Ron Paul not a fan of Donald Trump

Ron Paul will not engage in the Donald Trump moderated debate:

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.”

The condemnation of a venue hosted by a “reality television personality” comes as an odd one from Paul who has frequented the Alex Jones radio show in the past.

Trump made waves earlier this year at his CPAC speech where he said that “Ron Paul cannot get elected”.

Jon Huntsman will also not participate:

“We have declined to participate in the ‘Presidential Apprentice’ Debate with The Donald. The Republican Party deserves a serious discussion of the issues so voters can choose a leader they trust to defeat President Obama and turn our economy around.”

The other candidates seem to be all too happy to engage with Trump.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, businessman Herman Cain and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann have all met with “The Apprentice” host at least once. On Thursday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he would be meeting with Trump on Monday.

George Will and Laura Ingraham warn against both Newt and Mitt

Via HotAir: On “The Laura Ingraham Show” today, Will took Gingrich to task for a lack of wisdom — and prophesied a bleak future for the conservative movement if either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich happens to become the GOP nominee (or, worse, according to Will, actually president!). The Daily Caller reports:

“Mr. Gingrich said it’s not enough that he is the smartest guy in the room, he also has to be wise,” Will said. “Now you can associate many things with Mr. Gingrich, but wisdom isn’t one of them. Surely the Republican nominating electorate should understand the fact that people have patterns. Don’t expect the patterns to go away. Expect the patterns to manifest themselves again. If Newt Gingrich has any pattern at all, and he does – it is a pattern of getting himself into trouble because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.”

Will said that he thought Gingrich actually believed it when he said he was going to be the Republican nominee, particularly because the stage in Gingrich’s mind “is lit by the fires of crisis and grandeur.”

“Ask yourself this: Suppose Gingrich or Romney become president and gets re-elected – suppose you had eight years of this,” Will said. “What would the conservative movement be? How would it understand itself after eight years? I think what would have gone away, perhaps forever, is the sense of limited government, the 10th Amendment, Madisonian government of limited, delegated and enumerated powers – the sense conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone. It’s hard to know what would be left.”

The Troubles with Newt

Problems abound for Newt Gingrich’s candidacy

The 68-year-old has compared himself to Charles de Gaulle. He has noted nonchalantly: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.” As speaker, he liked to tell reporters he was a World Historical Transformational Figure.

What does it say about the cuckoo G.O.P. primary that Gingrich is the hot new thing? Still, his moment is now. And therein lies the rub.

As one commentator astutely noted, Gingrich is a historian and a futurist who can’t seem to handle the present. He has more exploding cigars in his pocket than the president with whom he had the volatile bromance: Bill Clinton.

But next to Romney, Gingrich seems authentic. Next to Herman Cain, Gingrich seems faithful. Next to Jon Huntsman, Gingrich seems conservative. Next to Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, Gingrich actually does look like an intellectual. Unlike the governor of Texas, he surely knows the voting age.


Dr Richard Land (not to be confused with Richard Bushnell’s “Richardland” internet theme park) advised in a letter to Gingrich that he must address his multiple divorces to gain evangelical support:

Even my own mother, a rock-solid Evangelical, was extremely uncomfortable voting for Sen. John McCain until he acknowledged to Rick Warren that the failure of his first marriage was the greatest regret of his life and it was his fault.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to get large numbers of Evangelicals, particularly women, to vote for you, you must address the issue of your marital past in a way that allays the fears of Evangelical women.

You must address this issue of your marital past directly and transparently and ask folks to forgive you and give you their trust and their vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to pick a pro-family venue and give a speech (not an interview) addressing your marital history once and for all. It should be clear that this speech will be “it” and will not be repeated, only referenced.

As you prepare that speech, you should picture in your mind a 40-something Evangelical married woman whose 40-something sister just had her heart broken by an Evangelical husband who has just filed for divorce, having previously promised in church, before God, his wife and “these assembled witnesses” to “love, honor and cherish until death us do part.”

Focus on her as if she were your only audience. You understand people vote for president differently than they do any other office. It is often more of a courtship than a job interview. I know something of your faith journey over the past 20 years. Do not hesitate to weave that into your speech to the degree that you are comfortable doing so. It will always resonate with Evangelical Christians.

You need to make it as clear as you possibly can that you deeply regret your past actions and that you do understand the anguish and suffering they caused others including your former spouses. Make it as clear as you can that you have apologized for the hurt your actions caused and that you have learned from your past misdeeds. Express your love for, and loyalty to, your wife and your commitment to your marriage. Promise your fellow Americans that if they are generous enough to trust you with the presidency, you will not let them down and that there will be no moral scandals in a Gingrich White House.

Such a speech would not convince everyone to vote for you, but it might surprise you how many Evangelicals, immersed in a spiritual tradition of confession, redemption, forgiveness and second and third chances, might.

Your fellow American,
Richard Land

His personal history is no small issue and if he continues to rise in the polls, expect to hear lots more about it…

Throughout, Gingrich’s modus operandi has been startlingly similar to the way he shifted money from GOPAC to the charities that were secretly supporting his college course. And here’s a mystery: According to Bruce Nash of Nash Information Services, a company that tracks movie sales, these films — some directed by a man best known for a TV show called Bikes from Hell — are spectacular failures. “The most popular appears to be Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, which is most likely selling a couple thousand copies a year through major retailers. Rediscovering God in America sells perhaps two thousand units.”

But the lavish productions do afford Gingrich and his wife luxurious world travel. At the premiere of the latest, Nine Days that Changed the World, a film about how Pope John Paul II toppled communism, the producer joked from the podium about Gingrich’s champagne tastes. “We didn’t travel steerage, that’s for sure.” Most of all, the religious emphasis of his documentaries underscores his recent conversion to Catholicism, and perhaps helps to dim the memory of his ugly divorces.

When asked about his conversion, Marianne laughs.

Why is that funny?

“It has no meaning.”

It has no meaning?

“It’s hysterical. I got a notice that they wanted to nullify my marriage. They’re making jokes about it on local radio. The minute he got married, divorced, married, divorced — what does the Catholic Church say about this?”

She’s not angry at all. She just thinks it’s the only path Gingrich could take after his idealism died, threatening the self he had invented out of the biographies of great men. “When you try and change your history too much,” she says, “you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way.”

In New Orleans, Gingrich strides onto the stage at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference to the tune of “Eye of the Tiger.” Thousands of activists in a party looking for deliverance rise to their feet.

Gingrich stands there grinning, soaking up the applause.

When he begins, his voice is strong and confident. “When you speak from the heart, you don’t need a teleprompter,” he says, launching into his slashing and scholarly indictment of the Obama secular socialist machine that wants to take away their rights. And once again, when a man from the audience says we should just end the goddamn income tax already, Gingrich walks him back. “We’ve got to pay for national security.” He even defends spreading the wealth. “None of the Founding Fathers would have said that George Washington, owning Mount Vernon as the largest landowner, should pay the same tax as somebody who was a cobbler.”

At a moment of doctrinal crisis in the Republican party, Newt Gingrich is the only major figure in his party who is both insurgent and gray eminence. That is why twelve years after his career ended — twelve years after any other man in his position would have disappeared from view — he is ascendant.

“Will he run?” Marianne asks. “Possibly. Because he doesn’t connect things like normal people. There’s a vacancy — kind of scary, isn’t it?”

One thing is certain — Newt Gingrich loves the question. “That’s up to God and the American people,” he tells you, in the serene tone of a man who already knows what God thinks.

Has Romney Locked the Nomination?

As the Perry campaign continues a downward fall, buzz over Newt Gingrich is rising in its place. Could a surprise still happen? Around here we are starting to make predictions…

CandidatesBlog contributor, Ryan Larsen says:

I predict Newt Gingrich will win Iowa and after that the field will narrow to Newt and Mitt. Of course, I want Mitt to win Iowa, but with the other candidates tanking I think the right-wing media is coalescing around Newt, and the people will follow.

This can work out very well for Mitt, because Newt’s intellect is unimpeachable. Romney and Newt need to have one-on-one substantive debates – the type Gingrich wants anyway – and this will finally offer Romney a chance to showcase his own intellect. When he runs circles around Newt, the way he did in the back-and-forth on mandates in a recent debate, everyone watching will finally see how intelligent Romney is. They will see that it’s not just “skills” and being “slick” but it’s sheer brilliance. Romney ONLY gets flustered when others are denying him a chance to talk. Gingrich won’t do that, and Romney will correspondingly shine.

I’m skeptical about Newt winning Iowa but agree about everything else. Iowa is a mystery to me. It seems like its natural Santorum territory but he’s practically moved there and is still at 1 percentiness. There’s definitely a surprise lurking in the weeds, im just not sure what or where. but I think Mitt has the best shot since no matter what 2 people he’s down to, he comes out on top:

Romney vs Perry = Romney on communication & economics
Romney vs Gingrich = Romney on clean record
Romney vs Cain = Romney on experience & clean record

The only threat I can see being credible against Romney on communication, squeaky clean record, economics and private and public experience is Huntsman and theres no evidence that he’s gonna make it down to the 2-man stretch.

Conservatives praise Gingrichs CNBC Debate performance

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air:

Gingrich gave marvelously detailed answers, reflecting the deep study he has made on American public policy during his years in politics, and demonstrated that he has the best command of both facts and philosophy on stage.

Rich Lowry, National Review:

Gingrich was on his game from the beginning when he let loose a ringing anti-Bernake, anti-food stamps, anti-Alinsky answer. … The narrative about his rise will continue.

Hillsdale Professor Burton Folsom, National Review:

The big winners in the debate tonight were probably Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. …
Newt Gingrich was cerebral and wide-ranging. When CNBC tried to trip him up, he fired back with specifics that delighted the crowd. His breadth of learning was refreshing and dominating.

Cal Thomas, National Review:

Gingrich got off the best line of the night when he faulted the media for not asking the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators if they have a clue how the new economy works. … Gingrich wants to challenge President Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas–style debates that would last for three hours and get into great detail about everything that matters. I have no doubt Gingrich would win such a debate.

Professor William Jacobson, Legal Insurrection:

Newt was the star, combative in a good way and very knowledgeable.

Bryan Preston, Pajamas Media:

Who won tonight? Newt Gingrich showed once again that his policy knowledge and ability to connect that knowledge to the here and now is unmatched.

Matt Margolis, Blogs for Victory:

[Newt’s] performance in tonight’s debate was another impressive performance by a man who not only has a wealth of knowledge on all the issues, but he’s smart enough to not to be played by the media.

Kevin Hall, The Iowa Republican:

Newt Gingrich: Once again, the former House Speaker owned the stage. He did not completely dominate, but it is hard to argue that anyone other than Gingrich won the debate. He battled with the moderators again and might have come off as too angry at times. However, on style and substance, Newt delivered. Again.

Overall Winner: Newt Gingrich. This is getting redundant. He did not dominate, but Gingrich was the most in command of anyone on the stage.

Steven Hayward, Power Line:

Newt has hit his stride, and was consistently the most impressive and forceful person on the stage—and forceful without saying a negative word about any of the other candidates.

Monica Crowley, Fox News Contributor:

As usual, [Newt] was dynamite: brilliant, deliberative and right about everything. Now that we all realized that we’re less than a year from the presidential election, we’re trying to visualize the presidential debates. Which of the GOP candidates could thrust and parry with Obama most effectively? All of them would do a great job. Only Newt would truly make mincemeat out of him. That’s the main reason he’s rising in the polls. He’s a serious conservative intellectual who is fearless.

Alexander Marlow, Big Government:

But the winner of the debate was Newt. I mentioned last time that he’s my sleeper pick to challenge Romney, and he did a lot to improve his chances tonight.
Daniel

Daniel Doherty, Townhall:

…what is increasingly clear is that the former House Speaker is the most learned candidate running for president. Drawing on his wealth of knowledge and years of experience in Congress, Gingrich adeptly understands the most trying issues of our time. His ability to answer complex questions, as he did Wednesday night, with specific and innovative solutions is emboldening his candidacy.

John McCormack, Weekly Standard:

As he has done in the other debates, Mitt Romney turned in a solid performance, but Newt Gingrich was the one who really seemed to impress.

A Tale of Two Black and White Photos

Gawker has an interesting headline The Old Mitt Romney Photo That He Probably Wants Destroyed

Time’s Michael Scherer digs up this photo from the Romney media archives showing our man Mittens and his old Bain Capital buddies playing with money.

Look at them, hugging and eating and rubbing and sucking their corporate-raider money. At least Romney had enough sense not to stuff it in his collar like that one guy, instead choosing to simply grab on to the right end of a bill while smiling, devilishly. Oh, and then there’s some money falling out of his coat. Oops!

If this does not appear in an attack ad at some point in the next year, then various rival campaigns will have failed.

An old black and white photo

UPDATE: The first use of this image in media about Romney has been spotted in NY Mag: