Why are the Anti-Romneys flocking to Gingrich of all people?

[Mechaman]

I mean seriously.  Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney plus a level 10 in assholery.

I mean really, how the hell can anyone find Gingrich likable?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's called money.


And as someone who made his career by herding southern (insert what jmfcst said), he has the experience on how to do it. Santorum has never had to experience that type of southern politics before and thus lacks the adeptness Newt has at it. See the thread about Conservatives and victimization, for an explanation has to how Newt did this with the debates.

[Scabr]

I mean seriously.  Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney plus a level 10 in assholery.

I mean really, how the hell can anyone find Gingrich likable?

I think you misunderstand us. It is not about Newt per se, but more about what he represents. His victory would symbolize a death blow to the Republican Party's traditional way of doing things, which ought to die a violent death by fire. I don't see why he is unlikeable to be honest though, I met him while he was in my town, nice guy, seemed genuine. I can't say that sort of thing for Romney.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I mean seriously.  Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney plus a level 10 in assholery.

I mean really, how the hell can anyone find Gingrich likable?

there is no one else left, other than Paul (crazy) and Santorum (who was 90% troll during his Senate tenure).  the field is extremely, extremely weak - there are no good choices

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The field is the weakest in history...

Former one-term flip flopper Governor of Mass who did not run forreelection as he would lose
Former House Speaker with three wives, adultery, ethics charges, forced out of Speakership
Former Senator who lost reelection by landslide
Former Libertarian Party nominee, 76 years old

This is madness

[Scabr]

The field is the weakest in history...

Former one-term flip flopper Governor of Mass who did not run forreelection as he would lose
Former House Speaker with three wives, adultery, ethics charges, forced out of Speakership
Former Senator who lost reelection by landslide
Former Libertarian Party nominee, 76 years old

This is madness

I agree. The choices are extremely poor, but Gingrich is the best one out of this lot.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think you misunderstand us. It is not about Newt per se, but more about what he represents. His victory would symbolize a death blow to the Republican Party's traditional way of doing things, which ought to die a violent death by fire. I don't see why he is unlikeable to be honest though, I met him while he was in my town, nice guy, seemed genuine. I can't say that sort of thing for Romney.

What? Actually winning?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean seriously.  Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney plus a level 10 in assholery.

I mean really, how the hell can anyone find Gingrich likable?

I think you misunderstand us. It is not about Newt per se, but more about what he represents. His victory would symbolize a death blow to the Republican Party's traditional way of doing things, which ought to die a violent death by fire. I don't see why he is unlikeable to be honest though, I met him while he was in my town, nice guy, seemed genuine. I can't say that sort of thing for Romney.

I have got bad news for you. What Newt Gingrich did and represents can be found in the Republican party going back to Charles Halleck. The reason the establishment hates him isn't because he is anti-establishment (The minute you become Speaker, you are an insider), but because he was so politically self-destructive that he has the potential to drag people down with him. The idea he represents something new and transformative, is patently absurd. The man is great if you want to burn things down, and absolutely terrible and replacing it with a stable piece of construction. Such doesn't benefit conservatism at all, such only benefits the Democratic party.

When conservatives start fighting for "percieved symbolism" they have already lost the battle and have become pawns or usefull idiots. Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney on the issues save for Immigration where Romney is actually more in tune with the base. Newt Gingrich is the same old establishment facade. In the 1930's and 1940's, Halleck railed against the Anti-American New Deal, then the GOP takes over in 1947, they do nothing to stop it because they support most of it. It is all about herding sheep.

[minionofmidas]

I had to look up "Charles Halleck". And I'm still not sure what you mean.

[Scabr]

I think you misunderstand us. It is not about Newt per se, but more about what he represents. His victory would symbolize a death blow to the Republican Party's traditional way of doing things, which ought to die a violent death by fire. I don't see why he is unlikeable to be honest though, I met him while he was in my town, nice guy, seemed genuine. I can't say that sort of thing for Romney.

What? Actually winning?

If a GOP win must mean that Romney wins and principles go out the window, then yes, that must go too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I had to look up "Charles Halleck". And I'm still not sure what you mean.

You use hyperbole and aggressive ideological terms to describe the opposition and in so doing rally the base against its policies. This eventually results in a shift in control of congress. In those days you could get away with labeling a policy as socialist or anti-American and still vote to enact/sustain 70%-80% of it, which Halleck and others did in the 1930's and 1940's. Their main object for doing so was obviously the acquisition of power. Gingrich did and does the same thing, he did pass most of the "Contract" items in the House, but he still employed the same basic tactics to attain power. He calls Obama and his policies socialist, but he supported a federal mandate for 20 years, among other hypocrtical and rhetorically inconsistent statements. They guy is an insider who is at adept at making the base think he is one of them. Eric Cantor is an even better comparison because like Halleck, he is subordinate to a more moderate leader, ideologically and tempermentally, with whom he clashes with. Gingrich was as well, when Bob Michel was floor leader in the early 1990's, but not while in the majority.  

[Scabr]

I mean seriously.  Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney plus a level 10 in assholery.

I mean really, how the hell can anyone find Gingrich likable?

I think you misunderstand us. It is not about Newt per se, but more about what he represents. His victory would symbolize a death blow to the Republican Party's traditional way of doing things, which ought to die a violent death by fire. I don't see why he is unlikeable to be honest though, I met him while he was in my town, nice guy, seemed genuine. I can't say that sort of thing for Romney.

I have got bad news for you. What Newt Gingrich did and represents can be found in the Republican party going back to Charles Halleck. The reason the establishment hates him isn't because he is anti-establishment (The minute you become Speaker, you are an insider), but because he was so politically self-destructive that he has the potential to drag people down with him. The idea he represents something new and transformative, is patently absurd. The man is great if you want to burn things down, and absolutely terrible and replacing it with a stable piece of construction. Such doesn't benefit conservatism at all, such only benefits the Democratic party.

When conservatives start fighting for "percieved symbolism" they have already lost the battle and have become pawns or usefull idiots. Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney on the issues save for Immigration where Romney is actually more in tune with the base. Newt Gingrich is the same old establishment facade. In the 1930's and 1940's, Halleck railed against the Anti-American New Deal, then the GOP takes over in 1947, they do nothing to stop it because they support most of it. It is all about herding sheep.

The reason the Republican establishment perceives Gingrich to be politically toxic is because he had ideas that are actually bold. A President Gingrich will certainly shake up Washington. He actually intends to govern the United States and not merely manage the mess Obama left over. The Washington D.C. Republicans know this because they served with Newt, and that he will not be co-opted, people already hate him and he has nothing to lose.

How is Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" concept in tune with the Republican base?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How is Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" concept in tune with the Republican base?

Self-deportation is an extention or a result of mandating the use of E-verify by all employers (ususally over 100 employees or something like that). Whereby passing this requirement for it's use and ensuring tough sanctions on employers who fail to use it or ignore the results, you eliminate the jobs magnet and make it impossible for illegal aliens to acquire work in the country. They will then self-deport. You then reform legal immigration procedures to tie up loose ends and provide a way to supply needed labor without flooding down wage labor markets. It has been the policy that has been pushed by amnesty (defined as a system that doesn't address magnets enough and thus through it's "legalization" programs encourages another wave of illegal immigrants to come. Even supporters acknowledge this risk, they just change the terms to "comprehensive reform") opponents since 2005.
 
The reason it is an unfamiliar term is because the media has presented the public with only two ineffective and insane options (mass amnesty, or mass deportations with cattle cars and Gestapo rounding up people with funny names). Both of which are crazy. Romney didn't invent the term, "self-deportation". The earliest use I saw of it was a place called "NumbersUSA". The problem with them is they have gone of the deep end with population control and reducing legal immigration which is nuts. But on the questions specifically of illegal immigration and border security and interior enforcement they are fairly good.


The first time the base, talk radio, the internet and other bastions that would later form the centers of tea party strength actually rallied against the establishment of both parties wasn't to stop Tarp in 2008, it was to stop the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 and again in 2007.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The reason the Republican establishment perceives Gingrich to be politically toxic is because he had ideas that are actually bold. A President Gingrich will certainly shake up Washington. He actually intends to govern the United States and not merely manage the mess Obama left over. The Washington D.C. Republicans know this because they served with Newt, and that he will not be co-opted, people already hate him and he has nothing to lose.

But you provide no evidence to back that up. All the evidence is contrary to that. Newt inherited his position based on senority. He didn't oust Bob Michel from the leadership. He was the next in line in 1994. Likewise in 1989, he inherited the position of Minority Whip because Dick Cheney and Trent Lott both left the House of Representatives at the same time and Newt who was number 4 in the leadership became number two. He didn't threaten anyone in the GOP establisment or smash his way in to get where he was. And they wouldn't have had a problem with them, if his very style didn't pose a direct threat to his own reelection efforts.

He did smash the Democrats out in 1994 and was skilled in tearing that majority apart. But he was inneffective. The GOP establishement hates him not because he was bold and free thinking but because he was erratic and counterproductive. He got rolled by Bill Clinton, he got his clock cleaned in that. In 1996 he was so unpopular in half the country, you had campaigns against low level GOP congressman like "If you wouldn't vote for Newt, why on earth would you vote for Blute?" in MA-03. It is this very spectacle that scares the sh**t out of the GOP not just establishment but even some tea party members of the House. They remember him dragging down dozens of Republicans in seats they had held for generations in the suburbs of the NE and the Paicific Coast. And this time thare aren't a dozen southern seats to pcik off to compensate, we already have them all.

And he wasn't just inneffective. He was allowing insiders to take back over and do "business as usuall". It was the passage of a pork laden highway bill in 1997 by Bill Shuster of PA that motivated a group of conservatives who had come to Washington in 1994 to join with top leadership in a botched coup to bring Gingirch down. These people took what Newt had told them to heart and were discouraged enough to find out that his rhetoric didn't match his actions all the time, so much so, they tried to join in an effort to fire him.

[Scabr]

The reason the Republican establishment perceives Gingrich to be politically toxic is because he had ideas that are actually bold. A President Gingrich will certainly shake up Washington. He actually intends to govern the United States and not merely manage the mess Obama left over. The Washington D.C. Republicans know this because they served with Newt, and that he will not be co-opted, people already hate him and he has nothing to lose.

But you provide no evidence to back that up. All the evidence is contrary to that. Newt inherited his position based on senority. He didn't oust Bob Michel from the leadership. He was the next in line in 1994. Likewise in 1989, he inherited the position of Minority Whip because Dick Cheney and Trent Lott both left the House of Representatives at the same time and Newt who was number 4 in the leadership became number two. He didn't threaten anyone in the GOP establisment or smash his way in to get where he was. And they wouldn't have had a problem with them, if his very style didn't pose a direct threat to his own reelection efforts.

He did smash the Democrats out in 1994 and was skilled in tearing that majority apart. But he was inneffective. The GOP establishement hates him not because he was bold and free thinking but because he was erratic and counterproductive. He got rolled by Bill Clinton, he got his clock cleaned in that. In 1996 he was so unpopular in half the country, you had campaigns against low level GOP congressman like "If you wouldn't vote for Newt, why on earth would you vote for Blute?" in MA-03. It is this very spectacle that scares the sh**t out of the GOP not just establishment but even some tea party members of the House. They remember him dragging down dozens of Republicans in seats they had held for generations in the suburbs of the NE and the Paicific Coast. And this time thare aren't a dozen southern seats to pcik off to compensate, we already have them all.

And he wasn't just inneffective. He was allowing insiders to take back over and do "business as usuall". It was the passage of a pork laden highway bill in 1997 by Bill Shuster of PA that motivated a group of conservatives who had come to Washington in 1994 to join with top leadership in a botched coup to bring Gingirch down. These people took what Newt had told them to heart and were discouraged enough to find out that his rhetoric didn't match his actions all the time, so much so, they tried to join in an effort to fire him.

I think you said it yourself that Newt Gingrich delivered on the overwhelming majority of his pledge to America (I don't know how you can call him "ineffective" then to be honest). Can you point to anything that Mitt Romney has ever done for the conservative movement?  While much of what Newt did in Washington and in his personal life was morally reprehensible, he did deliver to conservatives and delivered many impressive feats in the 1990s. While Gingrich has a record of impressive accomplishments to add to the conservative movement's victories, Romney was running a largely liberal governorship in MA.

Ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds. Romney claims to be anti-tax. Yes I guess he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is elected President of the United States, the IRS will collect my money all the same whether it is a fee, loophole, or all of the above the same way. His record on spending and especially healthcare and abortion are equally dismal. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform (I believe it was him that called the Forbes flat tax a "tax cut for fat cats") positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives.

His argument that he is the most "electable" is full of holes too IMO. If the base is not energized about our Presidential candidate, then not only will Romney go down, but he'll take many good conservative candidates down with him.

[Guderian]

- rhetoric

You could run on the most right-wing platform imaginable, you would still be a "moderate" if you don't use hyperbolic nonsense and sound pissed off. Newt understands this.

- stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like

This phrase was used many times to describe Gingrich, because it's accurate. Low-brow, talk radio conservatives whine about "the elites", but they secretly want their candidates to sound smart and erudite. That's fundamentally fundamental.