If the GOP Nominates Gingrich

December 7th, 2011 at 7:37 pm David Frum | 90 Comments |

| Print

It is volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton impeachment. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

Recent Posts by David Frum



90 Comments so far ↓

  • Oldskool

    I do I do!! [waving arms in the air]

    • margoharris1

      I don’t get it. They fled from “Herb”(that’s what the TundraTart calls him) because of marital infidelity but they flock to the Newt who is a serial adulterer? I don’t get it. I guess old Newt will throw his disgusting rhetorical bombs and it will appeal to their base, the lowest common denominator.

    • Fart Carbuncle

      I’m sure.

      This article needs to be renamed “I am David Frum and I am Mitt’s Attack Dog.”

  • Nanotek

    “If the GOP Nominates Gingrich … It is volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton impeachment.”

    there are better things to spend time on than that, but any focus on Gingrich’s many adulterous sexual escapades should include all the Republicans in Congress who knew about Gingrich’s affairs and their own (Congressman Livingston is still out there to be explored) while they were impeaching Clinton for sex

    • margoharris1

      They better submarine him soon or they will be stuck with him. Yeyyyyyyyyy!!

      • Nanotek

        + 1

        couldn’t happen to a more deserving collective than the GOP

      • tommyudo

        With all these so-called “insiders” ripping into Newton it’s going to be fun to see what happens should Willard stumble in the first 4 or 5 primaries. How is this crew going to walk back their prior statements? Newton is garnering that group on the Right who live for victimization. The more their guy is trashed , the stronger their resolve in his behalf.
        I see a party driven in two. At least I can hope. The GOP as presently constituted has to be destroyed. How poetic it would be to see Mr. “Contract With America” be the one to do it.

    • Probabilistic

      there are better things to spend time on than that – Total killjoy!

  • think4yourself

    It is amazing to me how much the primary voters don’t want Romney.

    Hang in there Ron Paul – your time’s coming!

    • Nanotek

      If Gingrich blows out then hopefully Paul is GOP pick for prez

      • dante

        If Gingrich fails, I’d bet Santorum over Paul… Sorry Ron, but people just don’t want *actual* Libertarianism these days.

        • overshoot

          Sorry Ron, but people just don’t want *actual* Libertarianism these days.

          Actually, they’re good with actual economic Libertarianism as long as it’s conjoined with social authoritarianism. Which, conveniently, happens to be where Paul pere et fils happen to stand. The generous seasoning with outright racism doesn’t hurt either, for those who have been paying attention for the last 20 years.

  • hormelmeatco

    The people who want to want to reargue it are the ones who made money from doing so the first time.

    • PracticalGirl

      But not necessarily those who got elected on the back of the whole sordid mess.

  • Baron Siegfried

    The problem here is dietary. The right wants raw, red, bleeding meat. Gingrich is willing to supply it, Romney is not, and offers tofurkey instead. Therefore the rabid right disdains Romney and embraces a man who has violated EVERY principle that the ‘conservatives’ purports to stand for and personally embodies the corruption and cronyism rampant in government and its parasitical class.BUT . . . he sounds smart (well, to stupid people) and is known for his viciousness. And these are what the mad hatters are looking for; if they wanted principle, they’d vote for Paul, but the numbers show the truth of that matter . . .

    I sincerely hope Gingrich gets the nomination; it will result in a landslide for President Obama’s re-election, and will probably sound the death knell for the GOP. If the republicans are willing to nominate someone like Newt, then I’m sorry. Their soul is dead, and Gingrich will drive a stake through its heart. A new party (actually, two) needs to rise from the ashes. The country needs a rational, responsible, and intelligent conservative party to act as a counterweight to the democrats (who are no great shake themselves, mind you). The teabaggers need to form their own party, and finally the few remaining rational republicans can emerge from hiding and begin rebuilding what the radicals destroyed.

    • nuser

      Problem is , Romney is no better!

      • beowulf

        If you don’t see Romney is a better candidate (and human being) than Gingrich, you’re not paying attention.

        • Cforchange

          Many have been paying attention. There are 2 robust economies in the US that would be the District of Columbia and it’s bustling suburbs. Second is the entitlement clearing house, Walmart World, where you can shop as a welfare/street economy king or queen and get the overly polite service like never experienced before.

          Outsourcing Romney has not presented a solution for how to overcome the damage from this activity. Plus “flipflopping” on the issue of the American worker is a tough sell.

          Just who does deserve the vote if one has been paying attention?

        • lilmanny

          Wouldn’t government action to halt outsourcing be socialist? (I think you mean offshoring. Outsourcing is having an accountant do your taxes. But still, isn’t that socialist?)

  • NRA Liberal

    Gingrich is a good old fashioned Southern Democrat pol: a Corrupt, gladhanding, demagogue, good on the stump & a boon companion of Big Government as long as it serves him. A type that has haunted the statehouses and whorehouses of Dixie since time immemorial.

    • Giggles

      That may be so but Rick Perry was actually elected as a “Southern Democrat”.
      By your definition Ron Paul and Mittens are the only true Republicans in the race. One is a loonie-lib the other is Ron Paul. boom boom.

  • steven08817

    It is ironic that the right’s hatred for President Obama is so great that they are going to support the one candidate who cannot win.

    • NRA Liberal

      They know he can’t win. It’s as much an FU to their own party elites as anything else. The same perverse motivation that made so many progressive Dems vote Nader.

    • AlanHHI

      That’s not true. It will be close with Huntsman and Romney. Obama shouldn’t have a problem with any of the rest of them.

  • baw1064

    He drives liberals crazy, so by definition he’s qualified to be President.

    The fact that he drives any conservatives with half a brain crazy as well doesn’t matter, apparently.

  • TJ Parker

    An intense debate about Newt’s penis would make great TV. Bring it on!

  • drcme

    Please, oh please, oh please? Can we please?

  • bdtex

    C’mon DF. You know who thinks that’s a good idea. Turn on the nearest AM radio.

  • Anonne

    Pawlenty must be cussing himself green by now.

    • ConnerMcMaub

      I don’t understand Pawlenty’s failure to get any traction. He has a more conservative record than Newt, Perry, or Romney without any doubt. He was a 2 term governor in a blue state and left with a good approval rating. His only heresy was on climate change, and he recanted that before he ran for the nom nom nom. I know he’s dull but he comes across as a likeable and real person with consistent beliefs. My only guess is that he was insufficiently angry or too unwilling to throw elbows. Was there some issue that disqualified him I’m not thinking about? Also, T-Paw had the nickname that was the most fun to say by far.

      • Graychin

        What looks wonderful on paper might be a hard sell to voters. Consider President Giuliani.

        Pawlenty is severely charisma-challenged.

        If Republican primary voters nominate Newt, I’m happy to remind the electorate of the Clinton impeachment. Why your reluctance, Mr. Frum?

      • beowulf

        “I don’t understand Pawlenty’s failure to get any traction.”

        You’re making Anonne’s point. On the day Pawlenty dropped out, Newt Gingrich (and Herman Cain for that matter) weren’t anywhere in the polls either.

    • Clayman

      Pawlenty will get his wish to run for Vice President. Mission accomplished.

  • overshoot

    Who thinks it’s a good idea?

    Well, DF will once it’s clear that Gingrich will be nominated.

  • jjack

    Newt seems perfect, actually. He has lots of grand theories and paranoid fantasies that involve himself “defending civilization” from godless hordes, trashing the bill of rights, starting even more wars, and turning poor black kids into school janitors. How is he not the embodiment of the extremely radical and un-conservative Republican party of 2011?

  • valkayec

    I’d like to say that Gingrich won’t win the nomination, but I’m not betting on the American public to be that smart.

    Mind you, I’m not in favor of any of the GOP candidates. None of them appear to have any clue of how to deal with our current economic issues – from income disparity and lack of social mobility to the failure of this nation to promote policies that encourage entrepreneurship (fyi, giving more money to Wall St gamblers and rent seekers does not promote new business introduction) – let alone foreign policy issues. They all appear to be bought by the wealthy and powerful or just plain dunces.

    And Gingrich! Lord help us. He is, without a doubt, a mind-numbing ego-centric, self glorifying, self indulgent, self centered twit. He ranks up there in megalomania almost with Nixon…except Nixon at least had some foreign affairs gravitas that Gingrich completely lacks.

    Please, God, save the United States from this class of clown car veterans who live in a world of their own emotional, intellectual and ego instability who would sell out to the highest bidder the very values that made the America great in order to attain the highest office in the land. Not one of them, including Huntsman who has come the closest with his call to break up the largest banks, has come close to addressing the economic and opportunity schisms that affect our nation today or the fact that legislation and offices are everyday being bought via K St and SuperPacs.

    • medinnus

      Valkayec, in the time I’ve spent here on Frum Forum, few other commentators have engendered the respect your ordinarily-extraordinary posts have earned you in my regard.

      It is with that preface that I feel I must protest!

      “I’d like to say that Gingrich won’t win the nomination, but I’m not betting on the American public to be that smart.”

      I feel that you are being patently unfair to the American public here – the idiot fringe, is at most, less than 33% (or so) – the GOP Base.

      I also feel you are perhaps throwing out the Huntsman with the bath water, so to speak… at least he speaks of policy, not taking small amounts marbled with the fat of mendacity to make raw meat shish kabobs for the aforementioned idiot fringe.

      • valkayec

        Medinnus, but it’s the “idiot fringe” as you put it that’s driving the nomination, and the fact that Huntsman has refused to throw out anti- Obama red meat zingers, a la Gingrich, is the very reason he’s gained no traction among the base. The fringe wants someone full of vitriol and hate, someone who mirrors their resentment, and Gingrich has done that in spades while not making the obvious lack of knowledge errors that afflict Perry, Bachmann, and Cain.

    • SerenityNow

      Earlier today I ran across a thought posted on some other blog that the current GOP presidential sweepstakes/train wreck that we’ve been watching in between bites of popcorn could oh so easily have been a Hollywood parody of the Left’s perception of the GOP. If this were a movie in, say, the Spinal Tap tradition it would probably be panned as being so far beyond the realm of possibility that even good punchlines were insufficient to warrant the purchase of a ticket.

      So here we – the American people – are getting all of these laughs for free even as only a relative few of us weather each, successive cringe-inducing development that would seem to herald the demise of our two-party political system. Forget the Arab Spring and pro-democracy demonstrations in Red Square. The world’s heretofore greatest democracy is teetering on the brink of fiscal collapse and political insolvency and perhaps half of it’s citizens seem perfectly happy about it.

  • joemarier

    My impression as a mere 17-year-old political observer was that Gingrich was pretty much dragged along. He didn’t have the pull in his caucus to overrule Hyde and Starr and shut down the whole thing. He made the comment that he thought that impeachment would win seats, but it’s kind of the speakers’ job to spout nonsense happy-talk when you’re in a bad spot. And of course, he was gone when the deal went down. I think people wanted to tie Gingrich to impeachment more than Gingrich wanted to tie himself to it.

    • PracticalGirl

      I seem to remember a different Gingrich than you, one who took credit for leading the impeachment at every turn. Regardless of where he was when it happened, he very much wanted to be remembered as the guy who led the charge even if he’s trying to rewrite his own history.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/newt-gingrich-rewrites-history-of-role-in-clinton-impeachment/2011/03/03/AF17PnoB_blog.html

      • Graychin

        What Practical Girl said.

        At age 17, Joe might not have had an overly idealistic worldview to appreciate all the facets of what was happening in 1998. Was there a conservative teacher of American Government in the mix? In any case, Joe has been misled.

        Newt was never dragged anywhere by his caucus. It was always Newt doing the dragging. That was just fine with the caucus as long as they were winning elections. But when the wrapup of the Senate trial of Clinton coincided with bad 1998 election results for Republicans, the caucus threw Newt under the bus. He resigned from Congress and the seat to which he had just been re-elected rather than face the humiliation of serving as a mere Congressman from Georgia.

        Past adulteries by Republican Congressmen Hyde and Livingston were exposed in the witch-hunt atmosphere of the time – the atmosphere Newt himself had created.

  • Crime Dog

    What do people honestly think Newt’s realistic chances of winning the nomination are?

    • JohnMcC

      Well, the Repubs established a southern choke-point through which their eventual nominee must squeeze — the SouthCarolina & Florida primaries. It has been successful for the last few election cycles. The winner in Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries (because of the difference in the electorates of the two states) usually would be two different candidates and SC ‘ought’ to decide between them — or for a third who’d been an also-ran.

      In this election, it presently looks as though Mr Gingrich will win Iowa and Mr Romney ‘ought’ to be able to use his home-field-advantage to win NH. So SC & FL ‘ought’ to be determinant. In which case, Newt will be the candidate.

      The problem here is that the RNC thought that the Obama-Clinton race of ’08 (going on month after month with lots of message-tuning and campaign-streamlining) gave the Dems an advantage. They determined to lengthen their nominating process by making the delegates actually assigned by the voters in NH, SC & FL proportional to their share of the vote in the early states (those that vote before April Fools Day). So whoever wins in Dixie must win really really big to close the door on his rivals.

      So (at least to my thinking) the question is whether Newt self-destructs before the end of the FL election. If you can predict that, you should take your skills to the nearest casino. The rest of us will be hedging our bets by buying popcorn futures.

      Short answer: It’s up to Newt — which means that quantum physics (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) is the determining rule.

      • think4yourself

        I agree with your reasoning about IA, NH, SC, & FL, but come to a generally different conclusion. Newt in Iowa, Romney in NH. Newt in SC (Romney’s a Northern carpetbagger), but I’m not sure about Florida.

        Florida is in the South, but it’s not all southern. Certainly the North part of the state is, but the southern part is mixed with seniors, transplanted northerners, liberal beach & gay culture, etc. (which is why it’s a toss up state regardless). If Romney can recover and attack Newt on his many failings then I think that Florida is Romney’s to lose.

        If Newt & Romney split the 4 states, then I think it becomes a long primary fight between those who want establishment versus those who will support anyone other than Mitt who all throw their support to Gingrich.

  • Clayman

    Newt’s early life:
    Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich Debate at Adultery-Free ‘Tea Party’ Fundraiser

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/herman-cain-and-newt-gingrich-debate-adult

  • hisgirlfriday

    Newt’s lesbian half-sister, Candace, was on Rachel Maddow tonight. I had totally forgotten about her sometimes guest appearances in the ’90s on the pre-Daily Show Comedy Central’s “Politically Incorrect.”

    If Newt gets the nomination, it’s not just impeachment that we’ll be relitigating. But everything about Newt in the ’90s. Probably his mom’s thoughts on Hillary too.

    Pelosi just put out a link to the 1,000+ page ethics report on Newt as well.

  • ottovbvs

    Face it David, most Republicans want Gingrich and not the the guy the grand pooh ba’s in Washington have decided should be nominated. And re-litigating Clinton’s impeachment is just another of those anti Gingrich bits of spin the pooh ba’s want out on the street. We’re much more likely to be re-litigating George Bush’s disastrous legacy than the impeachment of Clinton.

    • Graychin

      Don’t you think that the Republican base would ENJOY re-litigating the Clinton impeachment? I do.

  • Emma

    David is telling us that his hopes for Mitt are fading. It breaks his heart because he will miss out on all those state dinners. That is what really lies at the heart of Frum political principles.

  • Houndentenor

    Oh please! Pretty please, with sugar on top! PLEASE nominate Gingrich.

  • pdxcitizen

    Newt could have had 500 adulterous affairs, it doesn’t matter.

    Romney is an inauthentic, plastic, bobblehead doll as a candidate, he inspires no one.

    To boot, he was born on third base, and turned his family’s millions into hundreds of millions by cannibalizing companies and firing thousands of American workers.

    Romney offers competence only, but given his numerous flip flops no one really knows what he will competently try to do if in office.

    2012 is not an election for competence.

    • Rich T Bikkies

      OK. So Romney is offering nothing. You forgot to say what Gingrich IS offering – or did I miss it? You’ll have to do better than “Newt could have had 500 adulterous affairs, it doesn’t matter.”.

  • dante

    Darn, I was really hoping for the following from DF:

    If the GOP Nominates Gingrich, I DF will quit carrying water for the party. I will stop pretending that the worst Republican idea is better than the best Democratic one, and that some ideas, platforms and candidates on the Republican side are just plain retarded.

    I guess I won’t hold my breath…

  • icarusr

    In what appears to be an attack on Gingrich, Frum yet again – and I suspect intentionally – misses the point of what the next election is going to be about.

    No, David, the election will not be about the Stain; it won’t be about the meaning of “is”; and it matters not one wit whether Gingrich was a hypocritical, adulterous ass when he pursued Clinton – to the eternal shame of the Republic. It won’t be because Obama won’t let it go there.

    You wrote an article saying how Obama got his speech wrong; you missed, again, the point of his speech. He is setting out a vision for the country that is as far removed from the Republican Party – whatever manifestation you wish to embrace – as it is possible to get; it is an affirmative statement of what the Republic ought to be, and what citizenship must mean, in a country in which six individuals – six, count them, 6 – own more than 30% of Americans do. This is inequality of Indian and Brazilian magnitude.

    The next election (regardless of who is the Republican nominee) will be about what Obama will want to talk about, because even as Perry is still fighting Buchanan’s culture wars and Romney has no idea what his position is on a given issue and Gingrich is the latest gnawer and gnasher on the Republican rare T-Bone, Obama – the feckless, in-over-his-head, telepromter-needing, apologizing, compromising Obama – is methodically sketching out, and staking out, a vast political, economic and ideological territory that he will keep outside the reach of any candidate that manages to bamboozle the tricornered hordes of the Teapublican Party.

    No – Obama will not be reliving a world in which he had no part and no stake; he has already vaniquished the Clinton machine and will not want to relive the experience. He will put a stark choice before the people, and if he loses (as he well might), he will go with grace, his conscience clear that he did what he could and could not do more. But it will be about the future, not about the past. He is already doing it – he is already redefining the terms of the debate, and you are missing it.

    You guys never learn.

    • drdredel

      in a country in which six individuals – six, count them, 6 – own more than 30% of Americans

      Could you please clarify this statement? I assume you aren’t saying that there are 6 people who own 100 million people… I’m unclear what you *are saying. A link to some stats to back-up the claim would be lovely as well.

      (great post, otherwise, btw)

      • icarusr

        I fixed the problem (missing a ‘do’).

        Here is the link:

        http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/the_insane_wealth_of_walmarts_founding_family/

        Money quote:

        “Allegretto then compared those numbers to the net worth of the six members of the Walton clan as reported on the Forbes 400 list in 2007. They are all children or children-in-law of the founders of Walmart. Their total net worth that year: $69.7 billion.

        That’s equal to the wealth of the poorest 30 percent of all Americans, according to Allegretto’s calculations.”

    • armstp

      icarusr,

      Excellent and thoughtful post.

      And that is why the OWS movement hits such a deep and meaningful cord for many many people with half a brain in this country. It does not matter if the protests were large or not, their central message is very very powerful.

      Conservatives, those on the right and Republicans just do not get it. They can immaturely belittle the movement all they want, but the message is powerful and goes to the heart of 99% of Americans. Lets just hope enough Independents get it.

    • zaybu

      @ icarusr

      +10

    • laingirl

      icarusr, that was beautiful! Thank you.

    • budgiegirl

      i think i had one of those Chris Matthews tingles reading this post!

  • johnamann

    typical of liberals… they hate successfull individuals who have work hard and made not…. they did not inherit their money
    the debate will be about we remain a nation of achievers or whether we becoma like Europe a nation of government dependency…
    you liberals would love that…. it would make your day… we are halfway there with Obama
    just look at the public service now the best health care double the private sector salary and a pension plan that would be the envy of the most demanding stalinist
    we can return to the fundamental principals of our founder… liberty and opportunity
    you sir miss the point…

    • icarusr

      I am trying to figure out if this is meant to be satire.

      “they did not inherit their money”

      The Walton clan did, as a matter of fact, inherit their money, including all the grandchildren who are on the Fortune 400 list.

      “like Europe a nation of government dependency…”

      If, by “Europe”, you mean the EU, that is actually 27 nations and not one. Europe also includes the Russian Oligarchy, so I am not sure what your point is.

      The 27 nations of the EU include Germany and Sweden, who are doing well economically; France, which has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the US; Italy, which for all the doom and gloom, actually has a structural surplus … and of course the UK, the only “US-like” country in the EU and the only one suffering from US-like symptoms. Norway – in the EEA, but not the EU – is a prosperous oil barony; and Iceland is suffering only because it decided to pull a Wall Street, and the Dutch (who are also doing very well), who suffered as a result, weren’t about to put up with the nonsense.

      Greece and Ireland are basket-cases – but for two different reasons. To lump the two in the same basket demonstrates remarkable ignorance. Although, of course, I don’t think you have any clue at all that “Europe” may be differentiated so it is not surprising that you can’t tell the difference between a racket (that has nothing to do with “government dependency”) in Greece, and extreme undersupervised economic liberalisation that led to an unsustainable boom in Ireland.

      “just look at the public service now the best health care double the private sector salary and a pension plan that would be the envy of the most demanding stalinist”

      If this were a sentence, one might respond to it. Bits and pieces of it are interesting – laugh-out-loud interesting. For example, I was not aware that “the most demanding stalinist” demanded Ohio-like pensions. Of course, if that were all that stalinism, or Stalinism, was about, then I doubt if “Stalinism” would be such a bad thing. I think – colour me silly – that the problem with Stalinism was not so much the pensions, as the 30 million Kulaks who died in famines, the 20 million who were killed in a preventable war, the millions sent to the Gulags, the show-trials, the executions, the disppearances, the treaties broken, the countries invaded, the promises not kept, the languages and cultures suppressed …

      Give me one – just one – “liberal” today who would “love” Stalinism as it was actually implemented, and I will give you your point. Otherwise, please direct yourself to the nearest woodshredder.

      • think4yourself

        Ouch; Johnamann that must have really hurt when Icarusr shoved it back in the same orifice it came out of.

        • LFC

          Thank heavens I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that one. You, sir, are a danger to the light colored shirt I’m wearing today.

      • Cforchange

        Then after inheriting their money, the next generation crafted their stores to serve to the poorest 30% and the cheapest 80% of the middle, wiping out viritually all American consumer product manufacturing in the process. They are the beast that killed our economy.

        The Walmart momentum is simply staggering, they are creating their own customers by their power over the consumption economy. Their impact has escalated permanent unemployment but there they stand ready to collect the entitlement checks because where else would you go to max your benefits. And to think, Walmarts are typically provided tax incentives to develop those ghastly grey boxes.

        It is so interesting that the public at large has developed anger for the banks but just can’t see the impact of Walmart on virtually every type of small to mid size business that previously operated in this country. Maybe there are Zombies amongst us but the time to think outside of the grey box is loooong overdue.

    • TerryF98

      Another fox news viewer.

      Dumb as a box of rocks, ill informed, unable to spell, incoherent, incomplete sentences. What hope is there for America if this ignorant RW nutcase is typical of one half of the political divide.

      • medinnus

        More like 25% – 35%; not everyone on the Right is a congenital idiot.

        Just the Tea Party, the Christianist Religious Reich, and their bigoted fellow-travellers.

    • armstp

      johnamann,

      Nice moranic immature post by you.

      “liberals” as you say, are no less against “success” and achievement than any so-called “conservative”. In fact, probably about half the “successful” people in this country are “liberals”…. Jobs, Gates, Buffett… etc.

      what everyone including “liberals” are against are those that are robbing the system blind by not paying their fair share of taxes and working the system with their money to their advantage. Buffett is right. it makes no sense when a billionaire has a lower tax rate than his secretary.

      the proof is the ever increasing concentration in wealth and income in this country. it is about a system that only works for the very few…. a system the puts little value on labor and all the value on capital.

      Elizabeth Warren is right… all those “successful” people would not be successful if it was not for all that infrastructure that is provided for them by all the taxpayers. the Koch brothers would not be successful without all those direct and indirect subsidies they receive in their energy, mining, agriculture businesses…

      it is about what is fair. it is about a system that protects the wealthy and holds down those who work hard from being successful. why do you think the U.S. now has some of the worst social mobility on the planet and certainly among the OECD?

  • Stan

    If the GOP nominates Romney and if he wins and if the Republicans hold the House and if they get a big enough majority in the Senate and if Romney and his party keep their promises – that’s a lot of ifs, but it’s possible – then Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare will be passed, with Governor Romney’s support, and people presently under 55 will lose Medicare. They’ll have a voucher plan instead, and they’ll wind up paying a lot more for their medical care than the present group of retirees do now. I sincerely hope David Frum and his colleagues discuss this. Ryan’s plan is the most radical solution to our health care problems out there, and it won’t do to simply pretend it won’t happen. Now that Mitt Romney supports it, it could become the official position of the Republican party. It deserves a discussion.

    • LFC

      “Ryan’s plan is the most radical solution to our health care problems out there…”

      To fix this phrase, please remove the word “solution” and insert “proposal” in its place.

      The CBO has pretty much destroyed the notion that the Ryan Plan could be a solution for any real problem that America faces today.

      • overshoot

        The CBO has pretty much destroyed the notion that the Ryan Plan could be a solution for any real problem that America faces today.

        I can think of a lot of “problems” that the Ryan Plan would “solve.” Most people don’t see them as problems, but I’m sure that Ryan, his colleagues, and their sponsors do.

    • tommyudo

      Now that Willard has fully embraced the Ryan plan to gut Medicare as we know it, Barack ought to be sending a great big “thank you” card for the early Xmas present Willard just sent. There are plenty of people on the Right who want hands off SS and Medicare. Who the hell does he think this stand will appeal to? Of yeah, I forgot, this is the guy who changes his mind on a weekly basis. In any debate with Obama, it will be rammed down his throat.

    • armstp

      it will not get that far… even if the Ryan plan passes and results in a massive collapse in healthcare in this country and old people either dying or going broke, the system would then have to be fixed, as the voter will not put up with it and it will just result in some kind of tax payer bail-out…. if you follow a dumb plan like the Ryan plan it will ultimately just result in a much more expensive taxpayer bail-out… same with social security… if they privatize it and everyone loses all their savings no one is going to stand by and watch a bunch of old people live in poverty… the tax payer will eventually bail out a any failed private sector SS plan… those changes to medicare and SS will just end up being very tax payer costly stupid mistakes…

    • ram6968

      medicare is the first domino, then comes SS, minimum wage and last but not least,child labor laws…..by the time they are done, it’s 1912, not 2012…..it’s been a while since we’ve had people in streets dying of hunger because they have nowhere to go and nothing to eat and kids worked in sweatshops……..

  • anniemargret

    Look, let’s get down to the nitty/gritty.

    The Republican party and its adherents, as it now stands in the year 2011, doesn’t give a hang about policy. They don’t care about the dwindling and suffering middle class, nor do they care a whit about the impoverished, because they believe the lie, posed by the faux thinkers on radical right radio that the poor are poor because they ‘don’t care and don’t want to work,’ and they don’t care if the air and water and food become polluted.

    What they really care about is what Palin reveled in, and exacerbated in her phony play for the presidency….culture wars.

    This is about which presidential candidate can throw the most dirt, the better insult, the most nasty, egregious slander against President Obama and by default, ‘liberal’ America. They are almost kneeling at the altar of hate, grievance, fear, and give high fives to distortions of the truth, obfuscations of the truth, and outright denial of the truth.

    Then they go to church and make a big deal out of it. ,

    Am I exaggerating? I wish I were.

    This is one sick society. We talk about our ‘enemies’ but the enemy is us. The enemies are within. The radical right and the culture warriors who follow the latest screed from Gingrich or Romney or Bachmann (whatever there always got another hiding under the next rock), are waging war on other Americans.

    Not content with debating real issues that will affect the everyday life of ordinary Americans, they would rather vote for the ultimate vilest and most bombastic rhetoric of their latest and greatest Obama scourge. Their hate is palpable.

    Very, very sick.

    Huntsman is down in the polls for a reason. He is simply too courteous, too intelligent, too aware, too knowledgeable, too fairly honest, and too willing to ‘work for his country’ and willing to put partisanship aside if it means a better nation.

    What the? Who is he kidding? People like him are despised in the Republican party, not honored. There is no honor in the GOP anymore. They sold their souls long ago under Karl Rove and his machinations and it continues under Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox and Friends (!), Coulter, Trump, and the Grinchy Gingriches out there. They followed the corruptors instead of turning away, and nothing, nothing will bring them back. That they are more than willing to see their own countrymen suffer is testament to this corruption.

    They allowed evil to enter their hearts, and now its made a home there.

    Blast the Republicans…they are not good enough for this nation.

    • AnBr

      They sold their souls long ago under Karl Rove and his machinations and it continues under Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox and Friends (!), Coulter, Trump, and the Grinchy Gingriches out there.

      Longer ago than Rove. Remember Lee Atwater in the 80′s and Speaker Gingrich’s charge to impeach a president for the very same thing he was guilty of, just for political gain.

  • nhthinker

    Democrats can’t balance a checkbook. That is why most Republicans are Republicans.
    And why most independents will vote Republican next year.
    The US is losing over a half a trillion dollars a year in trade deficit. Americans and the Greeks consume more than they produce and have for decades. Democrats answer: encourage Americans to consume more and follow Greece into bankruptcy.

    The Democrats used to hold out Europe as the social-political model that was so more chic than the more libertarian US model.

    Democrats have an incredibly hard time seeing the big picture. Globally, the skilled and educated middle class has been growing at a very fast pace. The US trade deficit has funded a significant portion of that growth but that same deficit has been hollowing out competitiveness.

    Greece has had to turn to austerity and lost of democratic decision making. Why? because their emphasis on “being nice” to every political class led to entitlement commitments that their economy could not afford.

    Democracy leads to bankruptcy if trade deficits stay out of control. Attempt to move toward full employment or greater consumption without regard to trade deficits foretell long-term doom for an economy. Greece is just the canary in the coalmine for democracies. Some democracies, those with a high natural resource wealth as compared to population, will do quite well during the great increase in the educated and skilled global workforce. Canada will continue to do well.

    Democrats love to look at the urgent needs and lose sight of the long term picture: just like the Greeks.

    To say all Republicans don’t care, is just blind hate. Republicans view Democrats as government addicts who can’t control your habits- we don’t hate you- we just want you to get better.

  • Clinton Impeachmet Hand: Why D.C. RINOs Won’t Impeach Eric Holder | Floyd Reports

    [...] advised Republicans to cave on the debt ceiling to avoid impeaching Obama. He’s currently warning the GOP not to nominate Newt Gingrich, because it means “volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton [...]

  • Clinton Impeachmet Hand: Why D.C. RINOs Won’t Impeach Eric Holder | Western Journalism.com

    [...] advised Republicans to cave on the debt ceiling to avoid impeaching Obama. He’s currently warning the GOP not to nominate Newt Gingrich, because it means “volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton impeachment.”If [...]

  • Newt the Impeacher: Will 2012 See Gingrich’s Role in the Clinton Scandal … | My Blog

    [...] thinker David Frum, among others, wringing his hands: Nominating Gingrich, Frum recently wrote, amounts to “volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton impeachment. Who thinks that’s a [...]

  • Newt the Impeacher: Will 2012 See Gingrich’s Role in the Clinton Scandal Relitigated? | Vladimir Putin 2012

    [...] hands: Nominating Gingrich, Frum recently wrote, amounts to “volunteering to spend 2012 re-arguing the Clinton impeachment. [...]

  • Breaking History » Archive » Is Newt Gingrich’s Rise the Impeachers Path to Political Success?

    [...] has several political commentators wondering if Gingrich’s success will be driven by the notoriety that he gained during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Impeachments aren’t every day occurrences, but each time [...]