Amazon Black Friday Deals

3D Tip Jar

Amazon mp3s

Promote Your Blog

GOPack


I’m not sure what in the hell is going on with the GOP right now. Poised to recapture the White House in 2012 all of our Prime Time Players are either undiscovered or for a variety of reasons not running and our slate looks more and more like the 1980 cast of Saturday Night Live — except I’d have loved to vote for Charles Rocket (R.I.P.) or Joe Piscopo over some of this current slate of whatever the hell they are. Where is our Eddie Murphy? Perhaps like Rick Perry he’s already in the cast but has yet to break out. I’m not excited about Romney and something about Gingrich makes my flesh crawl. Anyway… George Will makes the cases against Romney and Gingrich and for Perry and even Huntsman. Here’s a taste go read the whole thing:

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. .?.?. The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

I’ll vote for Gingrich or Romney if they win the nomination, but I think Gingrich has authoritarian tendencies and is a bigger big-government type than George W. Bush ever thought about being because he thinks he’s smarter than everybody — like Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson — Progressives. I don’t trust Gingrich, but I hope he’d be better than Obama. I know George Will is “Paleo” but part of being conservative is conserving traditions — not revolutionary ideals.

11 comments to GOPack

  • You hit the nail on the head Floyd. I like Newt but… there is always a BUT. Mitt is a rino and will cave the first time he is body slamed against the wall. We need a real conservative out there that will tell these progress fascist pigs to go to hell and fast. We need a young Reagan that won’t compromise or back down and get the people on his side by telling the media to f**k off and die.

    At this late stage in my life I don’t care about Cain having an affair of making some dirty flirtation remark to some broad who is looking to get nailed. After JFK banging whores they were bringing into the WHite house and then that sexual dievint Clinton accuse of raping Brodwick, the whipping it out to Paula Jones and all the movie whores he nailed in the Lincoln bedroom. Now we have this loser in the White House he is the lowest of the low.

    I just hope Newt or Mitt put Cain as VP just to give the finger to the media, the Chicago mob machine that took out the only conservative back out there that would have actually made millions of blacks leave the DemoRAT slave plantaion and come home to the party of Lincoln that freed them.

    This was FDR’s wet dream to get the black so dependent and people who just don’t have any ambition on the public herion so the fascist demoRATS will be in power for 200 yrs. We need to change this and end it. I don’t see our Churchill in the people on the republican party. Ron paul is a nut job and has been since he was first elected.

    I think Newt would destroy Obama, Mitt and anyone out there in a debate. Will he govern like a conservative like Coolidge and not a RINO like Hoover. Who knows. We need to throw out this bastard Obama and have the guts to convict him for subverting the constitution. This all has to end one day the progressives have used up all their luck in the past 100 years.

    • -fritz-

      Speak it Jack! You are right on the money!

    • Stephanie

      Newt is a slimey corrupt DC Beltway shill. Only shallow people who don’t think put any value in debates. NO ONE..watches them. You wanna debator? WE GOT ONE NOW! You want a leader? Well Newt ain’t one.He was the only House SPeaker to ever be brought up on ethics charges..by his own caucus. He has lobbied for Fanny and Freddie…and is the perfect example of DC Beltway corruption and the status quo. Is that what we want? Stop the Newt crap. And Cain? He’s damaged goods. No one will touch him. Rumors are Bob McDonnell of VA is being considered..successful highly conservative VA governor. Also Scott Walker of WI. Rubio won’t run period. West would if asked. Lets stop the Romney crap to. A lot of people I have been talking to will leave the party if Newt (My former boss was one of the coup orchestrators against him in 97..and I hold Dick Armey’s opinion of him as more valuable than MANY people’s…in fact all peoples) or Romney are nominated. This whole whose a better debator has nothig to do with whats best for teh country..think about it..its all about beating Obama. Sorry but are we driven by hate for Obama? Or love of country? If we are driven by love of our country why would we nominate Newt Gingrich? Look at his record…I mean LOOK at it…why would we nominate Romney after his record? Hacks both and thats the least of Newt’s problems. Its time we stop allowing our issues with Obama rule our emotions.

    • Raoul Ortega

      I think Newt would destroy Obama, Mitt and anyone out there in a debate.

      This obsession people have with debates bothers me. As we’ve seen, there’s more to a campaign than just debates. To make all our judgements about a candidate based on contrived performances designed to elicit no meaningful information, just gotcha moments, is a formula for losing.

      We also need a candidate who won’t be taken off message by all the mud and crap the Machine Progressives will be flinging next year, and sorry to say, with Newton Leroy Gingrich, the problem is which mud to choose from, and which groups to target, because he’s provided so much for them these past few decades.

      I’m coming to the conclusion that we “Give Up and Go with Mitt” (how’s that for a campaign slogan?), and concentrate on putting the time/money/effort of a Presidential campaign instead on getting as many Tea Party/conservatives in the House and Senate. Odds are that Anybody-but-the-Community-Organizer is going to win, as long as he doesn’t scare a way the muddled middle. Which Newt will do, after the Progressives are through with him. Other than anti-Moron bigots (most of whom are good little Progressives and aren’t going to vote GOP anyhow.) I don’t see Willard being painted as a monster out to destroy the country.

      So if we end up with President Romney who has a sizable conservative contingent in the Congress, he won’t need a spine, even if he suddenly finds one. If somehow he screws up the campaign (see McDole last time), at least we end up with a “Do Nothing” Congress, maybe even one that forces Him to do the right thing. (Then again, the prospect of not being able to do any social engineering will get Him an invite to join the PGA tour full time, seeing that’s where He’ll be all the time anyhow.)

      (By the way, I could go with Perry, but again, I fear he would be spending too much time fighting off the Dem smear machine. Then again, if the best they could come up with so far is a 30 year old rock, maybe he’s okay.)

      (There’s also the question of Willard’s VP choice, and what that would mean as part of the GOP tradition of nominating the “next-in-line”, but I’ll save those comments for another rant…)

  • Thanks Jack! Good to see you around here more lately.

  • JohnFN

    Romney is the most serious of the candidates running. I think Huntsman is serious, but I’m not sure. I’ve read little of him, other than his plan to re-invent the military, foreign policy and intervention. I’ve been so disappointed in Perry, especially his debate performances, I’m off that carpet.

    I can’t help but think the rest of the field is running to improve their chances of getting a talk show on FOX.

    I think this is a genuine reflection of how sour the political process has become, when genuine articulate, smart and capable people shy from the top leadership role because of the mess it has become running for office. Fred Dalton Thompson was an example of someone who should have been a serious nominee for President, but became disenchanted the minute his campaign started. It’s not about wanting to lead, it’s about the campaign. Obama’s 2012 campaign started the minute he was inaugurated and that will be the model from here on out until changes are made both politically, in society and in media.

    • I agree on Perry underimpressing in the debate arenas, but as mentioned earlier liking him the last few days, wherein he’s reinventing himself pretty deftly. I never abandoned him as my #1 choice, especially with Gingrich and Romney as the alternates, but definitely deserves a second look in the big picture, at least for the moment.

      • Stephanie

        Apparently you all didn’t see the debate tonight. The only one who got HIGH marks was Perry. But hey vote for the talker..because all a president does is debate..right?
        The last three debates Perry has been near or on top. My own AG from Florida, Pam Bondi was very happy with everything he said. The link is up on FNC and Huckabee’s site. Perry’s da man. I know you guys don’t give a fig for what I say but I am begging you…believe me on this. Perry’s the one. I was agnostic and didn’t care before he got in…you all know that to. Please..I am begging you…go watch his last three debates and remember the debates are fing bullshit anyway. He’s a great interview, campaigner, and speech maker. And his leadership qualities which is what we want are unassailable. He has made a few mistakes but in the greater sense..he’s dones so well.

        • Do you ever read anything it’s entirety, or do you just fly off half-cocked the second you see something you don’t like? Just curious, mainly because I was encouraging JFN to give Perry a second look.

    • Stephanie

      John Fn..you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Did you watch tonight? NO. Get back on the wagon..he’s going place. HELP US! Be there with us. Only someone who nthinks a President is no more than a debator would value these bs dog and pony shows..come on. You know better!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>