Saturday, September 25, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesNo tea partiers remain and Newt could lose to Barack

No tea partiers remain and Newt could lose to Barack

Babe Ruth’s homers were prodigious but Hank Aaron hit more

I well remember the good old days, way back in 2011, when Mitt Romney was lauded for being the great debater among those boys (and Michelle Bachmann) of Summer. Thus is the ephemeral nature of debate moments and home runs; much as was the hope for a tea partier conservative GOP presidential nominee.

Winter and the new year are ushered in by Ruthian shots against Lefty pitchers named Juan and King from the bat of the former Speaker of the House. What conservatives don’t thrill to the sound of the crack of Newt’s bat pummeling false charges of racism and reminders of ancient marital disputes best left behind closed doors?

But ball games are decided by which team scores the most runs, not by which player hit balls the farthest. The Babe hit them a mile. Hank Aaron hit them just far enough and hit more. The Babe was undone by what he did between home runs.

Thus the voters of South Carolina face a similar choice between a heavyweight named Gingrich saddled with baggage, both marital and non-marital, that could distract voters from their Obama-emptied pockets or a steady Aaron-like experienced executive named Romney.

Last week we endorsed the latter; and a less-publicized debate-moment homer from last night illustrates, we think, the wisdom of our choice:

MR. KING: OK. A subset of the jobs conversation among the candidates in this state over the past week, Mr. Speaker, has been from you and from the now-departed Governor Perry pretty sharp criticism of Governor Romney’s tenure as the CEO of Bain Capital. I want you to be specific: What do you think he did wrong that —

MR. GINGRICH: No —

MR. KING: — makes you question his ability as a president to create jobs?

MR. GINGRICH: I think there are specific cases — Georgetown Steel would be a case here, a company in Gaffney, South Carolina — but specific cases where Bain Capital’s model — which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt — made it less likely to survive. I think the governor ought to explain — because it started because he cited his experience as a key part of his preparation for being president. And so I think the underlying model of that kind of investment, which is very different from venture capital, ought to be explained and those cases ought to be looked at.

Ok, Newt is asked to explain, specifically, what Romney did wrong at Bain, and after several run-on sentences about “models”, the Babe Ruth of debates fouls out while admitting that things “ought to be looked at”. But aren’t those that level charges against another supposed to have already looked at them? Of course.

Plants close all the time for all sorts of reasons, 99.9999999% of which have not been owned by Bain Capital. The plant named Bain made profits (Newt, conservatives consider profits as good) after Mitt Romney took it over and the former CEO was able to wax specific about the thousands of jobs saved or created thanks to Bain.

While we are “looking at cases” involving Mitt Romney’s executive experience, let us also gaze upon the saving of the post-911 Salt Lake City Olympics and the balancing of Massachusetts’ budget.

Yes, the dredging up of attacks from a scorned ex-wife can be despicable, but this former Democrat turned-conservative, due in large part to the class envy and economic ignorance-fueled disdain for entrepreneurs and the false allocation of blame for jobs losses of my former party, finds much more disdainful Newt’s merit-less attacks against a good businessman  about things that need to be “looked into”.

Newt’s debate home runs tell us that the former Speaker is one of the most articulate expositors of conservative principles alive today, but what does his attack on Bain tell us about him? What does the fact that he is held in contempt by so many of his former colleagues in the House? Why all the silence or worse from his “home” state of Georgia when straining to hear encouraging words? When is Newt scheduled to make another unprincipled U-turn onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to espouse policies that would kill more jobs that did bad Freddie Mac loans?

America is suffering. Yes, the unemployment rate as measured by the preferred MSM metric is now under 9% and if enough people quit looking for work, it could get to zero. The unemployment rate on Mars is also Zero.

Capital is on the sidelines for many reasons, most all of which begin and end with the presence of Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The policies he voted for as Senator with new Democratic  majorities from 2007-08 helped precipitate the Great Recession. The policies he signed into law passed by the super-majorities of his party in 2010-11 made the economy worse. His refusal to cut spending and reduce regulations at the behest of the tea partier-produced Republican majority in the 2011-12 House have kept the so-called “recovery” tepid.

The denial of the re-election of President Obama would kick-start a real recovery. History shows that the Election of 2012 should be the GOP’s to lose.

Why would we take a chance and nominate a man with proven character flaws that got him fired as Speaker and that could alienate voters we need to garner 270 electoral votes? Just because he hits occasional tape measure debate homers? I think not.

A vote for Rick Santorum in my former native state of South Carolina tomorrow, given his improved campaign skills and integrity, including his refusal to defame venture capitalism, would be a principled vote for a man that would most likely defeat Obama.

A vote for Mitt Romney would end the back-and-forth between Republican friends and allow the campaign against the Democrats to begin now. We have had enough vetting of our own dirty laundry.

Let’s return Newt to full-time Chattering Class status where we can enjoy his home runs in safe mode.

It is Mitt that can win the pennant.

Braves pitchers and catchers report on February 19…just saying.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

19 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

19 COMMENTS

  1. John King can get on his high horse and demand that Newt be very specific if he wants to. That is no different than Diane Sawyer getting on *her* high horse and demanding that someone place themselves in the living room of a very loving homosexual couple and console them over the fact they could not legally marry.
    Premises are made to not be accepted.

  2. Newt reminds more than a few people of the reason Lincoln so treasured General US Grant: “He fights.” And usually when he engages in verbal sparring he seems strong. When Romney spars he seems full of nervous energy and more angry than powerful, somewhat like Santorum but less whiny.

  3. Were the ’94 uprising in Congress the French Revolution, then from the pages in history, Newt is our Robespierre. Indispensible. Brilliant. Shockingly Unstable at the most unexpected times. When he gets close to real power, you can forget anything he did or said or promised before. This is the man who sat on the settee with Nancy P, and (God’s truth) was exploring putting together some kind of “coalition government” for him to be Hillary’s VP at one point. I am not mad at him nor unforgiving of his human weaknes he wrestles with – as do we all. But even with Robespierre, the time came when he was standing in the way of the Revolution he had led.

  4. IMO mittens has been pre-selected by little barry and the LSM to be our nominee. They are all probably salivating at the prospect. Rush and palin both said it… the OWS stuff was “created” in anticipation of mittens prevailing one way or another. They will rip him to shreds. from where I sit, with romneycare, his statement indicatiing he would issue 50 WAIVERS for ocare (thereby leaving all the STRUCTURE in place, not to mention the 200,000 fed employees already hired to implement it) his being “open” to a VAT, support of TARP and on and on and on about the only difference I see between him and the little commie at 1600 is the cost of their respective suits.

  5. I don’t have a dog in the fight between Mitt and Newt. There were 5 candidates who dropped out of the race that I preferred to these two. Having said that I do reject your premise that no tea partiers remain.
    Tea Party Express founder Amy Kremer says that Newt has been involved from the very beginning in the movement. source

    Conversely, for Kremer, Gingrich can be credited with a long, tea party history.
    “The other interesting candidate out there is Newt Gingrich because (he) has been involved in the tea party movement from the very beginning,” she said, crediting his organization American Solutions as being one of the original sponsoring organizations of the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party and his staff members with reaching out to work with tea party groups across the country.
    “With Newt, one of the things that people like is that he was able to balance the budget when President Clinton was in office… He understands the importance of the conservative moment,” Kremer said. “He’s been building that relationship.”

    I also disagree with the premise that Newt could lose to Barack. I wish you would promote what you like so much about Mitt instead of promoting the premise that Newt could lose to Barack.

    • Please let us not compare civilized men to the barbarians who threw the French Revolution. That introduced a system of Terror as a tool of state power used against the people of the state. It was the precursor of murderous 20th century socialisms like the Bolshevik and Nazi governments.

    • Well, with enough caveats, all God’s children, even if they dub Ryan’s plan right wing social engineering, can be tea partiers. But no, your caveat is a non sequitur, i.e. Tea Party Express member. I am talking about substantive issue, lower case tea partiers.

      My premise is quite narrowly defined and includes the word “could” lose to Obama. Never said Obama is better than Newt and of course, never would. Said from the get go that I think the election is ours to lose. Said that Newt is the riskiest due to his baggage. And I include several reasons in this column and my other two columns since New Hampshire that promote what I like about Romney.

      Please re-read this column and my last three and your comment and I think you will see major disconnects.

    • Of course, any candidate “could” lose to Obama and it was conversations with you before and especially after the Newt-Juan Williams debate in which you continually agreed that the riskiest candidates “not named Paul” (to use your words) to put up against Obama were Newt and Santorum, that largely inspired that theme of my column. Not sure when you decided that such worries are un-serious and have no clue where you read that I think Obama is going to win since I have said in every column, including this one, that this election is ours to lose given the poor state of the economy and history. I have never promoted the premise that Obama is better than Newt. Honestly, I’m at a loss to understand how you could publish such comments to this column if you actually read it, not to mention having known me so well for over 5 years. Oh well, live and learn my brother. God bless.

      • I really think, GC, my dog Spot could beat Obama. He has to depress the GOP vote by more, quite frankly, than he is capable, and Newt is proving this, because Newt has more of the same baggage Clinton did, and while I don’t like the character of either man, there is a little turnabout is fair play Gotcha in Newt weathering a misconduct history as Clinton did.

        Like you, I think Romney is the more solid candidate, but Newt is the one to stir excitement and the Left’s ire…and everyone is paying now to see him beat Obama up.

        The best men have already have left this campaign, or never even signed up, and if Newt becomes the candidate then all I will say is that God works in mysterious ways.

        Me? I’m just going to watch this play out with a certian amount of amusement, knowing an Invisible Hand is in charge, and making the Left, not the conservatives handicappers, squirm, is His game now.

        Sit back and enjoy the passing parade.

  6. For everyone of those who speaks ill of Gingrich from his time as Speaker there is another who speaks glowingly of him and I might add Palin, Rush, Michael Reagan have all thrown their support to him. I believe he CRUSHES Obama in the debates. I like that Newt knows how the government is built and how to dismantle it. He like me wants this Country around for his grandchildren. He has asked for and received forgiveness for his sins from his family and his God, I am not going to sit out here and attempt to supersede that.

  7. I am the guy who cited a character out of history – a brilliant debater who could and did verbally and logicallly destroy any opponent – but who, when he got that power started unexpectedly doing things that surprised and disillusioned his followers. I think they also call it getting “star struck.” I guess you just had to have watched it play out in real time, Newt’s cozying up to Nancy and Hillary, that is.

  8. I have yet to understand why people think Romney can beat Obama or why Newt can’t. Both are questionable bets and Snatorum more questionable than either of the other two.

    I have yet to see a cogent argument for or against any of those who are left to choose from.

    None of those left are worth what we lost to the politics of personal destruction, including Huntsman who was at least fairly honest about his liberal leanings. And I’m still waiting to find out what the Romney camp’s role was in those destructive politics, just as it took weeks to find out what he did to Fred that got blamed on others until it was too late to do anything about it.

    Romney will say or do anything to win the nomination. Gingrich will say or do anything to win the nomination. Santorum will say or do anything to win the nomination.

    The media says that Romney’s the only one who can beat Obama. The beltway insiders say Romney’s the only one who can beat Obama. Both sets are liars.

    Gingrich has taken the pulse of the people and is acting accordingly. Whether he lives up to anything he’s saying now is really irrelevant at this moment in time. What he says is the only thing separating him from the other two and he might, just might keep some of what he says true, out of self-interest if nothing else.

    And it’s because of what he says that I think he has a better than fair chance of defeating Obama than all the pundits, talking heads in the media, or the establishment give him credit for.

    As far as baggage, at least Gingrich’s is out in the open. Baggage is also irrelevant at this point in time. A candidate as pure as the snow would suddenly find himself with baggage if the media so desired it. Look at what happened to Cain. Where are all those ‘injured parties’ now?

    If Romney does win the nomination, it will be the McCain redux of 2012. Heck, it’s likely to be that with any of them left but Romney for sure will be.

    • Your comment is informative and enlightening, Steph, thanks. My best choices are now out of the race, and I like how you characterized the remaining three (RP is in a class by himself, and actually would say anything too), I don’t like any of the remaining 3, two who make me feel like they’re selling…and I’m not in the mood to buy, and the other simply because of some heavy duty past political issues when he had positions of power. But I agree, I don’t believe that Newt could be a higher risk of losing to Obama than the GOP establishments’ and the Dems’ choice of Romney could be.

      At this point, I believe the vote will be along the lines of “anybody but Obama” and even with our weak candidates, they can beat Obi. The race is the GOP’s to lose, but they’re not thinking this through very well. Their efforts to push Romney down our throats can impact the base, great resentment exists towards them, ie McCain redux 08 as you noted. Here in Virginia, I’m not going to vote in the primary, unless someone convinces me to go for a protest vote and choose Paul.

      • I’m on your page. I also am an anybody but Obama voter. Right now, Newt gets a higher grade on likeability than Romney. Other than that, I got nothin.

        Watching the post-Perry debate this week, I came away with the feeling that 3 men would beat Obama & I don’t much care which one it is. (Santorum is the least viable of the 3, though).

      • My best choices are out of the race, too. I’ve still got over a month before I have to actually choose anyone. If people keep wrangling and tangling the “Romney’s the only one who” angle I might vote Paul myself, just to protest.

        Right now, I’d like to wrangle it to a brokered convention because the establishment/beltway types will absolutely hate that. Not that a brokered convention is likely to net us anyone decent but it will be a public showing of how much the establishment hates the rest of us knowing that we’ve been snookered once again.

  1. John King can get on his high horse and demand that Newt be very specific if he wants to. That is no different than Diane Sawyer getting on *her* high horse and demanding that someone place themselves in the living room of a very loving homosexual couple and console them over the fact they could not legally marry.
    Premises are made to not be accepted.

  2. Newt reminds more than a few people of the reason Lincoln so treasured General US Grant: “He fights.” And usually when he engages in verbal sparring he seems strong. When Romney spars he seems full of nervous energy and more angry than powerful, somewhat like Santorum but less whiny.

  3. Were the ’94 uprising in Congress the French Revolution, then from the pages in history, Newt is our Robespierre. Indispensible. Brilliant. Shockingly Unstable at the most unexpected times. When he gets close to real power, you can forget anything he did or said or promised before. This is the man who sat on the settee with Nancy P, and (God’s truth) was exploring putting together some kind of “coalition government” for him to be Hillary’s VP at one point. I am not mad at him nor unforgiving of his human weaknes he wrestles with – as do we all. But even with Robespierre, the time came when he was standing in the way of the Revolution he had led.

  4. IMO mittens has been pre-selected by little barry and the LSM to be our nominee. They are all probably salivating at the prospect. Rush and palin both said it… the OWS stuff was “created” in anticipation of mittens prevailing one way or another. They will rip him to shreds. from where I sit, with romneycare, his statement indicatiing he would issue 50 WAIVERS for ocare (thereby leaving all the STRUCTURE in place, not to mention the 200,000 fed employees already hired to implement it) his being “open” to a VAT, support of TARP and on and on and on about the only difference I see between him and the little commie at 1600 is the cost of their respective suits.

  5. I don’t have a dog in the fight between Mitt and Newt. There were 5 candidates who dropped out of the race that I preferred to these two. Having said that I do reject your premise that no tea partiers remain.
    Tea Party Express founder Amy Kremer says that Newt has been involved from the very beginning in the movement. source

    Conversely, for Kremer, Gingrich can be credited with a long, tea party history.
    “The other interesting candidate out there is Newt Gingrich because (he) has been involved in the tea party movement from the very beginning,” she said, crediting his organization American Solutions as being one of the original sponsoring organizations of the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party and his staff members with reaching out to work with tea party groups across the country.
    “With Newt, one of the things that people like is that he was able to balance the budget when President Clinton was in office… He understands the importance of the conservative moment,” Kremer said. “He’s been building that relationship.”

    I also disagree with the premise that Newt could lose to Barack. I wish you would promote what you like so much about Mitt instead of promoting the premise that Newt could lose to Barack.

    • Please let us not compare civilized men to the barbarians who threw the French Revolution. That introduced a system of Terror as a tool of state power used against the people of the state. It was the precursor of murderous 20th century socialisms like the Bolshevik and Nazi governments.

    • Well, with enough caveats, all God’s children, even if they dub Ryan’s plan right wing social engineering, can be tea partiers. But no, your caveat is a non sequitur, i.e. Tea Party Express member. I am talking about substantive issue, lower case tea partiers.

      My premise is quite narrowly defined and includes the word “could” lose to Obama. Never said Obama is better than Newt and of course, never would. Said from the get go that I think the election is ours to lose. Said that Newt is the riskiest due to his baggage. And I include several reasons in this column and my other two columns since New Hampshire that promote what I like about Romney.

      Please re-read this column and my last three and your comment and I think you will see major disconnects.

    • Of course, any candidate “could” lose to Obama and it was conversations with you before and especially after the Newt-Juan Williams debate in which you continually agreed that the riskiest candidates “not named Paul” (to use your words) to put up against Obama were Newt and Santorum, that largely inspired that theme of my column. Not sure when you decided that such worries are un-serious and have no clue where you read that I think Obama is going to win since I have said in every column, including this one, that this election is ours to lose given the poor state of the economy and history. I have never promoted the premise that Obama is better than Newt. Honestly, I’m at a loss to understand how you could publish such comments to this column if you actually read it, not to mention having known me so well for over 5 years. Oh well, live and learn my brother. God bless.

      • I really think, GC, my dog Spot could beat Obama. He has to depress the GOP vote by more, quite frankly, than he is capable, and Newt is proving this, because Newt has more of the same baggage Clinton did, and while I don’t like the character of either man, there is a little turnabout is fair play Gotcha in Newt weathering a misconduct history as Clinton did.

        Like you, I think Romney is the more solid candidate, but Newt is the one to stir excitement and the Left’s ire…and everyone is paying now to see him beat Obama up.

        The best men have already have left this campaign, or never even signed up, and if Newt becomes the candidate then all I will say is that God works in mysterious ways.

        Me? I’m just going to watch this play out with a certian amount of amusement, knowing an Invisible Hand is in charge, and making the Left, not the conservatives handicappers, squirm, is His game now.

        Sit back and enjoy the passing parade.

  6. For everyone of those who speaks ill of Gingrich from his time as Speaker there is another who speaks glowingly of him and I might add Palin, Rush, Michael Reagan have all thrown their support to him. I believe he CRUSHES Obama in the debates. I like that Newt knows how the government is built and how to dismantle it. He like me wants this Country around for his grandchildren. He has asked for and received forgiveness for his sins from his family and his God, I am not going to sit out here and attempt to supersede that.

  7. I am the guy who cited a character out of history – a brilliant debater who could and did verbally and logicallly destroy any opponent – but who, when he got that power started unexpectedly doing things that surprised and disillusioned his followers. I think they also call it getting “star struck.” I guess you just had to have watched it play out in real time, Newt’s cozying up to Nancy and Hillary, that is.

  8. I have yet to understand why people think Romney can beat Obama or why Newt can’t. Both are questionable bets and Snatorum more questionable than either of the other two.

    I have yet to see a cogent argument for or against any of those who are left to choose from.

    None of those left are worth what we lost to the politics of personal destruction, including Huntsman who was at least fairly honest about his liberal leanings. And I’m still waiting to find out what the Romney camp’s role was in those destructive politics, just as it took weeks to find out what he did to Fred that got blamed on others until it was too late to do anything about it.

    Romney will say or do anything to win the nomination. Gingrich will say or do anything to win the nomination. Santorum will say or do anything to win the nomination.

    The media says that Romney’s the only one who can beat Obama. The beltway insiders say Romney’s the only one who can beat Obama. Both sets are liars.

    Gingrich has taken the pulse of the people and is acting accordingly. Whether he lives up to anything he’s saying now is really irrelevant at this moment in time. What he says is the only thing separating him from the other two and he might, just might keep some of what he says true, out of self-interest if nothing else.

    And it’s because of what he says that I think he has a better than fair chance of defeating Obama than all the pundits, talking heads in the media, or the establishment give him credit for.

    As far as baggage, at least Gingrich’s is out in the open. Baggage is also irrelevant at this point in time. A candidate as pure as the snow would suddenly find himself with baggage if the media so desired it. Look at what happened to Cain. Where are all those ‘injured parties’ now?

    If Romney does win the nomination, it will be the McCain redux of 2012. Heck, it’s likely to be that with any of them left but Romney for sure will be.

    • Your comment is informative and enlightening, Steph, thanks. My best choices are now out of the race, and I like how you characterized the remaining three (RP is in a class by himself, and actually would say anything too), I don’t like any of the remaining 3, two who make me feel like they’re selling…and I’m not in the mood to buy, and the other simply because of some heavy duty past political issues when he had positions of power. But I agree, I don’t believe that Newt could be a higher risk of losing to Obama than the GOP establishments’ and the Dems’ choice of Romney could be.

      At this point, I believe the vote will be along the lines of “anybody but Obama” and even with our weak candidates, they can beat Obi. The race is the GOP’s to lose, but they’re not thinking this through very well. Their efforts to push Romney down our throats can impact the base, great resentment exists towards them, ie McCain redux 08 as you noted. Here in Virginia, I’m not going to vote in the primary, unless someone convinces me to go for a protest vote and choose Paul.

      • I’m on your page. I also am an anybody but Obama voter. Right now, Newt gets a higher grade on likeability than Romney. Other than that, I got nothin.

        Watching the post-Perry debate this week, I came away with the feeling that 3 men would beat Obama & I don’t much care which one it is. (Santorum is the least viable of the 3, though).

      • My best choices are out of the race, too. I’ve still got over a month before I have to actually choose anyone. If people keep wrangling and tangling the “Romney’s the only one who” angle I might vote Paul myself, just to protest.

        Right now, I’d like to wrangle it to a brokered convention because the establishment/beltway types will absolutely hate that. Not that a brokered convention is likely to net us anyone decent but it will be a public showing of how much the establishment hates the rest of us knowing that we’ve been snookered once again.

Must Read