Santorum and Newt -- punks in a pod

Thanks to Ron Paul for telling it as it is ----



Romney. Mitt Romney. America needs Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul knows Newt -- so should YOU.

Ron Paul knows Newt: Counterfeit Conservative.

Did anyone mention hypocrite? Did anyone mention that while Newt was chastising Bill Clinton for having another use for his cigar, the Newtster was getting his own cigar unwrapped as his wife lay critically ill?


We all know that Newt was asked to relinquish his position as Speaker of the House rather than face possible criminal sanctions from his peers in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, who sat on the ethics committee at that time, has stated that -- at an appropriate time -- she will release the results of Gingrich's investigation. Here is John Sununu's assessment:

“We had … well over 218 Republicans in the Congress when Newt was the Speaker, and you can’t find more than a handful who will come to his defense,” King said. “And it has nothing to do with ideology, nothing to do with philosophy. It’s all the erratic, self-serving narcissism of Newt.”

Sununu said Democrats are “laughing with glee behind closed doors” at the prospect of a Gingrich nomination.

He warned that Gingrich has so much baggage, including the ethics violations for which he was fined $300,000, that an “October surprise” during the 2012 election would be inevitable.

“There was a 7-to-1 vote in that Ethics Committee, which means the material was pretty convincing, even to the four Republicans, three of which voted against him,” Sununu said. “I think it reflects on his reliability as a leader and, frankly, reflects on the fact that [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi was part of that process, and whatever Congresswoman Pelosi knows, President Obama knows.“And if Pelosi knows, Obama knows. And if Obama knows, this is certainly a ripe package for an October surprise.”

Pelosi served on the Ethics Committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late 1990s.

She told Talking Points Memo in early December that she will reveal information about him when the time is right.

Here is more -- some of which we/you may not have known:



Paul also says:

Newt Gingrich was for the individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare." He was originally for the TARP bank bailouts before he was against them.

He slammed Paul Ryan's budget plan as "extreme," calling it "right-wing social engineering."

Gingrich was "for the individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare." His healthcare group received nearly $40 MILLION in contributions from the healthcare industry.

He was originally for the TARP bank bailouts before he was against them.

He joined with Nancy Pelosi to promote the anti-business "global warming" agenda."

Gingrich traded on his former political office to land a $1.8 million lobbying contract with Freddie Mac.

Newt Gingrich has a long record of liberal appeasement, flip-flopping on key issues, and lobbying for insider millions.

For all of Ron Paul's "unelectibles" -- at least he knows Newt Gingrich's double standards: for his family, his character, his values, his background and especially his nation.

Want more proof that Newt is not what he pretends to be? You don't have to be a "Bircher" to believe why so many of Newt's peers consider him unethical, untrustworthy and a counterfeit conservative:

The Real Newt Gingrich from Frank on Vimeo.

Romney. Our only TRUE choice for President.

Curl Bids Good-Riddance to Newt

ANALYSIS/OPINION: Joseph Curl

Anyone who knows Newt Gingrich knows that Newt Gingrich is — and always has been — all about Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich doesn’t give a damn about the Republican Party. And Newt Gingrich sure doesn’t care about ousting President Obama, unless he’s doing the ousting. If Newt Gingrich can’t be the nominee, then Newt Gingrich will burn the whole place to the ground.

And that’s just what he’s done since plunging in the polls. Furious over the TV ads the pro-Romney super PAC ran against him in Iowa, Mr. Gingrich abandoned his pledge not to speak ill of his fellow Republicans and struck out on a course to destroy the Republican front-runner.

In one of many odd utterances, the former House speaker acknowledged as much in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary: “My real goal was to make sure that Romney did not win here by a big enough margin to develop real momentum.” Simple: Take Mr. Romney down, even if it brings down the entire Republican Party.

At times, Mr. Gingrich has sounded exactly like Mr. Obama in his attacks on Mr. Romney’s tenure at a large venture capital firm, parroting the class warfare claptrap that will be the centerpiece of the Democratic campaign.

“There has to be some sense of everybody’s in the same boat — and I think again, as I said, he’s gonna have to explain why would Bain have taken $180 million out of a company and then have it go bankrupt, and to what extent did they have some obligation to the workers? Remember, these were a lot of people who made that $180 million — it wasn’t just six rich guys at the top. And yet somehow they walked off from their fiduciary obligation to the people who had made the money for them,” Mr. Gingrich said.

The new Newt is miles away from the old Newt, at least the facade. In early Republican debates, Mr. Gingrich chastised moderators for seeking to split the party’s candidates, force them to criticize one another.

“I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other. You’d like to puff this up into some giant thing,” he said at one debate. “I for one … and I hope all my friends up here … are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama, who deserves to be defeated, and all of us are committed as a team. Whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack Obama.”

Mr. Gingrich’s descent into the nasty should surprise no one; the corpulent, thrice-married former speaker is clearly a man who cannot control his appetites. His decision to split for a vacation in the Greek islands during the first days of his campaign prompted his campaign team to resign en masse, leaving the candidate so rudderless he couldn’t even get on the ballot for some state primaries.

Without a disciplined team of advisers around him, Mr. Gingrich’s true character has shone through. Newt’s facade as an avuncular, even-tempered man of moderation has given way to the true Newt: angry, impulsive, irrational, undisciplined.

For years, Mr. Gingrich played the coy party leader, teasing conservatives as he toyed with the idea of running for president. He played the game in 2000, and again in 2008. But like Sarah Palin, he had no intention of running: Instead, he was busy making big bucks as an author and paid speaker ($50,000 a pop). Each campaign cycle he would emerge, hit the TV circuit, hype his latest book, and then disappear into the shadows again.

Here’s the fallout of Mr. Gingrich’s scorched-earth campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination: The former speaker has lost his position as de facto head of the Republican Party — forever — and with his departure, the former Alaska governor will assume his longtime role.

Mr. Gingrich was once the main speaker at the conservatives’ top summit, the Conservative Political Action Conference. He thrilled conservatives year after year with his die-hard right agenda. But this February, Mrs. Palin will be the keynote speaker. And by then, Mr. Gingrich will be a former candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination.

The job swap will be complete. Mrs. Palin will play the same role as Mr. Gingrich once did: pushing the Republican Party to the right as she cashes in on books and speeches. She’ll toy with a run in 2016 should the Republicans lose this November but pull back. By 2020, she’ll jump in — and be crushed, just like Mr. Gingrich has been this cycle. And by then, there’ll be another conservative leader in the wings to take over her role. Same as it ever was.

Romney on the Righting of America

Mitt Romney assesses Obama's options following the nation's rejection of Obama's first two years in office and what he could/should do to right this nation back to productivity and respect:

President Obama could have focused on solving the financial crisis. He did
not. He could have endeavored to conquer the looming threats to our future.
Instead, he added to them. Now that voters have rejected his first two years in
office, the president should not waste this political crisis: He should seize
his "Nixon to China" opportunity.

Government is a greater threat to America in 2010 than China was in
1972. Government is smothering the pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit that
propelled our economy past those of older, larger nations. Ever higher taxes on
small and big business, layers of red tape, onerous labor regulations, and
punitive bureaucrats and lawsuits are suffocating U.S. economic vitality. So
far, the president and his fellow travelers in Congress have made things worse:
If Obama is serious about changing the way things are done in Washington, he
must slay the job-killing beast Washington has become.

He must also choke off government's voracious appetite. Under current
law, the federal government's share of the economy will grow from its
50-year average of 20.3 percent to 26.5 percent by the end of this decade;
federal, state and local governments will then constitute more than 40 percent
of the economy. At what point do we effectively become a socialist economy, with
its associated low growth, low incomes and permanently high unemployment?

And at what point will lenders to our government insist on charging
punishingly high interest rates, or stop buying U.S. debt altogether?
Congressional Budget Office data indicate that government spending through the
next decade will require $12.4 trillion in additional debt, bringing our total
public indebtedness to $22.2 trillion by 2020 - about the size of our gross
domestic product. America's debt then will look a good deal like Greece's debt
does today.

Obama's first instinct is to blame all this on his predecessor's
tax policies. But the $22.2 trillion figure already assumes that Obama will
raise taxes on annual incomes higher than $250,000, repealing the so-called Bush
tax cuts for the rich. So the $12.4 trillion in new debt is entirely due to
government spending and the president's own tax policies. Spending, Mr.
President, is what threatens America's economy, not tax cuts.

To tame runaway government spending, the president should of course
embrace the usual measures: freeze government employment; freeze growth in
discretionary spending; veto every spending bill chocked with earmarks; work to
regain an effective line-item veto; extinguish ineffective, wasteful programs.
But these are just the start.

If the president is to become serious about spending, borrowing and
deficits, he must subject government to the two budgeting rules employed by
every well-run business and home.

Rule One: Start with the total, don't end

up with it. Decide from the outset the amount that the government will spend for
the year. Don't add up all the program requirements, departmental requests and
political wish lists to calculate the total - that's surrendering, not
budgeting. The nation's 50-year average annual tax burden has been 18 percent of
GDP. That's the right figure for total spending; it may take several years to
rein in spending to that level, but it should be the target.

Rule Two: Go where the money is.

With entitlement spending about half of all federal spending, the president has no choice but to address Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should propose less costly progressive indexing for future Social Security beneficiaries - using the consumer price index inflator rather than the wage index for higher-income retirees. Medicaid should be granted in block to the states, giving them flexibility to meet the
needs of poor residents in their own ways. Medicare will require reform of
health care, making it more like a consumer market and less like a regulated
utility. Medicare recipients should also be given better options for private
coverage. Regardless of the reforms chosen, the entitlements budget should be
subject to Rule One - set a total first and conform the programs to that level.
Advocates of this course include the Brookings Institution on the left and the
Heritage Foundation on the right.

Finally, don't let the Bush tax cuts expire. Keeping them will yield
revenue at 18.4 percent of GDP in 2020 - higher than the historic tax average.
Lower taxes will propel growth, add jobs and produce a larger GDP that can
accommodate our spending priorities. And don't push defense below 4 percent of
GDP; with today's global threats and allies' diminishing military capabilities,
freedom will increasingly depend on American strength.

The president can turn his party's losses Tuesday into a win for the
country. It all depends on the course he sets.

The writer, a Republican, was governor of Massachusetts from 2003
to 2007.

Source: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Romney on Obama as a timid US advocate

How many times can we regret that a man of proven leadership was not selected to run against Barack Obama? The more Obama allows the US to be denegrated by dictators -- the greater the regret that Mitt Romney was not the candidate ....

HopeyChange takes a break; Mitt for health czar?

UPDATE: (see spending plan)

Update II: (HopeyChange takes a break)

okokokok --- it's far fetched, but when it comes to what's currently transpired in the predicted melt-down of the HopeyChange Revival on Pennsylvania Avenue -- why not Mitt Romney for Health Czar?

He probably wouldn't accept a salary and he's already set up (not that his successor maintained it) a model program in Massachusetts.

Oh well. At least I spelled Massachusetts correctly.

Meanwhile -- rather than showing leadership, HopeyChange appears to be hoping that the Senate will change his hodge-podge political-payback-palooza Pelosi-pork-packed spending bill. It's time to do more than send the minions to ride herd on Congress --- you gotta cowboy-up yourself, Hopey!! (See more below.)

Only when some group (such as 70% of voters or the EU or Canada or Russian or a few South American countries) complain about part(s) of the bill does HopeyChange "agree" .... So where is the leadership, Hopey?

This is YOUR save-the-US-and-later-the-world spending bill, Hopey!!

Geeeeze, Hopey! Do something besides spewing informal rhetoric with an adoring Matt L, hosting fancy meals and cocktail parties, inviting a few buds in for a Super Bowl party or letting your staff tell us how you like the thermostat high while folks in the midwest are huddled in shelters or dying in a snow storm. Do something, Hopey. Take a stand --- don't just send your minions to do your work.

Are we watching on-the job-training in action? Are we already seeing signs of ole wimpy Jimmy the implausible peace-placater?

Other nations are already rolling their collective eye over the use of (**a MUST read**) Clinton's ineffective 80's scheme team to address twenty-first century issues.

The prospects are beginning to look as gloomy as you're always portraying them, Hopey ....

And folks around the world are lining up to watch HopeyChange melt-down.

Here. Read it all for yourselves.

** Remember when HopeyChange told voters in the midwest he would stop the "export" of US jobs --- then secretly sent a minion to Canada to tell them NOT to believe what Hopey was saying? Well it's backfiring on ole Hopey and he's changing his tune.

Canada (already in trade negotiations with the EU and the U. S.'s favorite trade partner), Russia, China and the EU have expressed serious concerns about the "buy American clause in the Spending bill -- with the EU warning of potential trade wars if Hopey doesn't drop the "buy American" clause ....

Obama's "buy American" campaign slogan will continue to haunt him.

** India has warned US President Barack Obama that he risks “barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

MK Narayanan, India’s national security advisor, said that the new US administration was in danger of dredging up out of date Clinton administration-era strategies in a bid to bring about improved ties between the two nuclear armed neighbours.

** Russia is announcing that the US will lose an Asian air base that is critical to supplying troops in Afghanistan .... hmmmm .... Reckon Russia still remembers how we supported the Taliban when they fought (and defeated) Russia?

And this scenario is not without prior predictions ....

Careful, Hopey: Russia may force your hand on arms reduction and defense systems in Eastern Europe. Plus they know where the bodies are buried and they own the gas lines that heat those EU homes ...

** A question of ethics, subtitled: How to Affirm the Chicago Way is the route to the White House and to other Democrat groups. While the world is watching.

** Is this why the Obama's send their kids to private school?

"First lady Michelle Obama set out Monday on a listening tour through the federal bureaucracy, stopping first at the Department of Education to thank employees for their service and rally them for the tough work ahead," the Associated Press. While at the Education Department, Mrs. Obama committed this howler:

In thanking the workers, she told them: "I am a product of your work."

"I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the public schools that nurtured me and helped me along," said Mrs. Obama, a Chicago native who attended its public schools as a child.

Michelle Obama was born in January 1964. The Department of Education began operation in May 1980, when Mrs. Obama was a 16-year-old high school junior. Apparently she is unaware that there were public schools before there was a federal Department of Education--though we suppose that's evidence that the department does not bear all the blame for the schools' going downhill.

** About that "urgent" spending bill ....

$2 million for Las Vegas neon signs???

More Pelosi-pork-pie-in-the-sky (This woman needs to be removed. fast. God-forbid anything should ever happen to Obama. Or Biden.)

"Shovel ready" spending??? Only if the Senate is "scissor ready" ....

Coburn: Plan is "morally reprehensible" ....

A Frisbee golf course????

UPDATE: Sen. DeMint points out that the spending bill excludes monies for schools, facilities or organizations associated with faith-based or religious programs:

"Grants awarded under this section shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, and repairing institution of higher education facilities that are primarily used for instruction and research"

"Funds may not be used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities--(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

** And on the China front: predictions and contradictions

** From another Obama think-tank: How to get around Congress to write treaties .... Another Clinton maneuver, now less ....

** More on what the MSM won't be reporting about those Fannie Mae files and the immigrant worker who tried to destroy them ....

** .... just watched Tim Geithner speak (with THE ONE at his elbow) about some policy for bail out recipients .... couldn't concentrate on what he was saying because all I could "see" on the screen was a man who wrote off camp fees for his kids as business deductions. The man has to go. He was knee-deep in the original bail out debacle -- why's he still here???

** HopeyChange take a break: And Tammy Bruce pens a perfect tag line:

[A tough day? The guy has been the president for 14 whole days and he needs a
break? What happened to that "flinty Chicago toughness" he was requiring of DC
schoolchildren a week ago?]

On the rockiest day of his young administration, President Barack Obama did what surely made him happy for a while.

He left.

With little notice, the president and first lady Michelle Obama
bolted the gated compound of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in their tank of a
limousine on Tuesday. They ended up at a Washington public school, greeted by children who could not care less about the collapse of a Cabinet secretary nomination.

"We were just tired of being in the White House," the president candidly told the gleeful second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.

Tired of being in the White House after two weeks. Priceless.

According to the Barkey-Be-Gone Meter, he still has 1446 whole days to go before we kick him out. I suppose this is the presidential version of voting 'Present"? So let's see: Iran has launched a satellite, Russia is having riots, France is having riots, people in Kentucky are still freezing to death, the Sri Lankan war is escalating, he's threatened with a trade war by the EU because of crap in his Crap Sandwich, the Taliban is still attacking in Afghanistan, Islamic "pirates" are still hijacking ships and kidnapping people, our economy is still tanking mostly because of Barkey talking it down for a year, and he decides to go to a school to read to 2nd graders?

The kids did learn something, however, from his presence: what an arrogant and weak a**hole looks like.
.

UPDATED Bipartisanship: Chicago-Style

Why would Obama "warn" Republicans about listening to Rush Limbaugh? Or remind them that "he won"????

UPDATE: Rush responds to point out that Obama's tactic is to take attention away from his stimulus plan ....

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

.... [this demonstrates] Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Are we going to play Obama's stall-game or his "my way or the highway" for the next four years? At this critical time when "all Americans must come together"?

Why should the President of the United States be threatened by a conservative talk radio host??? As Rush pointed out --- is this simply a diversion to a weak stimilus plan? (I've never listened to Limbaugh -- might have to tune him in now.)

Or is this bipartisanship "Chicago style" with a dose of Alinsky?


Here's the original news article. This ought to be good for a few months. Or years. Or until 2010 or 2012 when the WH admits this "stimulus" will take effect. (Click stimulus link for summary. It's also enlargeable.)

Note: Emphasis, stimulus summary links and comments are added to article below.

[An obviously insecure] President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. [What happened to that "we are one" spiel??? And why is Rush Limbaugh such a threat to Barack Obama?]

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his
nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. [ Coulda fooled me.]

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats [name five, but first put that letter opener down]," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things [like $3 million for condoms] that need to get done." [or maybe helping the prez pay back campaign debts to all those unions and special interest groups?]

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today. [Really?]

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting. [nanner nanner nanner]

"I will trump you on that."

[This guy plays bridge also? I had him pegged as a joker's wild sorta guy ....]

Not that Obama was gloating. [NO? Then was he trying to intimidate someone?] He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers. [Hey --- never say 'no' to the Messiah.]

"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt
with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting. [Well, duh. So why are you proposing "stimuli" which won't take effect for 2-4 years?]

Republicans say the $825 billion price tag is too big a burden for a nation crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said.

"How does that [$300 million for condoms] stimulate the economy?" [Could it be because this entire plan is one big screw-over for America?]

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis [duh]unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets." [So why are we waiting until 2010 or 2012 before this 'stimulus' kicks in?]

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing. [This whole administrative facade is beginning to look shady .... ]

"The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said. [Will that be before or after his campaign cronies get their money?]

"He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas." [If this bipartisan meeting was "window dressing," can we expect paint, wall paper and new carpet next week?]

IMO, IF Republicans DON'T filibuster this pork-package-to-repay-campaign-promises-while-calling-it-an-economic-stimulus, they can hang it and this nation up for the next four years (and beyond).

And while I'm on the topic ----

If someone doesn't step up and reveal (Obama's benefactor) George Soros and his henchmen for manipulating all global markets, Soros is REALLY going to be the Dr. No of this world. (Even he agrees that the global economic stress has been caused by the U.S. housing market scandal(s) -- although he fails to recognize the role of certain "leading" democrats in ignoring the warnings, lying about the corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and in benefiting from the $candal$.)

Even one of Soros' cohorts has advised global investors to ditch U.S. stocks and buy U.S. corporations or put their money in the Asian market.

Is it any wonder that Soros' buddy Maurice Strong is already living in China (since his meddling in the U.N. oil for food scheme -- with whom Soros is working on a scheme to market Chinese's economy car in the U.S.)

or

that Obama's choice for Secretary Treasurer (the tax evading) Timothy Geithner (click to read about his role in the collapse of Citibank -- which may become part of our "nationalized bank system) also speaks fluent Chinese and has also worked with the Chinese market????

Don't be distracted.

Which reminds me ---------- what we need around here is a pro-active, pro-American James Bond-type figure to salvage our nation and our economy from greedy Gold Fingers, Dr. No and the Chicago Way. And that figure is Mitt Romney.



This topic cross-posted through-out Over the Hill Oracles sites.
.