HOWEVER, the question is not just a matter of “push back”, but on what PRINCIPLES?

And Ben is quite correct – Newton Gingrich has not explained on what CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES he and Congress would proceed. Indeed he despises such “lawyer talk” and, instead, talks vaguely of court judgements that are against the American way of life.

“It would be no better tlo be enlsaved by him than by the enemy”.

I doubt Gingrich has a clear “end state” in mind. Barack Obama (and the rest of educated left) do have clear end state in mind – full collectivism (although, in their minds, it would be collectivism with a smiley face).

With Gingrich – who knows? It would be a wild ride – and the final destination might be freedom (even if that is not the intention of Gingrich). At least he would not bow to “enlightened” opinion.

However, the “smart money” is still on Mitt Romney.

Actually I think Romney is a nice man – who might make a good President in good times (say the 1950s).

Is the sort of man needed for times that are comming? Unlikely – but we shall have to see.

(…)[But] Gingrich is a leader – someone who plans and works for the deaths of the enemy.
“”"

Yes, more than a leader, like Caesar, he is a ruler at heart. He despises our enemies but he also despises us. It would be no better to be enslaved by him than by the enemy.

Here’s a new one:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9237-gingrich-arrest-judges-that-make-unpopular-decisions

Same as the others.

First show me a poll (a State poll) where he has a real chance of winning – then he should be considered in the contest in that State.

If I was an Iowa voter I think I would examine the polls (the Iowa polls – national ones are almost meaningless) just before the Caucus events.

If Michele Bachmann is doing well I would support her (as Glenn Beck would).

If Ron Paul is doing well – then I would support him.

By the way “doing well” means “has a real chance of wining”.

But if it is Gingrich verus Romney – then I would support Gingrich.

Same goes for New Hampshire – and onwards.

Most Americans are actually pro life (although you would not know that by following the msm or Hollywood). That is why Gary Johnson sunk himself in the first debate (virutally the only debate he was invited to) he came out as “pro choice” seeming to
not understand that virtually everyone in that room (the Republican Primary and Caucus voters) defines “pro choice ” as “baby killer”.

Americans (and not just Republicans) certainly do not believe that nine judges should be able to MAKE UP a right to abortion and impose it on 50 different States (Roe V Wade is an outrage – even from a pro abortion point of view). What Gary Johnson should have done is PASSIONATELY denounce Roe V Wade – that would have deflected any further questions (“I am running for Federal office and the Federal government should have NOTHING to do with this – should have been his line, again PASSIONATELY expressed).

However, most Americans do not believe in a Constitutional Amendment imposing a pro life (anti abortion) point of view on all 50 States either.

So, farewell, Rick Santorum and others of this position also.

As for Gary Johnson.

If he runs as a libertarian (under a first-past-the-post election system) he just helps Obama.

It is a brutal as that.

On Bachmann and farm subsidies.

It is like Ron Paul on Pork.

He carefully writes in lots of Pork for his District – and then votes against the general Bill (knowing it will pass).

It is called “life”.

One opposes wild spending – and then (in order to live) tries to get some of for oneself (and for ones voters).

Otherwise one would be starving in the streets (for how can a unsubsdized farm compete against subsdized ones… and……). One certainly would not be in Congress – because the farmers (and so on) would just vote for someone else.

One can still work for the PRINCIPLE to be changed (as both Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann do) – but till it is, one must live in the world as it is.

Or be a mountain man – till one is hunted down by the FBI and the AFT.

On Mitt Romney….

To be fair to Mitt the thing he had passed in Mass (although vile) was actually NOT like “The Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare).

Obamacare is an Act thousands of pages long – full of detailed regulations and powers (for administrators) DESIGNED to bankrupt real private care and push people into “private” care financed by the governnment.

If people really want to know who worked out Obamacare I will tell them – and it was not Mitt Romney.

However, that is a LONG argument.

Romneycare and Obamacare LOOK the same.

And that is what matters.

And, I repeat, Romneycare was vile – even though it was (and is) different from Obamacare.

Of course Gary Johnson is my preferred candidate but that got nowhere despite his excellent performance as governor of NM. As Joshua says it would be great if he ran as a Libertarian and got somewhere. That is the only chink of light. Gingrich is just not electable. Neither are Perry or Bachmann. Quite simply much of the GOP has reversed itself up a cul-de-sac on moral issues that are just not vote winners. Reagan understood this despite being a conservative Christian. He knew at an almost visceral level that the economy and rebuilding the military were absolute priorities. Hence the brilliant slogan, “A recession is when your neighbour loses his job, a depression is when you do and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

Speaking from experience, if you own farm land in the US (at least back in the eighties) you have three choices. One, collect the subsidies because the subsidy driven market price for crops is too low to make the land pay the cost of ownership. Two, rent the land to somebody who will collect the subsidies so they can pay enough rent for the land owner to pay the cost of ownership. Three, sell the land to someone who will do one of the above.

It should come as no surprise to you or most others here that the farm subsidy program is nothing more than an extortion racket to force people to submit to absurdly micromanaging and usually capricious rules that they would not submit to otherwise. By offering the subsidy, a few farmers who accept it drive down the market value of the crops and force everybody to accept it or stop farming. If they tried to rule by brute authority, their would be a mass rebellion. So they divide and conquer.

Don’t worry too much about ag subsidies or any other entitlements. The totalitarians have miscalculated. When they achieve the final crash of the dollar into worthlessness to create a crisis/opportunity to grab total all encompassing authority, they have simultaneously lost the use subsidies for their divide and conquer campaign to compel obedience from productive people. They will also have lost the means to bribe state governments and the means to pay the National regulators referred to in the Decl. of Ind. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Being basically self serving people, those swarms of regulators won’t work for money that can’t purchase anything.

It will come down to a battle between net producers and net consumers. In that context, ‘sustainability’ has a nice ring to it.

How can a woman who sponges off the biggest welfare scam in the US claim to be in favour of small government?

How can a woman who thinks government should promote marriage claim to be an advocate of small government?

Michelle wants the government to interfere in people’s sex lives.