Newt for 2012? No, thanks.
The most prominent GOP endorser of radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava is openly musing about running for president in 2012.
No, thanks:
Callista and I are going to think about this in February 2011. And we are going to reach out to all of our friends around the country. And we’ll decide, if there’s a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there’s not a requirement, if other people have filled the vaccum, I suspect we won’t.
“They” shouldn’t bother.
The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn’t going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left’s biggest clowns.
Picture the cabinet:
Al Sharpton as education secretary.
Scozzafava as labor secretary.
Al Gore as global warming czar.
Noooooo, thanks.
***
A reader sends video of Gingrich “going Alinsky” on Hoffman supporters:
***
Related NY-23 news: Have you read about Scozzafava’s scuzzy family business?
Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in the NYPost on Sunday: Take back the party!
Still stuck on stupid: GOP officials: We won’t abandon Dede
And from Gallup:
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
***
The Chicago Sun-Times covered my speech in the Windy City to Republicans:
Conservative firebrand and columnist/blogger Michelle Malkin came to Chicago on Thursday night to slam President Obama in his hometown and to slap Republicans who work with Obama instead of fighting him.
“Many of you fight not just the culture of corruption among Democrats but the culture of corruption that has paralyzed and plagued much of the Republican Party nationally and locally,” Malkin told 250 members of the United Republican Fund of Illinois.
And Malkin made it clear to the crowd at the Hilton Chicago that she thinks Illinois and Chicago are “ground zero” for political corruption in America.
“You know the White House and its tax cheats, crooks and cronies better than anyone else in the country,” she said. “You tried to tell your friends around the country, and they wouldn’t listen, and now they’re having tremendous buyer’s remorse.”
Malkin did not name any Illinois Republican candidates she considered disloyal or corrupt, but she said, “One of the problems I see here is you have Republicans candidates accepting money and support from some organizations that funded Barack Obama.”
Malkin also took a shot at Education Secretary Arne Duncan: “There are some delusional mainstream conservatives who think Arne Duncan is a friend because he pays lip service to charter schools. Wake up and smell the radical socialism!”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Snooper Report
- Michelle Malkin: Newt for 2012? No, thanks. America This Man = -0 | DC SMELL REPORT
- REPUBLICAN REDEFINED
- Blog @ MoreWhat.com
- DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP
- The Underground Conservative
- New Trommetter Times » Today’s Blogmarks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP, NY-23, Newt Gingrich, Tea Party
Green Room
» Imagine No al-Qaeda, It’s Easy If He Tries…
Stop The ACLU
» Confirmed: global warming is a hoaxJustOneMinute
» Maybe They Can Switch Sides AgainConservatives4Palin
» Going Rogue in Cincinnati After Some Issues in Noblesville; Updated: Problems in Noblesville Staged?JustOneMinute
» Free Nate Silver!Riehl World View
» Berkeley Students Flee CapitalismRiehl World View
» Glenn Beck Is An AssAmSpecBlog
» Get That Hacker a Pimp Coat
The main goal of the GOP seems to be to nominate RINOs. If they happen to win by doing so every 16 or 20 years they seem happy enough. This practice gives them some cover as they enable the leftist Democrats free to implement socialism here in Amerikkka as they call it…
AMEN!!! Michelle…we do not need a jerk like Gingrich!!! I want a real conservative…a Fred Thompson type suits me just fine!!!
and Stan and Ollie are a lot better looking than the two political clowns in the picture (and a lot more worthy of attention)!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
See the Federalist Party Platform link in my earlier post.
It’s got everything we need!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
*Newt would be better suited as a human version of the Pillsbury Doughboy in some TV spots than as POTUS; I can just picture Nancy, Al, and P-BO poking him in the belly to get him off point, as they have already done!
*Enough with the squishy candidates for 2012; Not Newt, not Pawlenty, not Romney, and not Huckabee; Please let Hoffman prevail in NY-23, so as to give the GOP one last opportunity to allow conservatism to move this country out of the darkness.
Sadly, NeoFan, it doesn’t take much soul-searching to see that you (and I) have been had. McCain/Newt/Bush/Bush et al are not the RINOs.
We are, and it’s time we did the right thing and left the Republican Party to the Republicans.
Maybe the conservative (Federalist) mascot should be the rhinocerous! haha
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I like Fred, and supported his candidacy, but never got a reasonable explanation as to why he supported the McCain-Feingold repeal of the First Amendment.
I would need to know what he was thinking and/or trying to do before again considering casting a vote in his favor.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I only see one true conservative on the radar at the moment and that is Sarah Palin. Unless we can get Mark Levin to run she is it. The lefties see her and start stabbing themselves in the eye with a sharp object. Polarizing? Lightning Rod? Obama is not polarizing? I want someone they hate. That is how you know its the right person.
Politicians are – for the most part – spineless and unethical crooks.
Their only loyalty is to themselves.
Won’t bat an eye to pimp their mothers if it gains them power and influence.
We need authentic, honest, and viable Conservative organization which can define core conservatives and fiscal values.
Each of the self-proclaimed Conservative candidate running for any elected office MUST be asked to sign the document. The physical copy of the signed pledge is kept in custody by such organization.
Anytime that elected member deviates from the signed pledge, the document should be used against that person in the next election cycle.
That’s the only way we can keep these self-important arrogant jerks in line.
Conservatives must stand out from among the current crop of virtually indistinguishable Democrats and Republicans running our Congress.
As far as I am concerned, they ALL can go to hell together.
That explains their blindness to reality.
The American Federalist Party – The fastest growing party on RWR’s web site!
I know it is old fashioned but I am going to stick with the Constitution Party since it seems to have a few more members…
Yes, Sarah Palin is both. Doesn’t make her a bad person, just means that she’d probably lose in 2012 because she’s too easy to reduce into a caricature. Running her in 2012 only guarantees Tina Fey another Emmy Award.
And while Hope-a-Dope has certainly become polarizing — more so than George Bush ever was — he wasn’t so to the majority of the electorate back in 2008. That’s how he won.
If Republicans are going to run a presidential candidate on anything more than being the “Un-Obama” in 2012, they’ll need someone that the electoral center can feel comfortable with — without depressing the base the way that McCain did.
Sarah Palin is not that person. Neither is Gingrich. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any Republican potential candidate who fits the bill right now, which gave rise to my “canned ham” observation.
Newt, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.
Newt won’t run for President. He’ll talk about it until the primaries start to get heated up, then he will release a book, show up all over the TV with the book and the “possibility” of running.
When the book sales reach his launch target number, he will then take his toe out of the pool and start sniping at those who are in the pool.
He did this in 2008, and he will do it again.
Newt is not a real candidate, or he would not be endorsing this liberal Republican.
I want Sarah.
There used to be a time where I respected Newt. My oh my, how he’s fallen from grace.
Newt for Prez? FFFFFF### NO!
Much has been written about Repubs who get intoxicated on the adulation of the main stream press, obtained by adopting left wing positions on different issues, or kissing up to lib icons like the always disgusting Al Sharpton.
Conservatives shouldn’t give the time of day to these people that have turned their back on principles, to be “liked” by liberals. John McFraud found out how much that was worth when he ran against The One last election. Newt disappoints me; I didnt expect that chit from him.
BTW what the hell does this mean: “…if there’s a requirement as citizens that we run...” I think “he and Callista” are getting a bit full of themselves.
You must be young, Regulus. Ronald Reagan was the most ‘polarizing’ candidate the Republicans ever nominated …… well, since Lincoln, that is.
When a conservative candidate is polarizing that simply means the slow media fears them. So the media demonizes them and attempts to belittle them at every turn.
If the media is not attempting to belittle and demonize your candidate, then they do not fear him or her, and it’s pointless supporting them. Either they have no chance to win or they are not really conservative and the media knows it.
He and “Calista?” Now, which number wife is that again?
Oh, GREAT! The Constitution Party?? Say hello to President Obama again in 2012!
By the time he’s done with 8 years, along with Pelosi, THERE WON’T BE A NATION worth saving!
Why not just save the time and punch the tab for Obama? It’s the same thing when you vote Constitution Party.
IT’S THE SAME RESULT!
Right. And right. What’s wrong with Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney? I think you could pull crossover votes with either (or both?) of them. Run a Christianist, like Hucakbee? Lose. Run a self-aggrandizing lunatic, like Guiliani? Lose. Run a hack with a record of crap longer than Bill Clinton’s nose, like Gingrich? Lose. Completely take leave of your senses and run Palin? Lose, and for good measure, get sent to bed without supper. To pull crossover votes, you need a FISCAL conservative, not a SOCIAL conservative, and it seems to me your best shots right now are Thompson and/or Romney (that is, assuming the current “trial separation” between the Republican Party and it’s base for the last thirty years isn’t turning into a divorce…)
Bye, Newt. I used to adore you. You have lost your morals and your intellect. Your love for political calculation has left reality behind. Your personal departure from a path of morality and justice has apparently led you to do the same with your concepts of leadership. You wrap yourself in the cloaks of great men but it’s a charade. It now nauseates me to hear you even MENTION George Washington. You don’t have the strength, courage, nor modesty of one of General Washington’s false teeth. You are a Quisling.
Specifically addressing this New York race, and the local party selection of another amoral far left candidate to use the “R:” Why does Newt think *he* can make pronouncements but the voters can’t? Why does Newt think that nobody outside the district can comment on the race (but himself)? Why does Newt think that any conscientious Republican who sees the party taken over by RINOS should not run and give the party the black eye that it needs.
IF SCOZZAFAVA WERE TO WIN SHE WOULD BE THE FACE OF THAT DISTRICT’S REPUBLICANS UNTIL SHE AND PELOSI LEAVE CONGRESS. THAT MUST BE STOPPED AND IT LOOKS LIKE HOFFMAN WILL STOP THAT! HOOAH!
If conservatives are going to eliminate candidates like Palin because they’re too controversial (meaning David Gergan and Donna Brazille won’t like them) then all is lost before the battle has begun. We had more guts when we backed Reagan.
Newt needs to find a new hobby.
The Republican party needs to be strong and undeniably conservative. When the Reps got too moderate, the Dems move further to the left. When the Reps govern from the center, they inevitably fail. People don’t like failure, so they seek alternatives. This puts the Dems in charge. Like now for example. We got here not because the Reps were too conservative, but because they were too moderate. Their move to the center allowed the Dems to move to the left, from where they now rule by virtue of the failure of Republican moderation.
And I don’t buy Newt’s argument that it was a local choice by the people in the 23rd. The choice was made by party apparatchiks who are apparently infected by this idea that there is enough room in the middle for both parties.
Oh, there’s definitely a tradition of liberalish Republicans. New York gave us Nelson Rockefeller, after all, and that Bloomthing who’s declared himself pontiff of New York City.
I have no trouble with the idea that a moderate Republican is better than a Democrat, if a moderate Republican is the best you can do.
In this case, there’s no reason to cede the seat to someone with positions largely indistinguishable from Nancy Pelosi, and giving her the protection of incumbency against future primary challenges.
I could only stand to watch the video once, but this is what I thought I heard Newt repeating over and over in that clip:
It is nice to know that people like Newt Ginrich is out there looking out for us, the stupid people, who don’t know any better but to support more authentic conservatives with conservative values.
This helps make it easier when going to the voting booth …
Let’s see, do I want Breyers Vanilla Ice Cream or Turkey Hill Vanilla Ice Cream?
Hmmmm…
I’d rather have Chocolate Fudge with Chunks of dark, milk chocolate, and white chocolate inside along with swirls of fudge and almonds, but smart people like Newt Gingrich, MSNBC, the New York Times, various Republican Party offices, Hollywood Celebrities, Bill Maher, CNN, and others help make my decision easier by deciding for me and telling me what to think.
No. I want to choose between Vanilla or Vanilla, when I really want Chocolate chunk fudge with almonds.
By the way, isn’t one of the reasons that “Republicans” and even “Libertarians” (Speaking party affiliation here, not merely ideology as in Conservative and Libertarian) have lost so many elections and positions in Congress, and even not in a strong position in the Judiciary, is because the Republican Party has put forth Democrat-leftist-liberal lite candidates, leaving voters with no real alternative but Vanilla or Vanilla with merely different packaging?
Newt has a point. But it’s a mooted point. The RNC is an outside of the district source of money for Scozza Fava. It has signaled something I do NOT want my party to signal – elect a nominal Republican at any cost rather than elect a real conservative.
Why is the RNC feeding her money? I am willing to see her go it with the local Republican money, if that must be the case. I cannot see money donated to a party that is nominally conservative supporting a flaming liberal. There shall be no money coming from me to the RNC. It goes to candidates I care about bypassing the self-serving large government clowns in the RNC.
{^_^}
TomB said:
The word “apparatchiks” is not what I guessed it was — a made-up word implying that the choice came from a party apparatus composed of females. It’s in the dictionary:
As for there being enough room in the middle for both parties, why would Newt offend the 40% who now consider themselves conservative to go after half of the 38% who consider themselves independent?
I have no problem with the republican party being a “big tent”, but even a big tent is narrow at the top. Otherwise, it will collapse under the weight of heavy rain or snow. So, no matter how big the tent is, it needs to be narrow at the top. In other words, party leadership at the top of the republican tent should be made up of strict conservatives with common goals.
The broad base of the party can consist of RINOs, moderates, and anyone else who wants to vote republican. There’s no need to purge the base or make anyone feel unwelcome. But we MUST insist that party leadership at the narrow top of the tent be made up of principled conservatives only. Anyone who wants to run for office or represent republicans in any manner falls into that category.
Newt complains about people interfering in New York “local politics”, but isn’t that what he is doing by endorsing Scozzafava?
First Newt is way off base on Scozzafava. He needs to rethink his position which is wrong.
.
Unfortunately the RNC has no choice but to support the endorsed candidate. The problem lies with the NY23 GOP that nominated her not the RNC.
.
The citizens can send the local GOP a strong message by electing Hoffman.
Funny, Ronald Reagan was a social conservative and won two landslides. I’m sick and tired of the bashing of social conservatives by the Rockefeller/McCain/Bush wing of the GOP. It’s a product of pinhead elitists.
Exactly, but I imagine that is beyond his self important understanding. HIS point is any Republican will do to form a majority and elect a Republican Speaker-as with the cartoon Senators from Maine in that chamber.
That has not worked out too well-there is no good reason to support a clown such as Dede Scozzafava and we do not need to support Newt. No Newt is good Newt.
Using bigoted words like that don’t help you make your point. It reveals you to be a small-minded bigot that probably would be at home with the other small-minded bigots in the Democrat Party.
Huckabee’s problem is he is way too liberal in many areas, not the least of which involved his consumption of the Kool-Aid for the hoax known as global warming.
The wolves-in-sheeps-clothing have now narrowed our choices to Thompson and Romney for us. They kindly want to “save” us from nominating another firebrand Christian conservative idealogue … you know, like we did when we nominated RONALD REAGAN!
PALIN 2012
The polls show far more people consider themselves conservative than consider themselves Republican. The viable alternative to a third party is to rebrand the Republican Party as the conservative party. We can have a big tent as independents choose to agree with us on a limited number of issues. We do not want a big tent based on our own watering down of principle. Social conservatism is the heart and soul of the movement. We must stand up for the right to life and traditional American values. A percentage of socially liberal voters will swing our way due to fiscal and other issues and we will gladly accept their support. But we should never pander to the other side by rejecting or downplaying what makes us who we are … traditionalist conservatives. The democrats certainly aren’t pandering to the opposition; they are trying to shove their left wing agenda down our throats no matter how many oppose it. We don’t need to be as obnoxious as they are but we could, at least, stand firmly for what we really believe.
PALIN 2012
You’re right, the broad-based approach worked great in ‘06, didn’t it?
Was I that unclear that you completely missed my point? Do you think we had “principled conservatives” leading the Republican Party in ‘06? There’s a big difference between the leadership and the voting base of a party. If you don’t have broad-based support among the voting base and your opponent does, you won’t win the election (unless ACORN rigs it for you.)
The makeup of the GOP voting base was not what cost us all those seats. It was the RINOs at the top who led the party and ran for office who did us in. Many GOP voters stayed home because they didn’t have a true conservative choice in the race. And don’t forget, many democrats in ‘06, like Jim Webb, ran right-leaning campaigns to get elected and then moved to the left after getting into office.
There are people who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative who might vote Republican (on those rare occasions when the GOP actually runs a fiscally conservative candidate.) There are also people who like big government programs but may vote Republican because they are pro military or they don’t like abortion.
My point is that we do not need to purge these people from the voting base of the party just because they’re not 100% conservative. We just don’t want them running for office. Purge the top of the Party and the rest will take care of itself.
Reagan had a big welcoming tent and he won big. The difference between him and Newt is that Reagan didn’t move to the middle, he moved the middle to him.
The Federalist Party is a concept, not a party.
The idea is to gather conservatives of all stripes (and parties) under a single platform that we can all agree on.
Are you trying to tell me that you wouldn’t want to be a part of THAT platform? Come on.
RWR
http://www.rigthwingrocker.com