will affect our lives to a broad range of non-profit, industry and government clients.

Katharine's work has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications and many key reports including the U.S. Global Change Research Program's 2009 report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” the U.S. National Academy of Science 2011 report, “Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia,” and the upcoming 2013 U.S. National Climate Assessment. In addition to these reports, she has led climate impact assessments for a broad cross-section of cities and regions, from Chicago to California. The findings of these studies have been presented before Congress, highlighted in briefings to state and federal agencies, and featured in over 200 news and media outlets around the world.

Katharine is currently writing a guidebook and creating accompanying videos on how to incorporate climate projections into impact assessments for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. She also teamed up with Andrew Farley, author, professor and lead teaching pastor of Ecclesia, to write “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions," a book that untangles the complex science and tackles many long-held misconceptions about global warming. Her work as a climate change evangelist has been featured in the PBS documentary series, The Secret Life of Scientists.

I think its also important to look at what the "environmental entrepreneurs" have done for the world. Things like cap and trade is one of their fruits as well as the wind energy industry and the Chevy Volt are examples of environmental entrepreneurship.

Got news for you , Rush, and all the other folks who are so wrapped up in self-righteous anger over Newt saying "the Era of Reagan is over." He's absolutely correct.

When you have a Marxist-Narcissist like Obama sitting in the White House, guess what--the Era of Reagan is officially over. It ended when Bill Clinton became our 42nd President and began passing laws that reversed what Reagan had achieved. It accelerated in 2007 when the Democrats regained majority status in the House and began passing more anti-Reagan laws.

It's time for conservatives to grow up. Reagan is 20 years dead. There is no other Reagan. We have to stop wishing for a return to Reagan and move forwards on the principles for which Reagan stood.

What Newt said was absolutely true:

"I think if Governor Reagan were here today, and he were looking at where America should go, he wouldn't be saying, "Let's go back to 1980." He'd be saying, "Here are the solutions, here are the policies, here's what will carry us into the future." And I think we've watched these guys run around saying, "I'm like Reagan. I'm like Reagan." Reagan was a unique one-time personality whose great achievement in eliminating the Soviet empire was historic. Now we have a different world with a different set of problems. I don't think it can be, "Here's how you go back 28 years to reinvent Reagan." It's gotta be, "Here's how you apply conservatism to solve America's problems today."

Where is he wrong? What did he say the isn't absolutely true? We can't go back, we can only go forwards. There is no new Reagan, Reagan was a man of his era. All we can do is take the principles which moved Reagan which directed his actions and apply them to the problems we now face. Anyone who thinks that is not consistent with Ronald Reagan or in any way a rejection of Reaganism, needs to have his head examined.

I'll tell you and Rush and anyone else, selective reading and intentional misinterpretation of what Newt has said is the antithesis of Reaganism and beneath contempt.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to lie to make his points, all he had to do is state the truth. That is what Newt has done and it is not what Rush has done in this instance.