« Half Sigma scores 24 | Main | National Review commenters sick of Palin »

January 30, 2012

Comments

NPR did a piece about Newt milking his so called Reagan legacy. They played dozens of clips of Newt talking about his associations with Reagan. In one clip, Newt proclaimed, “I will confess to you, I'm channeling Ronald Reagan in 1975-1976 and I'm channeling the way he used the Panama Canal.”

Newt Gingrich is a lot like Bill Clinton, a crass politicl opportunist who's neither right nor left. It's just that Clinton was far more likeble.

This may be true, but I'm more concerned about the fact (well, it's a fact in my mind) that the low quality of politics today is largely due to the work of Newt Gingrich. The political challenge of the next generation is going to be making budget cuts palateable and managing the dissapointments. Newt is too "I'm right; you're wrong; so stuff this cut up yours." Mitt has experience selling a conservative vision to a liberal electorate.

But Newt has more serious endorsers:
http://exiledonline.com/florida-small-businessman-tony-montana-endorses-newt-gingrich-“he-kill-that-cockaroach-castro-for-fun-mang/
(LOL, you'd probably never found this article by yourself)

"Unfortunately, he’s still fooling a lot of the Republican primary voters. "

I think that the "surge" he had in SC was due to what voters perceived as unfair and attention-seeking behavior by debate moderators and journalists.

I think he owes a goo 15-20% of his SC total as a protest vote against the liberal news media.

Palin had the same source of sympathy.

Heck, Reagan wasn't a real conservative either. He was a pro big business radical. Name one social issue where Reagan took a stand - Abortion? Gay rights? Affirmative Action? Public recognition of Christianity? Immigration? On every one of those issues the US actually moved further to the left while Reagan was President. Blame Congress if you want - but based on results Reagan was either a failure as a conservative or simply a massive hypocrite. I tend to think Reagan was at heart a Libertarian, not a conservative at all.

Hope he wins the nomination so he can have Ron Paul as his VP, then lose to Obama in a historic landslide.

Seriously, half the population (women) vote based on the looks of the candidate or the fashion sense of the first lady. Do we really expect the majority of Americans aka Octomom to sit through the debates and make an educated decision based on campaign promises?

Politics will always be a joke since the U.S. has one of the worst educational systems in the developed world, which prevents the majority from becoming a politically conscious public.

http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

So wait, you want us to believe Newt is bad because he doesn't have a fundamental, ideological and political core... but what exactly is Mitt's fundamental, ideological and political core?

Why is Mitt given a pass for converting to supposed conservatism when he did so MUCH MORE RECENTLY than Newt did?

If Newt was pro-Rockefeller in 1968, over forty years ago when he was TWENTY FIVE fer chrissake, that can be excused given that he did a lot more significant things for conservatism since then (like in the 1990s!). Mitt Romney, LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO, was a pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-carbon regulation, big-government tax-and-spend liberal.

[HS: Mitt Romney was never a tax-and-spend liberal, but he did work with the Massachusetts legislature to get some stuff passed that was GOOD for Massachusetts even though he feels he could have made that same stuff better if there were more Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature. He also had his gubernatorial veto frequently overridden by the Democrats.]

A crass political opportunist could be exactly what we need, the winds are changing, there is a lot of power currently in the hands of worthless progressives, someone like Newt who wants that power for himself will have to fight against them. Maybe

Both taxes and spending increased in MA during his tenure, so "tax-and-spend liberal" is precisely correct.

http://nhjournal.com/2011/11/03/governor-romney-a-record-of-big-government-big-spending/

"During his four year tenure as Governor of Massachusetts spending increased significantly, from $26.27 billion to $34.69 billion, an astounding 32% increase. This spending binge did not mirror increases in state economic activity either- in fact it out paced it. During Romney’s term state spending increased as a percentage of GDP from 8.84% to 9.81%.

The large spending increases accounted for do not count for a large portion of Gov. Romney’s effects in increasing the size of Massachusetts state government. RomneyCare was slated to cost taxpayers roughly $1.8 billion a year but due to huge cost overruns of at least $2 billion over 10 years the state is now running huge budget deficits."

Kinda funny how Half Sigma uses something Pat Buchanan said about Newt Gingrich to show that Newt's an opportunist and not a "real" conservative.

On the other hand, Half Sigma tells us we shouldn't support Ron Paul, because supposedly he's "anti-Semitic".

Yet, Half Sigma must be conveniently ignoring the fact that Pat Buchanan has also been accused of "anti-Semitism" - just read Pat Buchanan's Wikipedia bio.

[HS: My feelings about Pat is that he originally wasn't anti-Semitic at all, but because certain liberal left-wing Jews (who don't represent the beliefs of the average Jew on the street) got heavily on his case, he got mad at Jews in general. This is unfortunate.]

Half Sigma,
In Pat's books he seems to continue to lament the low fertility rate of "founding stock" Americans.

But founding stock americans that choose to live away from the coasts find life to be so affordable that fertility rates are high.

In simple terms, "founding stock" americans in expensive places have low fertility and "founding stock" americans in inexpensive places have high fertility

Everyone on this blog knows that some quite nice neighborhoods of the USA have gone up quite a bit since 1963 - places like Aspen, La Jolla, Soho, Greenwich, are up 20x

Instead, if one is to focus on "affordable family formation" one will realize that there are a number of places where housing is MORE affordable today, when one considers mortgage payments as a % of average income.

Most notably, suburbs of Pittsburgh.

This blog tends to attract pessimists, who like to talk about the more expensive parts of the USA.

There seem to be very few people here celebrating the almost miraculous affordability of family formation in much of the USA.

Think about it, the typical young European-descended male and female each with IQ of 110 can get training as an electrician and nurse, respectively, earn $60k per year each, and use that combined $120k income to buy a nice 4 bedroom house for $280k in some place like the suburbs of Pittsburgh, or Southern Utah, or New Hampshire.

A house for $280k in a school district that demographically resembles the USA of the 1950s

If mortgage rates are at 5%, you are talking about mortgage payments of only $14k per year on an income of $120k

The affordability of family formation in much of red state America is truly without parallel in most of the developed world.

Just use google to read about the cost of family formation in Japan, or Singapore, or Europe, or Australia or Canada. What we have in red state America is very special.

But of course Half Sigma sneers at the idea of living in red state America.

Mitt Romney got rid of the corrupt Bulger brother who claimed ignorance of his brother's ties in a state that spent decades cheerign on Whitey Bulger's evasion of the Feds. Gingrich left the GOP leadership and gave us the Lott/Delay Congressional GOP.

Here's the problem: whatever Newt's faults are, libs can't roll him with guilt. Romney's the kind of guy who will "grow," under the lib rhetorical assault. Think of it this way: if it's the end of the Roman republic, at least let's have some fireworks. Romney's never zinged a lefty in his life.

"Why is Mitt given a pass for converting to supposed conservatism when he did so MUCH MORE RECENTLY than Newt did?"


You're mistaken. Newt is the more recent convert. Four years ago Newt was arguing for the "individual mandate" in health insurance, for a carbon tax, and for other things which the Newt of 2012 pretends to have always opposed.


"If Newt was pro-Rockefeller in 1968, over forty years ago when he was TWENTY FIVE fer chrissake, that can be excused"

That's true. But the fact that he was a Rockefeller in 2008 is a lot harder to swallow. I get the impression that a lot of the Newt fans know nothing about him for the years between 1998 and 2011.


"Mitt Romney, LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO, was a pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-carbon regulation, big-government tax-and-spend liberal."


Newt was these things less than four years ago.

>"Both taxes and spending increased in MA during his tenure, so "tax-and-spend liberal" is precisely correct."

It's not "precisely correct", any more than saying that both taxes and spending increased while Reagan was President means that HE was a "tax-and-spend liberal". Just as taxing and spending at the federal level is controlled by Congress, taxes and spending at the state level are controlled by the state legislature. In MA, by a state legislature overwhelmingly dominated by left-wing Dems.


>"During Romney’s term state spending increased as a percentage of GDP from 8.84% to 9.81%."


If only he'd vetoed those spending bills! Oh, wait, he could not do so.

[HS: He used his veto power a lot, but most of his vetoes were overridden.]

Reagan was not a conservative, nor was Bush or Newt. I wonder, which Republican president was ever a conservative?

[HS: Calvin Coolidge?]

>"A crass political opportunist could be exactly what we need"


I don't really think that Gingrich IS a crass political opportunist. He seems to believe, honestly, fervently and passionately, whatever he says at any instant. The problem is that the things he believes (honestly, fervently and passionately) are in a never-ending state of flux.

I don't have the foggiest idea what a President Gingrich in 2014 would want to do, and I don't think he knows either. The only thing I can guarantee is that whatever he wanted to do - even if it was to abolish the US and merge it into a North America Union - he would be fervently and passionately convinced that it was the right and intelligent thing to do, and that all who opposed him would be idiots.

HS, you should worry about this Jewish woman.
http://www.speakingofchina.com/about/

Maybe you should rescue her by marring her.

Ideologically, Gingrich is a far better choice than Romney. Gingrich even has two accomplishments which have benefited every American, which is more than Romney can say: he balanced the Federal budget, and he got rid of the 55mph speed limit. For those, we should be grateful, even if the first didn't stick.

But. Gingrich cannot maintain the gravitas required to be President. He *can* show it, but it's not natural to him, and it doesn't stick - he's like a much smarter, conservative Keith Olbermann.

So I can't support Gingrich over Romney. I'd like to see Gingrich have some sort of role as an ideas guy, where other people can decide which of his ideas they actually try out. Maybe VP?

“I don’t think he has a fundamental, ideological and political core."

And Mitt the flip-flop Romney does?

>"Here's the problem: whatever Newt's faults are, libs can't roll him with guilt."

They can roll him with flattery. Just tell him what a brilliant statesman he is by endorsing the lefts agenda and he'll do it in a heartbeat.

>"Romney's never zinged a lefty in his life."

He's never zinged a righty either. When President Gingrich starts zinging the base of the GOP as being racist bigots for opposing his amnesty plans, will you still be as happy with his crazy zinging skillz?

"But of course Half Sigma sneers at the idea of living in red state America." - Slenzieke


Most wealthy conservatives refuse to live in red state America. The heartland is disparaged as provincial and unsophisticated. Nothing disgusts an upper class white more than thought that he or she could be prole. White proles are riffraff to be avoided.

Most wealthy conservatives refuse to live in red state America. The heartland is disparaged as provincial and unsophisticated. Nothing disgusts an upper class white more than thought that he or she could be prole. White proles are riffraff to be avoided.

Posted by: Conquistador | January 30, 2012 at 04:59 PM
___________________________
I'm neither wealthy nor conservative, but prole nabes are full of trouble makers whom I want nothing to do with. Of course there proles on an individual level who are well-mannered, but in large numbers in a certain area, you are likely to run across people who want to fight you for the tiniest of perceived infractions; people who are loud, rude and/or obnoxious; people who blast their radios; people who drive loud vehicles; and other stupid stuff. Plus, it's hard to find healthy food and high quality goods in prole nabes.

The comments to this entry are closed.