Jonah Goldberg Humorously Misses The Mark

Jonah Goldberg has quite a humorous column up at the LA Times describing the rebellion in Republican grass roots ranks against the "conservative establishment." Ultimately, Goldberg concludes that the problem is a general dissatisfaction with the field of Republican candidates and whether they can win against Obama. He was good up to that point, but I think he misdiagnoses the angst among the electorate. I feel pretty confident that Romney or Gingrich could win against Obama. I am less certain about the second tier candidates, but they are second tier and not likely to win the nomination. It is not the weakness of the field that is the problem, its the acts of the Republican "establishment," the punditry as well as current and former lawmakers, that are causing the angst. Not since 1964 have we seen the "establishment" engage in such a grossly unfair slash and burn campaign against our own Republican candidates. As I wrote in a post below, Are These NRO People Nuts:

Precious little of what is coming from the right leaning pundits has been reasoned criticism. To the contrary, its largely been overheated hyperbole of the ilk used by the left to demonize and delegitimize Sarah Palin.

In that sense, the actions of the "Republican establishment" have been disgusting and unforgivable. Mr. Goldberg humorously gets the angst, but misdiagnoses its genesis:

've made a disturbing discovery: I am a member of the conservative "establishment." I felt like Michael Douglas at the end of "Falling Down": "I'm the bad guy?"

For the last few years, the rank and file of the GOP and the conservative movement have become deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of chablis at some Georgetown party. The term "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) has become an epithet of ideological enforcement, spit out in much the same way Mao cursed "running dog capitalists." . . .

Though he never intended any of this, Mitt Romney is largely to blame for the anti-establishment tumult. Somehow, he has managed to become the Arlen Specter of the 2012 field. (Specter is conservative-speak for "demon RINO from hell." You're supposed to spit on the ground after you say "Arlen Specter." Ptooey.)

In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain, earning endorsements not just from National Review magazine but from the titans of right-wing talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Now Limbaugh insists that support for Romney proves that "the Republican establishment does not want a conservative getting the nomination." Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor and editor of the conservative site Red State, says that if Romney is the nominee, "Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins."

After National Review issued a stinging anti-Newt Gingrich editorial, many of the same voices insisted that the magazine (where I work, though I didn't write the editorial) has, in the words of one right-wing blogger, lived long enough "to become the villain." Fox News, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will and even pro-Romney columnist Ann Coulter are routinely denounced as part of some RINO cabal. . . .

The mere fact that there's something one can meaningfully describe as a conservative establishment today is a victory, never mind that it is more conservative than it has ever been. But a conservative establishment is useless if it doesn't bring the nation with it. The frustration on the right stems from the fact that none of the candidates seems up to that task.

Read More...

Summary only...

These NRO People Are Nuts

I didn't think it possible that the right could lose to Obama in 2012, even with all the dark forces of the MSM arrayed against us and awaiting their marching orders. But the last two months of flame throwing against Gingrich, and indeed, to a lesser extent, any candidate not named Romney has left me wondering whether we can yet pull defeat from the jaws of victory. Precious little of what is coming from the right leaning pundits has been reasoned criticism. To the contrary, its largely been overheated hyperbole of the ilk used by the left to demonize and delegitimize Sarah Palin.

I mean, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru is telling me today how I, as a Catholic, should see Gingrich's extra-marital affairs. It's bullshit dressed up as a papal bull. It really has to be read to be believed.

According to Father Ramesh, as Christians, we should vote against Gringrich to spare him from the temptation of bimbo eruptions in high office. Further, if we vote for Gingrich, it will mean we condone adultery. And lastly, we should pick somebody other than Gingrich because his affairs could well doom him in a general election against the morally superior Obama. Morally superior Obama? Really????

Hey Ramesh, how about doing a quick calculation on Obama's sins. By my count, he violates the 1st Commandment every time he looks in the mirror. He lives to violate the 8th Commandment with his class warfare rhetoric and his focus on stealing the wealth of anyone who is moderately successful. With his disingenuous army of straw men and his habit of projecting on Republicans the absolute worst of motives, he violates the 9th Commandment. And he has spent the entire last year not as Commander-in-Chief, but as Campaigner in Chief. This joker has taken actions that solely benefit his reelection bid at the cost to our the country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Keystone Pipeline, etc.) He covets power and the Presidency the way a fat kid covets twinkies. Worse, his entire campaign hinges on him being able to get enough Americans to so covet the money of the "wealthy" that, on that basis alone, they will vote for him in November. Now that is insidious. Weighing all of that on Ramesh's exquisitely tuned scales of morality, give me a former adulterer any day. Oh, and somebody better go dig up former PRESIDENT Grover Cleveland and warn him that people just won't vote for a Republican with adultery known to be in his background.

Can any of these pundits-turned-hit-men just stop for a moment, take a deep breath - and then HOLD IT UNTIL AFTER THE F****** CONVENTION. Has a single one of these crap-for-brains people ever read up on the 1964 election?

The NRO, but for Jonah Goldberg and Andrew McCarthy, has been dead in the middle of this pack of right wing cannibals. Now the NRO has two of its authors - Brian Bolduc and Conrad Black - waxing lyrical about a brokered convention where the delegates get to nominate a Republican not among the burned and broken bodies of the current aspirants. Really, are these people bat-shit insane? Do they realize how splintered and mortally wounded the Republican Party would be if their favored scenario plays out? Are their heads so deeply implanted in their own asses that they have lost all touch with reality? The last time Republicans were so split that they had a brokered convention, they ended up with Thomas Dewey as the nominee to go up against the then incredibly unpopular Harry Truman in 1948. Hey guys, how did that one work out?

If we manage to lose this election - and every day, thanks to the NRO and their ilk, I come to believe more and more that we can - then America is toast. I agree with Krauthammer on this one - "[i]f Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return . . ."

That said, and regardless of whether we win or lose, I really think that we of a conservative bent need to consider trading the NRO, George Will, Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker and Jennifer Rubin to the Democrats for a couple of first and second round draft choices to be named. Hell, let's see if we can get a good deal for them from MSNBC. Gingrich may have broken the 7th Commandment, but these vipers in our midst have made a cottage industry of violating the 11th Commandment - and they have done so with all the vitriol and intellectual dishonesty that we can expect from the left wing MSM. That really is an unforgivable sin.

Read More...

Summary only...

Levin On The Right-Wing Pundits' Insane War On Gingrich

This from Mark Levin, writing at the Right Scoop:

While Mark Levin is on vacation, he’s taken a little time to pen his thoughts on the ongoing disgusting attacks aimed at Newt Gingrich by those on the right, including Ann Coulter, George Will, and the NRO:
-----------------------------

Is Newt really Satan?

If you read the comments on some conservative sites you might think so.

Newt Gingrich is not my first choice for the GOP nomination. I have said if I were voting today, I would vote for either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. But I don’t feel the need to smear Newt, either.

My friend Ann Coulter says she would vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich. Really? Despite his racism, anti-Semiticism, hate-America first pronouncements, 9/11 truther nuttiness, etc., etc.? What about this?

http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the-50th-anniversary-of-jbs

What about this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

What about this?

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/nutbag-ron-paul-bush-administration-reacted-with-glee-after-911/

What about this?

http://www.textfiles.com/politics/ron_paul.txt

The list goes on and on. Coulter is undoubtedly aware of all of this. How can she or any sensible person, let alone conservative, advocate for or defend this? She backed Chris Christie, telling me that if Mitt Romney is nominated he will lose as John McCain did, and it will be my fault (along with Rush’s and Sean’s). Now, she insists that only Romney can win and the conservatives in the field cannot. Perplexing.

George Will is slamming away at Newt again today, having previously suggested he was a Marxist. A Marxist? Is this the same Will who supported George H. W. Bush and Howard Baker over Ronald Reagan in 1979? Somehow he not only missed the Reagan Revolution, but he initially doubted it and opposed it. Your judgment, George, does not match your conceit, with all due respect.

Over at NR, the hits keep coming. My friend Ramesh Ponnuru is waxing on priest-like about Newt and his Catholic faith. It’s a very odd piece. But Ramesh backs Romney, not Rick Santorum, who is not only Catholic but is clearly a more reliable conservative than Romney. Perplexing.

Most of Newt’s attackers have announced for Romney or are at least fronting for him, overlooking or excusing most of Romney’s deceits — which continue to this day and most recently involve his flip-flopping on the Iraq War. Moreover, Will has not said who he supports, having previously backed Mitch Daniels. No doubt Michelle Bachmann is just too wacky and inexperienced for his tastes, much as Reagan was too old and unsteady back in 1979.

Having consulted a number of friends and colleagues from the Reagan era, they agree with me that we’ve not seen this kind of daily attack on a legitimate Republican primary candidate in modern times, despite Newt’s weaknesses and faults. And most are disgusted by it.

Boy, does Levin have this one right. To call this disgusting is an understatement. In truth, these attacks are more vitriolic than what we saw directed at Sarah Palin by the left. If you haven't seen George Will's column today at WaPo - I am not going to link such trash - it is insanity on steroids. He proclaims that Gingrich is the "anti-conservative" (I assume that is a play on the "anti-Christ") because Gingrich wants to put an end to judicial activism. If Will's name wasn't at the top, I would have thought it written by Paul Krugman or Glen Greenwald.

I e-mailed the following to Will this afternoon:

Your hatred of Gingrich has been palpable from the start of the campaign. It has clearly clouded your judgment.

Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Politburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders. Andrew McCarthy and Judge Mukasey certainly support that. Yet you would label the effort anti-conservative merely because it comes from Gingrich?

I've lost all respect for you at this point Mr. Will. Your determination to excoriate Gingrich at all cost has descended into farce with your most recent column.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any respect for the 11th Commandment?.

A hat tip to Daily Gator for this post, as well as a congrats for being cited by Levin. Visit the Daily Gator's site for some additional videos detailing the pundit's war on Gingrich.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why I Support Gingrich - & Utterly Abhor The Total War Being Waged Against Him From The Right

Hey, right leaning Pundits - here's a plan.  If you want to unleash vociferous, one-sided, intellectually dishonest attacks, how about aiming them away from Republican candidates for President.  This is disgusting and suicidal on a level I did think possible for the right.  And it is unforgivable.

I am so tired of listening to right wing pundits attack Gingrich with all of the vociferousness and intellectual dishonesty that the left used on Sarah Palin.  Indeed, I would bet that you would have to go back to the Republican country club elite's attack on Barry Goldwater to find anything similar.  And just as a reminder - they succeeded in getting LBJ elected.  The U.S. has been saddled with the massive welfare state of the "Great Society" ever since.  Indeed, it is actions like we see today that led to the articulation of Reagan's 11th Commandment.

I am absolutely livid at pundits telling me that I am an idiot (Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker) or a racist (Glenn Beck completely off his meds) for supporting Gingrich.  I am utterly disgusted at pundits giving me a one sided whisper campaign based on a jaded view of history as articulated by people with knives out for Gingrich (Jennifer Rubin, Brian Bouldoc, George Will).  Really, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Indeed, visit Right Scoop to listen to Mark Levin making the same points.

Do you want to know why I support Gingrich.  Briefly:

1.  Record of Achievement -  Gingrich is the only person running who has actually succeeded in moving the nation rightward.  He was the principal architect of the Contract With America.  He got our economy in working order and balanced the budget.

2.  Demonization and The Speakership - I remember Gingrich's speakership and downfall vividly.  Indeed, that was my introduction to the left wing / MSM partnership in the politics of demonization and demgagougery.  Gingrich was painted quite literally by the left as the personificaiton of evil and, eventually, Republicans in Congress largely went along with that.  Yeah, Gingrich failed in his showdowns with  Clinton.  But the MSM at the time were the true victors in that fight.  Anyone remember the "Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" campaign?  The MSM was every bit as leftist back then, but they also had an advantage.  There was no alternative media.  The MSM completely controlled the flow of information - and virtually all of it was skewed hard left.

The ugly truth is that many on the right back then read the MSM handwriting on the wall and happily went along with it for their own aggrandizement.  There was a coup led by Denny Hastert and the roach killer, Tom DeLay.  Boy they were great replacements for Gingrich, weren't they.  Is there anyone - and I do mean anyone - who, with the benefit of hindsight, can say the coup did anything other than end the conservative surge and return us to the bad old days of Nelson Rockefeller's Republican Party?

What it comes down to is this - the first thing to remember with all the hit pieces coming out today on the right aimed at Gingrich - there are a whole lot of people trying to justify their actions during the mid-90's.  They turned their back on Gingrich when it was politically expedient to do so.  With that in mind, when Brian Boulac or Ann Coulter or any of these other low rent bomb throwers writes another hit piece centered on Gingrich's speakership, look to see if they bother to run it by Gingrich for his response before publishing.  I am done reading any of these intellectually dishonest "pundits."    

3.  We face immense problems.  When I look at the domestic agenda of Gingrich, it is economically more far reaching than Romney's (don't take my word for it, take Larry Kudlow's) and I trust Gingrich to take on the leviathan regulatory bureaucracy that continues to grow in our nation like kudzu.  I expect Romney to try and co-opt that bureaucracy and for his economic plan to be far more accommodating to the existing paradigm and the wishes of Democrats.

When I look at foreign policy, the biggest challenge to Western civilization arises out of the spread of Wahhabi Islam and the expansion of the terrorist state animated by the soon to be nuclear Khomeinist state.  We have yet to have a single person in government to join in a Reagenesque war of ideas to shine the light on this and join, finally, the war of ideas.  Gingrich is the only person with both the knowledge and testicular fortitude to do it.

4.  Electability:  I look upon Gingrich as far more electable than Romney.  Anyone who is the Republican nominee is going to be demonized by the left on a scale not heretofore seen.  Gingrich is far more likely to be able to effectively counterattack and keep focusing the nation on what really matters - the horrid economic record of our neo-Keynsian President.  Indeed, recalling how petulant Obama became during the last general election when he was truly challenged, I expect Gingrich to be far more effecting in getting under Obama's skin and exposing him for the shallow radical left wing narcissistic that he is.

When Romney gets attacked - or feels that he is getting attacked by, say, Bret Baier, he doesn't do so well.  Indeed, I see parallels between Obama and Romney in that regard.  An Obama Romney campaign would be dirty - and even.  A Gingrich Obama campaign would be dirty - but Gingrich would be much more effective.  

Read More...

Summary only...

Kathleen Parker - If You Don't Support Mitt, You Are An Idiot

Hey, did you know that if you don't support Mitt Romney, you are an idiot? That is what Kathleen Parker tells us in her Washington Post column today, The GOP's Death Wish:

. . . Republicans apparently want to nominate anyone except the one person [Romney] who can defeat Barack Obama. And for all the strangest reasons:

One: He’s changed his mind. True. He changed his mind, thus becoming more conservative.

Two: He’s too perfect.

Three: You can’t drink beer with him. Whatever.

The result of these petty obsessions has been a pathological flirtation with a parade of lesser candidates who could replace Romney.

And here I thought my decision to support someone other than Romney was based on my assessment of who could best deal with the massive systemic problems of our government, our economy in the tank and hemorrhaging jobs, the existential threat posed by nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the continuing advancement of Salafism, and the efforts of the UN to redistribute the wealth of the West under the canard of global warming, just to name a few. I never realized that it was only because I had "petty obsessions." Thanks Ms. Parker, for giving us the benefit of your keen analytical skills.

Ms. Parker than goes on to pronounce that:

. . . no one other than Callista Gingrich thinks her husband can prevail in a general election. No. One.

Perhaps Ms. Parker missed the following in the Weekly Standard:

The latest Rasmussen survey of likely voters — which shows Newt Gingrich beating Barack Obama, 45 to 43 percent — also shows Gingrich beating Obama among independents for the first time. In fact, the poll shows that Gingrich is now clobbering Obama among independents — 50 to 32 percent.

I think Gingrich could beat Obama, as apparently do the majority of Republicans and independents. But Ms. Parker, rather than disagree with us on an intellectual level, has gone to the extreme of simply striking us from the rolls of humanity.

Ms. Parker then explains to us why Newt is so unpopular with the Washington elite.

And there’s a reason for his unpopularity. It isn’t because of his marriages or his Tiffany’s expense account. It is because his erratic behavior and his inability to resist the sound of his own voice have caused Republicans to lose too many fights.

Of all of Ms. Parker's disingenuous statements, this one takes the cake. Gingrich led the greatest conservative revolution of the last half century - for which he was demonized by the MSM with all the fervor they would later turn on Sarah Palin, and for which he was ultimately sacrificed by many in the Republican Party. But let's take a look at what he did accomplish. To pull a quote from Rush Limbaugh out of Peggy Noonan's recent column in the WSJ:

Who was the last person to actually cut government? Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget? . . . The last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it.

Ms. Parker makes no mention of those accomplishments. Nor does she tell us which fights Gingrich caused us to lose. I guess the there is no reason to list them as obviously any attempt at rational discussion would be wasted on people consumed with petty obsessions. I am sure all of the inside the beltway elites Ms. Parker interacts with on a daily basis will understand precisely what she means. Then Ms. Parker concludes with this admonition:

. . . if Republicans want to make Democrats happy, Gingrich is their man.

What possible excuse can there be for this gross violation of the 11th Commandment? I think Ms. Parker, like apparently many elites in the Republican Party, would prefer anyone - including Obama - over Newt Gingrich. I struggle to think why. They cite to his "lack of leadership," but the reality of his accomplishments objectively belies that argument. Is it because he would lead the Republican party to make major changes that go beyond Ms. Parker's comfort zone? I just can't fathom the pathology at work here.

At any rate, I think Ms. Parker has missed her calling. If she can write a column this condescending, this arrogant, and this intellectually dishonest, she should be doing an unpaid daily diary gig over at Kos, not collecting a check for posing as a right of center columnist at WaPo.

Update: Christian Whiton, writing at Fox, takes a good stab at explaining the horror of Ms. Parker and her ilk as they ponder Gingrich ascendent over Romney:

The answer lies in the nature of the Beltway Republican establishment. The problem is that most of what Gingrich proposes runs counter to what they have been conditioned to accept.

After all, this basically remains the Republican establishment that ran both of the federal government’s political branches for the better part of the last decade and managed to achieve essentially no conservative goals. The establishment Republicans didn’t merely acquiesce to big government implications of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” – they insisted on it. More than a few Bush officials who visited Capitol Hill lamented that it was difficult to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending issues. While President Obama has normalized trillion-dollar deficits, establishment Republicans got us halfway there during the previous decade.

Do not suppose Beltway Republicans have found religion since. . . .

Now reenter Newt Gingrich, the man whom Republican Washington just knows failed as Speaker of the House, despite the welfare, capital gains tax and balanced budget reforms that bear his fingerprints.

On EPA replacement, for example, Gingrich says: “I don’t think you can train the current bureaucrats. I think their bias against capitalism, their bias against local government, their bias against economic rationality, is just amazing.”

Here, Gingrich is revealing his reverence for Andrew Jackson, who in his presidency succeeded in replacing fully one-fifth of the federal bureaucracy, seeing this as a requirement for radical change.

Most Washingtonian Republicans view desires like this as hopelessly naive. During their careers, they have seen modest changes, but nothing like the major shifts in Washington that have occurred at turning points in American history. Those with historical knowledge of them tend to know only of times the bureaucracy grew as opposed to those where it was actually tamed.

The idea of reversing federal growth is fine to keep on the wish list, but those who advocate it seriously are seen as rubes — either new arrivals in Washington who just fell off a turnip truck or unsophisticated congressmen from ‘flyover country.’ To be a true Beltway Republican is to have accepted the assumption that the scope of government cannot be radically altered. And they think it is politically foolish to try.

Thus the establishment just knows that you run a moderate like Mitt Romney for president. Conservatives have no place else to go and independents will be attracted—historical evidence to the contrary be damned. . .

Update: Welcome Larwyn's Linx readers.

Read More...

Summary only...

Assessing Newt Against The Yardstick of Churchill

At NRO, Steven Hayward has a fascinating column, Is Newt Like Churchill?.  In it, Hayward acknowledges all of the criticism of Gingrich and notes the distinct parallels to similar criticism of Churchill in the days before he was elevated to Prime Minister. With that in mind, Hayward first asks whether the situation we face requires us to give positive consideration to Newt. Is Newt the man "who will both argue for and attempt to implement the large changes necessary to right our listing ship of state?" This leads to the second question, has Newt, like Churchill did before him, learned the necessary discipline from his "time in the wilderness" to lead effectively once in office? Do click on Hayward's essay to see his analysis. Hayward concludes his essay by noting:

The next couple of months may well prove out the unplanned logic of our long campaign process. The debates, Newt’s strong suit so far, are about to give way to real voting, and to the week-by-week ground game that requires focus and consistency. Newt has a chance to prove conservative skeptics wrong about his constancy — the chance to win over skeptics in the face of so much evidence against him.

The course of John Colville’s evolving assessment of Churchill in the 1940s is suggestive. Colville wrote in his diary the night Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1940: “He may, of course, be the man of drive and energy the country believes him to be and he may be able to speed up our creaking military and industrial machinery; but it is a terrible risk, it involves the danger of rash and spectacular exploits, and I cannot help fearing that this country may be maneuvered into the most dangerous position it has ever been in.”

Over the next decade, the skeptical Colville was completely won over. He left one other judgment of Churchill that is worth recalling in connection with Newt: “Finally, in politics and indeed all his life, he was as strange a mixture of radical and traditionalist as could anywhere be found. He was certainly not a conservative by temperament, nor indeed by conviction a supporter of the Conservative Party.” . . .

Republicans, and indeed, the entire U.S. electorate benefits from intellectually honest analysis of our candidates. This is how it should be done.

Read More...

Summary only...

Those Who Forget History . . .

It is almost trite to trot out the quote "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."  But I think it perfectly apropos as regards today's race for the Republican nomination for President.

What in the hell is wrong with the supposedly conservative pundit class? Their memory seems selective indeed, as they apparently have wholly forgotten WHY Ronald Reagan popularized the 11th Commandment:

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

The need for the 11th Commandment arose after the Republican party cannibalized itself in 1964, with vociferous demonization by many Republican's on their own eventual nominee, Barry Goldwater. Indeed, "Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office." The attacks had a profound, and likely decisive effect. Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson, who then proceeded to put the welfare state on steroids with his "Great Society" program.

In subsequent years, the Republican Party began to do it again, this time to Reagan when he ran for governor of California. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan explained that:.

. . . the personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.

Yet what we are seeing today seems a replay of 1964 all over again. Indeed, Dafydd at Big Lizards asked about a week ago, "Can somebody please explain to me why conservative bloggers are transcendentally driven to kill and eat their own candidates?" Apparently it is due to a recessive gene in Republican DNA. Jennifer Rubin has given a good portion of her columns over to savaging Newt Gingrich. Ramesh Ponnuru and Brian Bolduc at NRO and the ever mercurial Ann Coulter have all written hit pieces on Gingrich that have all the context and intellectual honesty of a rant from Alan Grayson.  Then there is George Will who seems to be on LSD.  According to him, the election of either Romney or, in particular, Gingrich will mean the end of conservatism - oh, and apparently, he has referred to Rush Limbaugh as a Marxist.  With crap like this from the Republican attack machine, the Independents may well be driven into Obama's arms before the general election campaign even begins.

Several pundits have weighed in on the issue of which candidate they prefer thoughtfully and respectfully - Krauthammer (Romney) and John Hawkins (Gingrich) come to mind.  And it is reasonable indeed to delve deeply into the character and background of all the candidates.  Indeed, that is what Republican primary voters need to see and hear.  But that is a far cry from what we are seeing in the demagougic and out of context, vicious attacks emanating from much of the right wing punditry.  Indeed, as Rush said in his monologue today:

It's like clockwork. It's becoming predictable. I don't care who it is, a Republican presidential candidate breaks out of the pack, gets close to Romney -- or even surpasses Romney in polling data in certain states -- and the Republican establishment goes after him. Today there is a coordinated -- well, I don't know that it's coordinated, but it sure appears to be. Regardless, no matter where you look in the Republican establishment media today, there looks to be a coordinated attack on Mr. Newt. I'm not gonna mention any names because you know when I do, all I do is elevate these people and the names don't matter here.
. . . So I'm just gonna tell you, there are -- count 'em, one, two, three, four -- there are five, not counting whatever's happened on television, there are five hit pieces on Newt Gingrich today that come from Republican establishment conservative media. It's amazing.

. . . I want to call these people and say, "Let me ask you a question. When this is all over, who would you rather have --" and, by the way, none of this is to defend Newt. I don't want to be misunderstood on this, folks. None of this is to defend. I mean this is pure, 100% commentary right now. But I feel like calling some of these people, . . . I would say, "Do you really at the end of the day prefer Obama to Newt? 'Cause that's what you're gonna bring off here if you keep this up." 

Read More...

Summary only...