Burt,

On this repeated column I've since done some research and must say that you're parroting talking points which have been debunked.

I suggest reading the late Tony Blankley's recent pieces on Newt as well as Charles Krauthammer's.

It's kind of shocking to see you and other usually conservative pundits quoting distorted Democrat attacks on Newt.

Sure, he has alot of baggage but so does Obama!

Obama beat McCain and I think Romney would likely be a repeat.

I'll vote for Newt but will campaign vigorously against Obama.

I don't think Jack wants someone that gets angry and nasty, I believe Jack just wants a Republican with back bone that will finally take the fight to the leftist. It's high time the Republicans holding office stop being collaborators and start being fighters. Manys the time when one has to wonder who's side they are on. Newt was probably just telling us what he thought we wanted to hear. And it sounded quite good. Now if will just stop letting the left and establishment Republicans pick our candidates for us.

Burt, I assume you, being a profesional writer, write your column in advance. As of midnight last Mitt was predicted the big winner in Florida. I think SC was an anomoly. Sometimes voting results reflect local situations, even though the election is a national one.

I am of the strong opinion now that indeed some segment the SCs were voting in response to their own Govenors love romp with his SA paramour. That those particular voters were soft soaping clean their collective opprobrium by voting for the less than chaste Newt.

Personally, my choice once it became a horse race between Newt and Mitt, was more Mitt because he has real world experience in his resume, and less Newt because he has no real world experience in his resume.

Real world experience is important to me because it has a tendancy to beat the false ideological slag out of ones personality metal. People without real world experience have a tendancy to commit both academic folly and deriliction of resposibility.

Newts lack of real world experience and the weltanschuung he projects not only reflects this idea but because this is such a strong liberal/democrat trait, imparts the smell of liberal/democrat all about him.

I really appriciated Backmanns conservatism. I had really hoped she would become the VP. During Ws Presidency I was very impressed with Cheney and hoped she could do for a republican President what Dick did for W. However, I do not sense Mitt, should he be the one, will chose Michelle. He may chose Palin, though she backed Newt I believe, but if she can do for Mitt what she did for McCain he just might pick her.

After super Tuesday we will know for sure, but it appears clear to me now that Mitt will be our man.

Back in the 08 campaign, I thought Huckabee was denying Mitt his fair shot at the nomination by staying in the race, taking votes from Romney but not McCain. There is something suspect to me about Huckabees personality. In any event, this election might well be a playout of what should have, or might have been back in the 08 election.

Mitt looks fit, he takes care of himself, but being in his mid 60s, with so much at stake because of Obamas anti Americanism, I sure hope nothing ill transpires with Mitt.

Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thank you.

@ CSA -

I don't know if Burt really does know Jack. I mean, he didn't really try to get to know Newt all that well now, did he?

Burt: Thanks for trying to straighten out all these folks who think they want another John McEnroe character in the White House.

Once the Repubs have a majority in both houses, whoever the president is will have to comply or die.

Everyone has baggage--Newt just keeps packing his with more and more junk.

It seems with the Florida results, that Romney will be our nominee. Newt had his moment, and his corrosive personality will not get him much more traction. We still have a long way to go, but whomever gets the nod, deserves the FULL support of all against 0. Congress is the key, the marxists and RINOs must be removed, and replaced by constitutional conservatives that will get rid of the unconstituional laws, edicts, regulations, and agencies that are killing this country.

mmc: You would have been more persuasive if you had pointed out where I was mistaken about Newt. I didn't lie and I didn't make up stuff. You may not agree with my conclusions and you are certainly entitled to prefer Newt to Mitt, but the fact that Obama beat McCain has no bearing on the 2012 election. Romney is a better candidate and Obama is going to have to run on his record, not on "Hope and Change."

PDK: Yes, I wrote the piece about a week ago. Like you, I am a big fan of Rep. Bachmann. I also like Rick Santorum, but obviously if you keep running third in GOP primaries, you're not going anywhere.

mmcrindle & CSA: I keep wondering why so many of us conservatives insist that when our favorite candidates don't win the nomination, it's because of something called the Republican establishment. The fact is, this is not a conservative nation. At best, it is slightly to the right of center. That is why we keep nominating people like Dole, McCain and the Bushes. Even Reagan, fine as he was, would not pass a conservative litmus test today. As I have pointed out before, as governor of California, he twice raised taxes; he cut off funding to mental institutions, which is why our streets are still filled with crazy homeless people; he signed the most liberal abortion bill in America. And as president, he signed the amnesty bill that saw our population of illegal aliens soar from three million to 15 million.

mmcrindle: I would say I know Newt Gingrich very well. Too well to ever vote for him unless he were running against Obama.

wjmcrindle: Assuming you and mmcrindle are related, I have to suspect there are plenty of fireworks in the Crindle household. Try not to kill each other. At least not until after the election. We need your votes.

Regards, Burt

While I'm not a great fan of either of the leading Republican candidates, I'm inclined to agree with you, Burt.

Though Newt's speech after the Florida primary was a good one, I thought, with a hint that he was going to refocus his campaign on offering good conservative ideas and ideals rather than attacking Romney, I'm not sure he can carry it through. Newt has this rather Machiavellian approach to running his campaign that I'm not sure he can refrain from continuing. He's helping to make Mitt look like the rational candidate.

Sure, we true conservatives are fired up and would like someone else other than these two faux conservatives, it appears that Mitt might be the guy we'll end up voting for. At some point, we have to get behind the candidate, distasteful or not, right? And as much as a large number of conservatives want, it doesn't appear that a good conservative is going to jump into the game at this point. I think it is because they see Obama winning in 2012 and do not wish to be crushed by a socialist. The socialist certainly has the more plaintive cry and appeal to the middle class and hug number of government dependents at this point.

While Newt is a smart man and a good debater, I think a debate between he and Obama would be a rerun of the famed Kennedy-Nixon debate, in which Nixon's reactive responses and sweating upper lip ended up beating him.

So, I guess we're stuck with the "Massachusetts moderate."

Correction: that should be "huge" number of government dependents...

Burt - as I see it there are 4 men running for king (oops President). Santorum is a RINO, Gingrich is a liberal, Romney is a socialist and Barry is a communist. The only Conservative who is running for President is Paul. Don't believe it look at their actions while in office.

Although all important that the House and Senate become GOP controlled, we'd all actually like it to be Conservative controlled.

But for those thinking a Congress controlled by the GOP could hold the bamstercommie at bay just look at what he's done so far without a whisper of impeachment. Besides, one more supreme justice appointed by a liberal scumbag will be too many for America. We can kiss it all goodbye with just one more of these political appointees that while acting supreme vote along party lines.

TERM LIMITS-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE

Until they are afraid of us they will continue to flip us off.

Government's job is to protect us from each other, in despondency it now alleges to protect us from ourselves.

"Governments Always Grow When Family Fails"

Burt, et al.:

I voted yesterday in the Florida GOP primary.

It seems, once again, that for President, I shall hold my nose and vote, and hope for the best.

Such a shame, That HOPE should be my prayer. I would rather vote on "this line in the sand and no further/farther".

Respectfully, JS.

BJ: You can't impeach a president just because you don't like his agenda. Otherwise, they'd probably all be gone a few months after their inauguration.

Howard: The point I always raise and which no true conservative has ever responded to is my contention that Ronald Reagan would never have been nominated, let alone elected, if he had run against anyone but Jimmy Carter. As governor, he raised taxes twice; cut the budget for mental institutions, flooding California streets with homeless loons; and signed the most liberal abortion bill in America. As president, he signed the amnesty bill that opened the floodgates, sending our illegal alien population soaring from three million to 15 million.

So, let me ask you, how does that record stack up against Mitt Romney, whom you dismiss as a socialist?

Burt

For now, the bloom is off Newt's rose. He was flat in the Florida debates, because Romney took it to him. Newt + Santorum votes are roughly equal in Florida, so as long as both Newt & Santorum stay in the race, Mitt, will rack up victories, Iowa caucuses notwithstanding. If Santorum gains, it will be at Newt's expense, so it appears Romney's strategy will work this time.

Having said that, I'd love to see Newt debate Biden, I'd pay to see that one.

Burt - I am totally underwhelmed with our slate of candidates. Romney is like the little rich kid who, if he can't make friends with anyone, will buy some, which is what he is doing to get the nomination. And, we have been led to believe that all we need is a super businessman to get us out of all our troubles. Hogwash! Not to mention, he has more baggage than a Greyhound bus.

Not to mention that he was endorsed by Dole and McCain. With endorsements like that, why not just go over to the other side!

I personally favor Newt, simply because if you don't know where he stands, he'll tell you. I equate him to be the modern day Harry Truman. I like that. Too, he is a scholar. His knowledge of history could be valuable. But, as well, he has his problems too.

I believe that Newt has stirred up the establishment republicans to the point that they are afraid that he, as President, would stir up things too much. Heaven forbid that someone would rock the boat. For that matter, establishment republicans have a long way to go to prove that they're worth the air they breathe. THE BOAT NEEDS ROCKED!!!

I disagree with Mr. Last about Santorum. I like him, and I like a lot of his ideas. I don't think him to be a RINO, but he has some goofy things in his past too, i.e., Arlan S.

I like Paul's fiscal ideas, but his approach to foreign policy is just wacko.

I agree with Mr. Torello that we need majorities in both houses more than anything.

And finally, CSA, you hit it square on the head. We have been force-fed for months by the MSM and the republican establishment that Romney was going to be the nominee, and I need to vote for him, as if it's cast in stone. I'm tired of being told whom to vote for, so the MSM and republican establishment can go to .........

We have been told since well before the start of all

At the last minute Winston Churchill lost the vote to one Sir Dapper Daniel who was also not Neville Chamberlain. And Hitler died in New York City in 1962, where not a single good Delicatessen could be found.

Here's the thing.

Mr Mittens McNice unleashed the dogs in Iowa and dropped Mr Gingrich 20 points in a week or so. Then he let him slide while Mr G made his point again and the people in SC said Amen!

Mitty gave the nod to Team Slander again for Florida, and again, so many mean dollars equals so many un-votes.

Do we at all believe Romney's disclaimers that he has naught to say about what his PACs are saying and when?

Do we believe, in short, that he's broken no laws?

And that Holder won't be holding a few cards in reserve for October?

Yes, Mr Gingrich is a bit of a wild man, but we know him, and his heart and thought goes out to America.

Mitt is a man in the mirror, one that Obama's minions will crack readily.

Why was the Democratic money in FL all flowing in tandem with the Romney PACs, against Gingrich?

JIm D, some good humor in that first paragraph.

With any luck, and obviously a lot of effort, that racist, user and abuser of public office Holder will be forced to step down or resign for the crimes his arrogance allowed him to commit.

I think Newt got lucky in SC, I think a lot of people there were voting for something other than a Presidential candidate.

To every one in general, I believe we need conservative fat cats to start a conservative tv station for our republican debates. Why should liberals interfer with ours but not the other way around.

Lastly the alternative to rinos in liberal states such as Ma., NY, Ca., ecterra, is ubber liberals of the Ted Kennedy, John Kerry brand.

In those states half a good guy beats the heck out of a total loser liberal.

One and done. Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thank you.

Burt

I look forward to your articles, except the ones trouncing Newt. What will you be saying if he is nominated for the Presidency? Will you be able to support him after all the negatives you have written so far?

I wonder who Obama and the Democrats will blame for the disaster they have created if they happen to stay in power after 2012?

Will even the hardiest liberal agree that it is still Bush's fault or will some small light finally come on to help them understand the folly of the Democrat agenda?

Maybe we should just withdraw and let them have everything so that we can get through the last stage of decay of our country and move into the Tyranny part under a conservative banner.

After having read the comments, opinions, guess work and what have you, I have decided to sit this one out. The ball is no longer in my court. I have looked at, read and figured that none of these canidates can beat Barry. I see no point in replacing him with a horse of a different color, when the end result will be the samething we already have. I think its up to the younger generation to make the differences that will affect them. Although Burt, you are eight years my senior, a better writer and god knows more opinionated, I don't think its up to us anymore. Our children, if you have any, have to make the decision for thier own destiny. Our job is done. I have served my country under the worst possible president, and all I want now is to be left alone. I have avoided politics for over two weeks now, and responding to your articles and I feel better. I did not surrender, I have seen the writing on the wall, and I'm making the necessay adjustments to deal with the coming circumstances. Being a member of the 'Di bo Chet', I know battle, and will not be defeated.

Burt, since you've brought up Reagan's amnesty several times now, I think it's time to set the record straight on that. Reagan signed the amnesty with the understanding that the Demo-controlled congress would act to secure the border to prevent further illegal migration. Naturally, the Dems reneged on their promise as soon as the bill was signed.

True about those things he did as Governor, but he was still way better than the Governors that succeeded him.

Burt, as much as it pains me, I think you're right on this one. I think Romney will be the nominee. I have recently decided to vote for Paul in the primary, not because I think he has a chance to win, but because if he can get a good chunk of support, we can at least push the conversation more to the right.

MARINE, don't give up! Semper Fi, Brother

Robert Sweeney: Reagan was the guy who said something about verifying when dealing with America's enemies. So how is it that he didn't get the Dems to build the wall first? I know that we are supposed to regard him as the Second Coming, but that doesn't mean we have to condone every last thing he did.

Wild Bill: If Hillary Clinton can serve as Obama's secretary of state, I can certainly support Gingrich if he's the nominee. After all, I have written far worse things about Obama than I ever have about Newt.

Marine: I think you are being unduly pessimistic. According to Gallup, Obama will lose the election by more than 100 electoral votes if nothing changes for the better by November. I'm not quite that optimistic because I would be surprised if the Republican nominee carries Oregon, but it is Obama's election to lose...especially as unemployment is expected to be 8.9% and the deficit will be well over $16 trillion in 10 months.

Ragweed: Newt is no more like Harry Truman than Obama is like Jack Kennedy. There wasn't a bit of financial or sexual scandal associated with Truman.

Burt

Burt,

I think it is a little unfair to label Newt the "angry" man, when he was very calm, focusing his attacks on Obama and cautioning against letting the media force Republicans into infighting. Then Mitt unleashed hell on Newt in Iowa and he got mad. I think he was

I think Newt should have known that the left would parse his attacks on Mitt and make them into attacks on Capitalism. But really, why cant't Newt get mad at the personal attacks from Mitt or his surrogates.

I have heard a lot more specific proposals from Newt than from Mitt, but with that said - neither of them would have been my 1st or 2nd choice for president. I am one of those that believes we would win with bold colors of conservativism ( 2010 ) and that the pale pastels of Mitt put our destiny in the hands of "Independents" - a codeword for people who don't know what the hell they want but want to sound like they do.

What we see now is that with all the conservative Tea Party favorites pushed aside by the left media and the Rhino establishment, the conservtives are trying to buff and polish Newt and make him acceptable as the last alternative. Newt may be an opportunist politician -but he is "our" opportunist politician.

Mitt will likely win if he faces Obama - and I think any conservative would too, including Newt.

It is critical that conservatives win the House and Senate - so that they ca set the legislative agenda and push Mitt/Newt to the right. I am very concerned however that the Rhino establishment will try - as they have in Allen West's case of redistricting him into a democrat district- to limit the Tea Party candidate's success.

Since it appears that at best we will have a moderate president, it is critical that real conservatives win in the Republican primaries so we can remake it into a real conservative party. The Rhinos will fight us, and I predict Mitt will be leading that charge on behalf of the Rhino establishment.

If the Rhino moderates get control again, they sure as hell better do a better job than they did last time. Love your style, Burt!

Burt, you keep saying that this is not a conservative country. Well, if that is the case, then maybe it would be better for Obama to win so that we can go to the logical conclusion of "not conservative" If this is a liberal country, then let the liberals win and make it into a socialist one, which is the end result of present day liberalism.

I am with Marine, I think we are too late...

As for recovering from Socialism, I came here from a (former) Socialist country, and I know that it is painful, but doable. Maybe people need to live it to understand why they shouldn't want it.

Why fight it, if the people don't want to fight it?

It would pain me greatly, as I left my former country to get away from it, and now it had followed us here...

Just Saying: Just because I don't believe this is a conservative country, it doesn't mean I believe it is a liberal one. I'd say 40% of us are conservative to some extent, 40% of us are liberal to a great extent, and 20% of us rarely pay attention to the news, but unfortunately get to break the deadlock. If those people had paid any attention at all in 2008, they would have heard Obama promise to kill the coal industry and send our energy costs soaring, they would have heard him say that he sat in a racist church for 20 years and never heard Rev. Wright say a negative word about America and white people, and they would have heard him say that he subscribed to the redistribution of wealth. Instead, all they heard was something about hope and change.

Dr. Timms: Gingrich is an angry man. He is also an egotist, very much like Obama in both respects. He is also a very nasty fellow, as we see from his caddish behavior towards his first two wives. I know what game he played early on, pretending to be above the fray and directing his wrath at the moderators. What surprised me was that he could do it over and over again, playing to the crowds in the hall, while currying media support when not on stage. Frankly, he seemed far more comfortable once he could unleash his attacks on Romney. Oddly enough, although he got in Newt's face during the Florida debates, Romney never seemed very comfortable in attack mode.

Best, Burt

To all above. It is agreed by everyone that neither Newt nor Mitt are our ideals. I sort of like George Washington, but he has a little problem getting into the primary. Let me put it bluntly. The selection of Newt will facilitate putting O back into office, and what will he do as a lame duck president? You ain't seen nothin' yet. The moderates will not vote for Newt, and we MUST have the moderates to swing the general election. There are too many welfare recipients who are going to try to re-elect Obama, and we must be united. I say again, moderates will not vote for Newt. I will not vote for Newt because he is a sleazeball liar. So what if he fights. I fight, too, at the drop of a hat, but it is not productive much of the time. Newt is going to tell you what is good for you, and will expect you to toe his line. He is not electable. It is sad that in this great country, we have to pick from the present slate. I know many honorable men who would be wonderful, if not ideal, presidents. But they are not running. Both Santorum and Bachmann better fit the wants and desires of most of us, but they simply cannot draw the voters. It is quite simple. Romney can beat Obama. Newt cannot. Do you want 4 more years of Oracistcorruption? If so, back Newt.

Bo: I am delighted to find I have at least one definitely rational reader. At least you have a good chance of persuading your fellow Texans. Living in California as I do, I really have my work cut out for me.

Burt

Bo, as a fellow Texan, I will at least agree with this part of your assessment:

"It is sad that in this great country, we have to pick from the present slate."

Tex: Well, we had two guys from Texas in the running. Rick Perry wasn't ready for prime time and Ron Paul isn't concerned with a nuclear Iran. Surely you folks can do better than that.

Burt

Burt - well said sir. Gingrich is so compromised by his history that he would as likely be hanged from a light pole as elected to another office. G.K. Chesterton's observation makes much more sense now. Said he "it is appalling how few politicians are hanged".

As much as I support Mr. Romney's candidacy I am much more concerned that we take back the Senate and enlarge the majority in the House. Congress is where the battle is for our nation's future.

cepat2: Thanks for the thumbs-up. We should certainly take control of the Senate, and there's no way we'll lose the House. So I am more concerned with the Oval Office because we can see what Obama has pulled off, thanks to his czars, his appointments to the EPA and the NLRB and his use of presidential edicts. He's like a vampire...and nothing short of a wooden stake and a one-way ticket to Chicago will put a stop to his toxic mischief.

Burt