Gingrich’s Capital Problem

Today’s Courier Herald Problem:

At this time last week, I wrote that Mitt Romney was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, and those grounded in reality should begin to accept that fact and plan for it accordingly.  Rick Santorum has done just that, spending the weekend orchestrating his graceful exit.  Remaining in the race was only time spent away from his family during a time of need, and staying in an additional couple of weeks had him facing a potential political career ending loss in his home state of Pennsylvania.  He is now among the list of former candidates pledging to defeat Barack Obama in November.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul currently plan to defiantly remain in the race until the Tampa convention.  For Paul, who ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian, this is no surprise.  The Republican Party is just a convenient vehicle for him to place Libertarian economic and foreign policy views on the national stage.  Leaving the race would shut down the oxygen needed to keep his media exposure alive.  He makes no pledge to the eventual nominee, and likely will not.  Ron Paul is all about Ron Paul, and not about expanding the Republican Party for victory.

Gingrich, however, is not Ron Paul.  He is a consummate party man. In the 1990’s, he was the face of the Republican Party for both supporters and detractors.  He has spent his entire political career building a modern Republican party as a professor at a small college in Georgia, as a back bench bomb throwing Congressman in Washington, as Speaker of the U.S. House, and as an author, pundit, and presumed elder statesman of the party.

Yet Gingrich’s attempt to become President has revealed a distinct problem of capital, and one that continues to grow by the day.  His financial capital issues have dogged the campaign from the beginning.  His first week of being an official candidate had Tiffany & Company as an uninvited running mate courtesy of a seven figure credit line he maintained with the upscale jeweler.  His campaign was financed not by grass roots activists but by a billionaire casino owner.  Those SuperPac funds were ironically used to attack Mitt Romney on being a successful capitalist.

Gingrich’s American Solutions group was liquidated early in the campaign and The Center For Health Transformation – formerly the Gingrich Group which received “consulting” retainers from Freddie Mac – filed for bankruptcy last week.  The punctuation on his financial issues came Tuesday when it was revealed that his $500 check to qualify for the Utah primary ballot had bounced.

The larger capital at risk for Gingrich at this point is not financial, however.  By continuing to oppose the nominee of the party during a time that is historically used to unite disparate interest groups around the common cause of victory, Gingrich places at stake the political capital of being a senior party statesman that he has accumulated over his adult lifetime.

Gingrich, ever the historian, appears to liken himself to Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney to Gerald Ford.  Reagan’s opposition to Ford at the 1976 convention kept the party divided and may have cost Ford the election, but paved the way for Reagan to re-emerge 4 years later as the conservative choice for the Republican Party.

A key difference between Ford’s circumstances and Romney’s, however, is that Ford was not chosen by voters prior to becoming Vice-President or President.  He was President by circumstance, yet rose to the occasion to begin the healing process of a very divided nation.

Romney, on the other hand, is the choice of Republican voters.  He was not the first choice of many, but he will be the only choice to emerge from Tampa to be on the ballot in November as the GOP nominee.  Gingrich, by continuing to insist that Romney isn’t sufficiently conservative, is denying the will of voters, and attempting to cast a role for himself that voters did not choose.

Political capital has a tendency to fade over time when it is spent on items that do not pay dividends.  Gingrich’s time since he sat in the seat of power in D.C.’s capitol is well over a decade.  The political risk assumed by running for President has not paid off with the immediate goal.  Continuing on the current path risks much of the remaining political capital Gingrich holds in reserve.

Gingrich is at a decision point for his political legacy.  Whether he chooses to be a supportive part of the modern Republican party he helped build, or to be part of tearing it down is up to him.  How he will be remembered and his legacy hang in the balance.


  1. seenbetrdayz says:

    “Ron Paul is all about Ron Paul, and not about expanding the Republican Party for victory.”

    Ron Paul may be the only one of the current contenders who is expanding the republican party. Who else is drawing crowds like this?

    I know, I know, that the GOP establishment really hates young people, but you sort of have to get them to vote for you in order to win an election. Obama figured this out in 2008 (as did Clinton in the 90s), and Romney is *not* going to be the candidate who can sway voters away from our current POTUS. Your best shot right now is that Obama does something so heinous that it convinces his supporters to stay home on election day; but defectors to the republican party are going to be few and far between.

    It sucks.

    Then you’ve got Ron Paul trying to grow your dying party, and you guys are hiding behind the door with 2×4’s ready to smash folks’ heads in as they walk through the entrance. It looks really bad to those on the outside. “I ain’t walkin’ in there!”

    • caroline says:

      It really is ironic that Paul has all the younger voters and that most everybody sees that as detrimental.

      But you are right about the current GOP–there really is no crossover appeal and the GOP certainly has zero appeal to voters under 30.

      • I Miss the 90s says:

        It is not all that ironic that Paul has support from younger voters. He wants to legalize pot…which helps.

        He is also the only GOP candidate that does not believe in outlawing same-sex marriage. This is an important point. The older crowd grew up with homosexuality literally classified as a mental disorder. This injustice has since been corrected.

        It is not at all uncommon for the younger crowds to grow up with gay friends. Just like the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, just like the women’s equality movement, conservatives (and the GOP in particular) are on the wrong side of the gay rights movement. In essence, the GOP is trying to make the gay community a group of second class citizens and this is upsetting to those with friends that are gay.

        • I Miss the 90s says:

          there is a side-bar to this, Paul is a bigot. Just because he does not want same-sex marriage outlawed does not mean he does, or ever has, supported civil rights.

          • Jimmie says:

            His actions as an elected official is all that should matter. He says it’s not his right as POTUS to legislate what you do with your own body. Why does it matter what he thinks personally? People just don’t understand what Freedom and Liberty really means.

        • caroline says:

          I meant ironic for the GOP. For a party to survive as a national party you have to attract a larger voting base. I think the GOP is still stuck in the cold war and can’t move into the present.

          And it’s not just young people who have a problem with gays. I have many friends who have had their minds changed on this issue in recent years and I wouldn’t call them young. There are people in their 50’s with children who are gay who are being turned off by the gay bashing. One lady I know who was a self professed “Christian conservative” completely did a 180 on this issue when she found out her son was gay. It was very hard to reconcile the hate the GOP directed at her son when he is an upstanding citizen in the community who just happens to be gay. She said “I could not have asked for a better son” and I know her son and he is a wonderful person.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      But why are these young people attracted to Ron Paul? That’s what no one talks about, I don’t know myself, but I’d like to find out if its because they really believe in a very limited government, or some other reason(s). The thing that hurts Ron Paul the most with “establishment” types like me (I still don’t understand who the “establishment” is) is his foreign policy (abandon Israel, give up the fight against terrorism and tyranny world-wide) and the conspiracy nonsense some of his ardent supporters engage in (the Fed is trying to destroy the country, they’re building a UN super highway, FEMA concentration camps, etc.). The anti-semitism I’ve heard from some of his supporters is also troubling, and Paul hasn’t done enough to distance himself from this.

      Also, why, if he is so popular, does he not bring in more votes in the primary? Maybe, just maybe, the Party isn’t turning their back on him, maybe he just doesn’t appeal to as many voters as his supporters would like to believe.

      • caroline says:

        The reason Paul has so many young voters is because of his stance on the wars. The younger people have seen their brothers, sisters, classmates etc die from this nonsense in Iraq. They don’t want people to die for some fantasy of creating a Utopia in the middle east. That and he’s against the war on drugs which has caused nothing but more misery to already miserable people and it doesn’t even work to boot. It’s just another ineffectual conservative “feel good” policy that is past it’s prime and usefulness.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          I’m glad you stepped in to explain this one, because I get tired of repeating myself.

          I’m vehemently opposed to erecting utopias in the Middle East, spending American blood on behalf of foreigners, who would just use their newfound ‘democracy’ to elect tyrants who hate the U.S., again. Rinse, repeat.

          It has been our foreign policy for . . . ever, it seems. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks it doesn’t make sense anymore.

          • c_murrayiii says:

            That’s a valid position, but I politely disagree with both your characterization of my position and your position. I view situations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Syria as places where regimes both abuse their own people, threaten our allies, and threaten the US directly. I also believe that with great power, comes great responsibility. The US has always been a nation that believes in freedom from tyranny, for both Americans and all other people. Tyrannical regimes historically don’t cease their tyranny at their borders, but once their population has been pacified, act aggressively towards their neighbors, upsetting global security and global economics (Germany in WWII, Japan in WWII, Iraq in 1990, the Barbary Pirates in the 1800’s, etc). We live in a globalized world and there is no going back. What happens in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. does not stop there, even if we are tucked away between our oceans. It reverberates across the global. We can either be proactive and give our best, good faith effort, or be reactive and scramble to correct a wrong. Both valid choices, but I choose to support candidates that are for being proactive.

            • caroline says:

              You have proven dead wrong with regards to Iraq. And that is one reason the young people have no interest in the GOP and their desire to “rule the world”. And the problem above and over all that, is what if there is a real threat not some made up one like Iraq? No one is going to believe anyone in the GOP when they talk about it. Who would trust them with the national security reigns again? For all Obama’s problems, and he has many, foreign policy is the one area where he is scoring decently with the voters.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Or we could empower other people of the world to throw off their own tyrants. If we go and fight for their freedom, they will *never* truly appreciate its cost. I know that it might sound cold and heartless, but it is the only way to ensure that the price they pay for their freedom is theirs to maintain.

              We might be globalized, but there’s no reason for us to reduce our standards of freedom (NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, Gun control), to the global level—but perhaps we could inspire the world to increase its level of freedom upwards to ours (frankly, I watch our government in action, and I believe we’ve already ‘fallen into the mud’, unfortunately).

              (But, we can’t inspire people with bombs; it has to be done by setting a good example)

              It’s very easy to send others off to fight for these noble causes. It’s very easy to tax others to fund these causes. But all that blood and treasure spent is worthless if the people we’re trying to ‘liberate’ turn right around and throw it out with one swift revolution. (look what happened to the guy we supported in Egypt, billions of dollars wasted, and that country is in turmoil now. )

              Here’s something to chew on, let’s see if anyone guesses who said it:

              Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

              In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

              Here we are, 30 years later, and we’re still poking sticks at a hornet’s nest.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                I guess none of the morning readers want to play the Ronald Reagan autobiography game.

                As much as Republicans praise the man, I remain firmly convinced that he would never get the GOP nomination in today’s f’d up climate.

      • “abandon Israel, give up the fight against terrorism and tyranny world-wide”

        Exactly! Because as we all know, the Constitution clearly states that our founders meant for us to be the world superpower and run the world. This means we need to intervene in any country that doesn’t have a democracy. 😉

        Fighting terrorism to prevent an attack on our own country is one thing. Intervening in the affairs of other countries is another and something I don’t believe we should be spending our tax dollars on.

  2. NorthGAGOP says:

    Great video. How does that translate to votes? How many states has he won. Will all the folks in the video support the Republican nominee?

    The “establishment” folks have supported a number of different candidates during the primary process. In some cases their candiate won, in others they lost.

    When the nominee is selected the “establishment” folks will get together to make calls, knock on doors, address post cards, post on Facebook, tweet, and do what ever else is necessary to win the election. They will welcome the “young people” and work side by side with them to get the Republican nominee elected.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      The best answer I can give is in the form of an example:

      Democrats have capitalized on the GOTV drives. If I had to choose, at this moment, who I could depend on to get people registered so they can participate, I’ve got to say that democrats are smoking you guys in the GOP. I mean, “leaving you in the dust.” The GOP just doesn’t seem interested in getting outsiders on board.

      All I’m hearing about right now is, “Romney is the choice of the GOP.” Well, that’s all fine and good, but what about the opinions of folks who are actually going to, you know, decide the election?

      Many people just don’t understand how the process works. Democrats will jump up and show people how to get things done, while the GOP in general doesn’t seem to be interested in having new people at all, much less, ‘showing them the ropes’, as they say. That’s a big problem for you guys, and if you want to actually get new voters instead of crossing your fingers and hoping that your current members live forever, you’re going to have to knock on some doors that don’t belong to “likely republican voters.”

      I’ve pretty much had to figure things out on my own, being new to this whole voting thing. My first time ever voting was in 2008, and I didn’t understand the primary process. Here in 2012, I’ve once again had to teach myself how the primary works, and, frankly, from what I’ve seen so far from the GOP, I almost wish I’d never looked into it. —Almost.

      I’m trying my hardest to find someone who isn’t using the failed McCain 2008 playbook of “war and bailouts” to head up the GOP nomination this time around. I’m probably not going to succeed (I’m certainly outnumbered within the GOP), but then, neither will the GOP if they insist on nominating the same candidates and expecting a different result. It’s gonna be a long wait until November before I get a chance to say, “I told you so.” Though, I probably won’t feel much like saying it, and certainly won’t get any pleasure from saying it.

      • Charlie says:

        There’s a difference between being open to outsiders, and capitulating to the obstinant and the petulant.

        You’re young. Congrats. There are many young folks who aren’t Ron Paul supporters who are part of the GOP that you refer to as the establishment. There are many more who are neither GOP supporters or Ron Paul supporters that the GOP could attract by adopting better policy positions on the environment, or at least to pretend to be somewhat tolerant of others opinions on social issues.

        For 6 years now, we’ve heard this same whining “We’re young and we’re excluded because the GOP doesn’t want outsiders” BS.

        The vast majority of the GOP doesn’t want a nuclear Iran. The vast majority of the GOP doesn’t want to abolish the Fed. The vast majority of the GOP doesn’t want a fall campaign with a candidate who claims social security and medicare are unconstitutional.

        There are a lot easier ways to come up with an extra 3% of the vote than capitulate to the demands of the “excluded” but inflexible Ron Paul supporters that won’t lose the GOP another 20-40% of the vote in the process.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          inflexible Ron Paul supporters that won’t lose the GOP another 20-40% of the vote in the process.

          How do you know? you’ve never tried it, lol.

          You guys keep trying the same thing over and over. There is practically no difference whatsoever between Romney 2012 and McCain 2008. (and there’s really no difference between Romney 2012 and Obama 2012, but I don’t expect you to see it)

          Let’s think this through: In 2008, McCain did not give any indication of policy changes whatsoever, while Obama swept in with a “hope and change” theme. McCain, therefore, got run over. Then they ran over him again on the way back from celebrating.

          Maybe, maybe, I’m giving you guys too hard a time. I mean, at least you’re not actively trying to conceal the fact that you’re supporting the same things that thoroughly devastated your party in the 2008 presidential election. There’s no chance that Romney could end up doing as Obama did—which is promising ‘hope and change’, and then backing out on his promise—because Romney is offering neither hope nor change, so there shouldn’t be a whole lot of disappointment. For that, I suppose, you get some respect.

          It still won’t win you the election in November. You guys can’t seem to keep up with the political atmosphere in this country. There’s a reason why Ron Paul’s support has doubled since 2008, and the GOP is currently on its knees begging some lifelong members to not stay home in November.

          • Charlie says:

            Yes, “We” are the ones who keep saying the same things over and over.

            Whereas you guys are a model of flexibility and innovation.

            Good luck in 2016, where I’m sure you will once again win every internet poll and remain convinced by such that you are the real majority.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              But the key difference is that the libertarians haven’t held any positions of power yet; therefore, people are starting to want to give us a chance. As I stated, “How do you know it won’t work? –you’ve never tried it.” Right now, Ron Paul looks like the toy in the aisle with the ‘try-me’ button, while you guys are like the cookie crumbs that got left on the sample table in the grocery store.

              You guys are blowing your chances, because people keep putting you in power and you do the same thing over and over and over. Who stands to lose [credibility] in this situation? Who stands to gain?

              Think about it.

              • Charlie says:

                I have thought about it. And like most rational people, I’ve concluded that Libertarians would rather win an argument than an election. Yet they are rarely in danger of winning either. Yet they never seem to wonder why.

                Think about it.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Well, let’s put it like this:

                  I could stay home and not do anything and the GOP would still be losing support to alternative parties.

                  It’s not as if the libertarian party is losing support while the GOP waits for frustrated LP members to come into its party.

                  So, Who has room to grow? Who is shrinking?

                  Check and make sure that your thinking cap isn’t on backwards.

                  All I can say is that I tried to offer you the insight you need to grow your party, and you declined. I just wish November would come next month so we can go ahead and get this realization out of the way, so that you guys can stop fighting the wrong people (Ron Paul, the guy who believes in ‘too much freedom’, is *not* supposed to be the GOP’s target, *if* the GOP is supposed to be against government meddling in our lives) and we can actually get on with fighting for smaller government.

                  • NorthGAGOP says:

                    Remind me – how many state primaries Ron Paul win?

                    He’s done a good job of building a base over the last 4 years. The results are the results. They weren’t caused by people with 2×4’s standing behind the doors excluding people. It’s because the VAST majority of the people didn’t believe in his platform.

                    I know it’s hard to believe, but there is only one nominee. It’s not Ron Paul. The nominee is not perfect, and never will be. The key is to win in November.

                    So you can either sit on the sidelines and bitch about the establishment or you can get behind the nominee and work hard to beat the worst president in history.

                  • Charlie says:

                    I’ll choose to put it like this,

                    I’m not going to go head to head and have 300 comments about Ron Paul on a column about Newt Gingrich. And I quit reading after, “Well, let’s put it like this” because I quit being interested in Ron Paul comments years ago.

                    Feel free to restate your argument again below. It too will be ignored.

                    • NorthGAGOP says:

                      And you wonder why the you don’t have a bigger impact or voice. Your guy loses, and you sit on the sidelines and complain, vs. getting out and helping the nominee.

                      This is in response to “See you in November…”

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Why would young people get out and help the nominee to perpetuate things they don’t support?

                      Bailouts? Wars? Debt?

                      Your response is, basically:

                      “I just don’t understand why people aren’t enthusiastic about supporting that.”

                      I mean, really?

                      The folks who have been in the GOP all their lives have the benefit of dying (yup, I said it) before the consequences of their political efforts have time to sink in. What are they leaving behind? Shame on the young people for not coming together with them and supporting the Republican equivalent of Obama, lol.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Yawn, Ron Paul is right, everyone else is wrong, it’s the same old song with just a different verse and singer…wait… I think we’ve heard from this guy before? Does he think he can change anyone’s mind and get them to change the vote they cast back in March?

                      IT”S OVER. Let it go.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      It won’t be over, lol. You guys talk like you’re dodging a bullet or something when Ron Paul loses. “Whew, I’m glad we shut him up. —Now, where were we? —Oh yeah, crushing debt and exponential growth of government. Who can we find to address these problems?”

                      lmao. The problems we have are still going to be staring us right in the face, with or without Ron Paul.
                      You dig?

              • elfiii says:

                @ seenbetrdayz “Right now, Ron Paul looks like the toy in the aisle with the ‘try-me’ button”

                He’s been wearing that “Try Me” button for the better part of two decades and so far all he can garner is being “tried” 6% of the time in all the Presidential elections he has offered a candidacy in.

                I do like the “Toy in the aisle” analogy though. It fits perfectly. Like most “display” toys, Ron Paul has been handled so many times he is non-functional. He’s definitely “$1 toy bin” material.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    No, the founding fathers knew how to work with others and get things accomplished.

                    As for Newt, I’m glad he ran, but I don’t see a path to victory for him unless it’s as VP.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      No, the founding fathers knew how to work with others and get things accomplished.

                      Really? I seem to remember them throwing off their government, particularly in regard to high taxation without representation, to pay off debt accumulated during the French and Indian war, in which the Crown protected the colonies from the ‘savage natives,’ while simultaneously stripping the colonists of their rights.

                      Good thing nothing even remotely similar is happening today, right?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      No, it’s not. Ron Paul and his cult doesn’t know the meaning of compromise so if he had been in office back then, (maybe he was) we would have never had a Connecticut Compromise. He is in no way worthy of being compared to the founding fathers.

                      We have representation. The crown never acknowledged our rights. Debts and wars come and go. Next series of stupid questions or observations??

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Only if you promise to continue your next series of lack of observations.

                      As a wise man once said . . .

                      “None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe they are ___________.”

                      (I’m not really sure that the debt has ever “come and gone.” Nor the interventionist wars, really, which is what makes our current policies all the more perilous to our prosperity and freedom)

                    • Jimmie says:

                      Doug how does it feel to get your butt handed to you every time you debate Dayz? I find it very entertaining!

            • caroline says:

              One thing I think that isn’t being address is the fact that Republican voters are dying off. You cannot win elections with nothing but white, elderly evangelical voters. These voters are not main stream anymore. They are becoming the fringe of the country.

                  • elfiii says:

                    Got any links to any obituaries to prove your point caroline? Most of us are still alive and kicking. Perhaps a more robust demonstration of our existence is needed?

                    • caroline says:

                      Read the demographic polls and FYI obituaries don’t have political preference in them do they? When your base is mostly elderly evangelicals you are going to have lots of voters passing away.

                    • Engineer says:

                      Because you asked for a link, elfiii. (not that it matters, I suspect you’ll just ignore it)

                      Data by the Pew Research Center in 2011.
                      Their data back’s up caroline’s comments.

                      There is no need for obituaries (not that they are relevant anyways), people die every day, generally speaking, the older you are, the more likely it is you will pass on sooner than a young person. Like I’ve said in responses to other articles/threads on P.P., the GOP has a major problem with young, libertarian-leaning, and moderate-leaning conservatives. To put it simply, they just don’t seem to care about these potential voters and do so at their own peril.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      You guys realize that most normal people do not hold the same political beliefs their entire lives. Static demographic data does not model real life behavior very well.

                      In 1980’s (just 30 years ago) the South was like 90% Democratic in all levels of government. That doesn’t get turned on its head without people changing their minds.

                      And anecdotally, almost every flaming liberal friend of my youth has become at least a moderate and mostly a conservative in their older years. There is some kind of magic in paying taxes, having kids and a spouse relying on you, and just having actual responsibility that seems to turn people Republican (or at least away from the Democrats).

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      But I will also add, that extreme beliefs in general (left and right) are moderated by experience. Only the inexperienced and/or ignorant can hold hardline extreme beliefs.

                    • caroline says:

                      You are comparing what was going on in states and trying to equate it to what was going on nationally. Nationally those same people were voting GOP were they not?

                      The south is usually behind the curve on these types of things and is the last to change.

                      The thing about people changing as they get older is a chestnut left over from the Viet Nam area where everybody who was against the war was judged as being “liberal”. The truth is once the war was over, they went back to being what they always had been. And right now the GOP is out of alignment with what most of the country wants. Do you really think that the young people who are sick of these foreign adventures that the GOP so loves are going to do a 180 and all of a sudden embrace that ideology? I doubt it.

                    • Jimmie says:

                      Doug Deal you make a good point.
                      I actually voted for the traitor in Office today. I voted against a Status Quo Neo-Con (if not worse) McCain and bought into the Hope and Change. Just as I’ve learned a valuable lesson on the Iraq War lie, I have also learned how ignorant the Left can be at times. I often think my views today are directly related to being in my 40’s, 2 kids and a wife. My kids know nothing but War. Not directly, thank God, but their Country has always been at war since they have been alive. I am glad Obama has opened my eyes on how idiotic the Liberal agenda can be too. If the GOP base could just detach themselves from the Military Industrial Complex agenda I would be a proud GOP Party Man. Until then, I stand as a right leaning, Independent voter, that refuses to vote the lesser of 2 evils.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Valid points, D. Deal.

                      I’m convinced that Ron Paul is jump-starting that change in beliefs, though. He’s going onto liberal campuses and drawing out democrats who are young and think that wealth redistribution works, and getting them to exercise their brains and understand the concept of property rights and the injustice of using the force of government to rob others (things that the GOP seems to have abandoned, itself, so we might only be breaking even, unfortunately).

                      At a recent rally, Ron Paul quoted Churchill:

                      “Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and anyone who is not a conservative at 40 has no brains.”

                      The crowd paused, not sure of where he was going with the statement.

                      Then Dr. Paul added, “But I don’t see why we can’t use both,” and the crowd resumed cheering.

                      He’s trying to change the way people think about the issues. It’s no longer necessary to choose between a heart and a brain, you can have both. You don’t have to choose between economic liberty and personal liberty, you can have both. Etc. Etc. It’s not about left-versus-right, it’s about freedom-versus-control. It seems like freedom is losing right now, and, unfortunately, there’s people in power in both parties who are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it that way—whether some choose to acknowledge that or not.

              • c_murrayiii says:

                I’m relatively young (28) and I will never support Ron Paul, but I will continue to support the Republican Party as long as it stands for the things it has traditionally stood for. I have begun to assume I am in the “establishment” based on things I hear from tea party folks and Paulistas, though I have never been to a meeting of the “establishment” and I certainly had no interest in Romney beyond him being the least incompetent/scary of the choices this year.

                • ” I will continue to support the Republican Party as long as it stands for the things it has traditionally stood for”

                  …like outlawing online poker?

                  • c_murrayiii says:

                    Yes, we wouldn’t want to encourage competition against the Casinos. J/K. I can nit pick this minor issues that I may disagree with the party on and become a Paulista or a political misanthrope (because no party will represent me 100%), or I can support a party that generally and on the big issues, matches my own political preferences. I believe in a strong defense, I believe the United States must use its power for good in the world (being global cop in some cases, as you folks refer to it), I believe in low taxes, limited government domestically, and free trade. These are the big things for me. I support NAFTA, NATO, a flat tax/the Fair Tax, I don’t want to “End the Fed”, and I believe more authority and power should be transferred to the states. The GOP matches up pretty nicely with those values, as did Ronald Reagan’s philosophy. Incidentally, I do believe the War on Drugs is a disaster and that marijuana should be legal. I also support Gay marriage personally, but these two issues are not high on my priority list, so I’d never make a decision to support one candidate over another on them.

                    • “I believe in a strong defense, I believe the United States must use its power for good in the world (being global cop in some cases, as you folks refer to it), I believe in low taxes, limited government domestically, and free trade. ”

                      The problem with this statement is that playing global cop has its costs. You can’t really have low taxes when you have such high military expenditures.

                    • c_murrayiii says:

                      I disagree, you can’t have low taxes if you play global cop and also have trillions invested in Medicare, SS, Education, etc. If, however, you leave those things to the states or the private market, you can have relatively low taxes (with no deductions, no credits, no subsidies) and a strong defense that is able to intervene when it serves our national interest and international security. Military spending between 2003 and 2009 was from a low of $459 billion in 2003 to a high of $709 billion in 2009, counting the base Defense budget and the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan (from the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation). Tax revenues from just the Income Tax during the same period ranged from roughly $800 billion in 2003 to a high of nearly $1.2 trillion in 2007 (from the CBO), and that’s with a convoluted tax code with a narrow base and too many deductions/credits, and relatively low rates.

                    • “I disagree, you can’t have low taxes if you play global cop and also have trillions invested in Medicare, SS, Education, etc.”

                      Whose administration was No Child Left Behind created under? Medicare Part D?

                      Social Security was signed into law by FDR. Now, which candidate has been quoted as saying FDR was the greatest President ever? Yep, that’d be a Republican – Newt.

                    • caroline says:

                      You are arguing approval and I’m arguing voting habits. There’s apparently a lot of young people who are disappointed in Obama but that’s not to say they are going over to the GOP because they despise the GOP.

                    • KD_fiscal conservative says:

                      “The problem with this statement is that playing global cop has its costs. You can’t really have low taxes when you have such high military expenditures.”

                      BINGO!! I still can’t figure out how/why GOP’ers, who correctly make the claim our gov’t is going broke, 1)think our troops should risk their lives to go around fixing other countries messes 2) know how the hell we are going to pay for any more trillion $$$ wars. Not one neocon type has been able to explain these two things w/o using vague platitudes like “America leading the world, America force ofr good….blah, blah, blah” and in terms of dollars.

                    • John Konop says:

                      ………….BINGO!! I still can’t figure out how/why GOP’ers, who correctly make the claim our gov’t is going broke, 1)think our troops should risk their lives to go around fixing other countries messes 2) know how the hell we are going to pay for any more trillion $$$ wars. Not one neocon type has been able to explain these two things w/o using vague platitudes like “America leading the world, America force ofr good….blah, blah, blah” and in terms of dollars….

                      Well said!!!!!!!!!! +++++++++………………………..

  3. NoTeabagging says:

    Love the SuperPac note! Rich people ‘dissin’ other rich people for being rich. Priceless.

  4. Three Jack says:

    Hillary didn’t drop out until June of 2008 against Obama. It would seem her status as an elder stateman in the dem party has only been enhanced despite her sticking around longer than many wanted.

    Newt will be fine. He should stay in the race for a couple of reasons — 1. there is a chance no matter how slight that he gains conservative support and picks up enough delegates to have a say at the convention. 2. he needs to payoff campaign debt.

    Newt’s political legacy was written 2 decades ago. His sticking around til the convention will do nothing to alter that legacy unless somehow he prevents the nomination of Mandate Mitt which will serve to enhance his value in the eyes of many main st GOPers.

    • Ed says:

      HRC to Newt isn’t exactly apples to oranges… but I kind of tend to think he’s neither gaining nor losing any sort of political capital by remaining in the race. What he had he lost a while ago.

      Also Charlie, Ron Paul 2012/∞… we’ll see you in November. And we’re not going away.

  5. Jimmie says:

    What on earth does the private Federal Reserve do, that you need it to never be fully audited and ended? Who is to blame when this whole pretend currency comes crashing down? How was Iraq for the greater good of our Country and Allies? Never mind the GOP being the ones that lied straight to the American people over and over so Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could start bombing Iraq. What does Romney pledge to you that makes you stand behind him? Just being a GOP candidate that the Bankers back? How can he expose Obama on the Health Care mandate? How can he expose Obama on the NDAA? He supports it just as much as Obama does. There are countless other things that is wrong with Obama, that Mitt just has no ground to expose him on. The Goldman Sachs Certified Candidate is no Conservative. He flip flops on just about everything. I cannot throw away my principals, hold my nose, and vote for Mitt nor Obama. Yes I support RP this election, however, I support being fiscally conservative and being anti useless war more than any Party. Maybe some you World Police Do Gooders can explain why we are still in Afghanistan? No one seems to give a valid reason.

    • KD_fiscal conservative says:

      Well I will say Afghanistan is a completely different situation than Iraq. For one, we have made significant gains in Af., even though there are also huge problems. We took completely took the Taliban control from over half of the country, and are even in areas were the Taliban runs free, they fear night raids(now to be conducted by newly trained Afghanis). For one, it is important to prevent the Taliban and Pakistani extremist groups supported by ISI from gaining control of Af b/c these group have in the past, and will continue to, plot aganist American interests if given the chance. If we leave now, before the Afganis are able to maintain some level security, all of our gains will be lost, we have trained ~300,000 troops, and are in the process of training more. There are defections, but I think most of those will stop once the Americans leave in a couple of years.(unless Romney gets to rule, in which case it may be decades). Don’t get me wrong, Afghanistan was a sh!tty courty b/f we entered, and will be a sh!itty county after we leave, but at the very least, we need to be able to keep an eye on the activity of the shady groups in Af. and hedge pakistani regional power and also to prevent anti-America terrorist breeding, similar to the type of collaboration we have with the Yemeni Gov’t to take out Al Qaeda in a minimally invasive manner w/o using American group troops. We can’t do this unless there are enough Afghan troops and they slowly transition(over the span of several years).

      Unfortunately, I think this method of protecting US interests is going to stop, b/c Repubs want to be even MORE hawkish than the current president, who isn’t “using American power overseas”(in other words, isn’t getting involved in conflicts that have little or nothing to do with us, ie Syria, Egypt etc.) but that a who other discussion.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        I don’t know that we’ve really gained much in Afghanistan, other than killing OBL (who was actually in Pakistan). —Which, actually, I thought that was the main reason we went over there, so if there was ever a time to declare victory and get out, it would have been last year.

        I’m just not very big on time tables. It feels like they’ve been saying that we can’t just cut & run for ages now, and the goal-posts just keep moving. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that the longer we stay, the more enemies we make.

        Bit of speculation here:

        If we are really worried about safe-havens for plotting, I’d put my money on Saudi Arabia. 15/19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Plus, they have Mecca, the sacred Muslim city, and any occupation by the U.S. would put the entire M.E. up in arms against us. Saudi Arabia is like a hide-out that, even if you find it, you can’t do anything about it. Terrorists could hide in broad daylight and they know that the U.S. will attack every country but Saudi Arabia. Something to think about, I suppose.

        • caroline says:

          That’s one thing that conservatives seem to repeatedly ignore while yammering about places like Iran. The truth is they’ll never advocating attacking Saudi Arabia because they have too much money IMO. Saudi Arabia is the nexus of creating radical fundamentalism in the middle east yet they are treated as they are our allies. The Sauds are the biggest two-timers around when it comes to foreign policy.

  6. Jimmie says:

    “prevent anti-America terrorist breeding”…How does killing civilians in collateral damage build pro-American Afghans? The mission going in..and correct me if I am off base here, was to eradicate al-queda, kill or capture OBL, and disband the Taliban as much as possible. Why can’t we learn from Soviet Union/Russia’s mistakes over there? You can’t honestly say without reservation that our Nation (some would say Dictator in training)building in Afghan and Iraq is in the best interest of our Homeland. We could leave today and nothing in that lawless Country would change. Just as it hasn’t changed much from 10 years ago.
    The truth is our “allies” harbor much more dangerous anti-american people than Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan combined. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia alone are the World’s largest producers of evil-doers. I love to use old Bushisms. I miss that fella.
    The Nation building that needs to be done is our own Nation. Please open your mind up and look at the big picture. How on Earth can we spread Democracy when our Republic is falling apart? Hundreds of Billions of U.S. Taxpayer’s dollars spent needlessly overseas to fund dictators and rogue Governments.
    To me it’s common sense. I care much more about America’s well being than any other nation on this planet.

  7. elfiii says:

    @ Engineer “Because you asked for a link, elfiii. (not that it matters, I suspect you’ll just ignore it)”

    Was that a poor attempt at an insult Engineer? Probably so since it didn’t work.

    I read the summary and found nowhere did it mention mortality having an impact on conservative numbers. It did do an excellent job of pointing out party affinity is weakening on both sides of the aisle due to the disaffected nature of the electorate.

    I view that not so much as the two parties being abandoned by their ideaological base as it is the two parties abandoning their respective bases.

    Like I said, us “old phart” conservatives are alive and well and as the youth of our population age I suspect the same number will become more hardbitten conservatives as well, but not necessarily “Republicans”.

    Like Churchill said – “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.

    Like most of his witicisms, I have found this to be true. What is shocking is the data on the brainless these days. I had no idea there were this many.

    • Engineer says:

      Elfiii, there was no insult intended, and what I said ended up being true. The link was to show an example of the age group distribution that caroline referred to.

      Unless the person was a ranking member in a political party (a chair or other position), rarely do you see any mention of a person’s past political leanings in an obituary (thus explaining why I said obituaries weren’t relevant anyways).

Comments are closed.