Rush Limbaugh, who until yesterday has been careful not to say anything negative about any of the GOP candidates, touched on the failings of Romney and Gingrich, going so far as to call Romney a hypocrite and reminding his listeners that there are three conservatives still in the race:
Meanwhile, folks, while all this is going on, can I give you some names? Santorum, Bachmann, Perry. . . . This isn't over.And plenty of them. Jonah Goldberg on Newtzilla:
Just to put things in perspective here, by the way, folks, I tell you: This stuff with Newt and Romney going back and forth is not necessarily all bad because we're getting educated here. (interruption) No, Snerdley, it's not all bad. We got Bachmann, Santorum, Perry out there. We've got some genuine legitimate conservatives out there! Look at the hypocrisy that's being exposed here. I mean, "I'm not a partisan Republican, I'm a moderate," 2002 and yesterday, Romney. Newt. He's got his own problems.
Inside D.C., it sounds very strange to say that Gingrich is an “outsider.” Gingrich has eaten from just about every trough imaginable inside the Beltway. And yet, he’s always been very clear that he wants to (“fundamentally,” “historically,” “categorically,” and “radically”) overturn the existing order. Some critics always thought, plausibly, that such pronouncements were part of his act or a sign of his megalomania.Yes. But Newt as megalomaniac isn't much of a stretch at all.
But there’s another possibility: It’s true. Moreover, the times may be ripe for precisely the sort of vexing, vainglorious, and all-too-human revolutionary Gingrich claims to be. That’s the argument a few people have been wrestling with (most notably John Ellis for RealClearPolitics.com and Steven Hayward for National Review Online). Gingrich, after all, is the only candidate to actually move the government rightward. While getting wealthy off the old order, he’s been plotting for decades how to get rid of it. To paraphrase Lenin,* perhaps the K Streeters paid Gingrich to build the gallows he will hang them on?
That remains a stretch.
*I couldn't resist adding that Lenin link, just for fun.
And speaking of fun, read David Kahane's take-down of SpongeBob and Willard.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.
Bachmann and Santorum meet the all-important "debate team" test for this cycle. Perry not.
ReplyDeleted(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Jill,
ReplyDeleteI get this feeling you don't like Newt and Mittens.
LOL
Not so much.
ReplyDeleteHaven't listened to today's show yet, but this is nothing new from Rush. He's been talking up Bachmann and Santorum for a long time, if you listen close. So has Levin. (They both like Perry, too, but you could hear their eyes roll when he accused other candidates of lacking compassion in their objections to his horrid immigration policy.)
ReplyDeleteAnd Rush has knocked Mitt - when Mitt said the globe was warming and man was causing it, Rush played the byte and commented simply, "Bye-bye nomination."
But Rush and Levin always preface that kind of thing by saying ANYBODY in the field (excepting Paul and Huntsman) can beat Obama, would make a better prez than Obama, and will have their full support if nominated.
They also both blast George Will, who never called Obama a Marxist, but enjoys doing it to a Republican. And they blast lots of other pundits who've picked a candidate and are slagging the rest of the field in terms they've always been too timid to apply to Dems.
And Rush is right! Jill gets a pass on this last - she goes after Obama hard every week. But Jennifer Rubin? Pshaw. Slag the GOP, and the MSM will praise you. Take it to the Dems, and you're labelled a hater. Lots of pundits lack the fortitude to take the latter - so they shouldn't be pundits.