Bachmann: Newt Gingrich is a frugal socialist

Responding to Newt’s justification of his support of the Prescription Drug entitlement that was passed under the Bush administration, Bachmann said:

It doesn’t help to have a frugal socialist. That’s really what we’re talking about is managing socialism and trying to be a frugal socialist.

Beck, recognizing that a headline had just been made sought to clarify, asking Bachmann “Did you just say that Newt Gingrich is a socialist?” Bachmann responded:

What I’m saying is that – I’m saying a frugal socialist, yes! Because you’re looking at proposals and programs that are in effect redistribution of wealth and socialism-based, and are we going to have real change in the country or are we going to have frugal socialists?

They go on to talk about what her plan would be in this instance as well as gay marriage.

Here’s the full interview:


UPDATE: Thanks to Drudge for the link!

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous
  • Allen Kizzee

    lf these attacks start to work, it is just going to lead to all the conservative votes being spread around and Romney getting the nomination.

    • Anonymous

      Great News!
      Romney is exactly who we need with his business acumen and fact that Axelrod fears him the most!

      • How about we pick our own nominee instead of doing the opposite of what we speculate David Axelrod wants.

        • Anonymous

          You make some great points. I just wish I were responding to someone other than anonymous 😉

          • Oh, I’m so sorry! It seems your smiley lost it’s nose Conservative_Hippie!!! LOL!

          • As opposed to somebody that uses their real name, like yourself, conservative_hippy.

      • Stephen

        Romney’s not all that successful as a businessman. Very shady investments at Bain Capital (40% of the companies they profited off still went bankrupt). Besides government is not a private firm. The federal government is about national defense and the protection of the people from overbearing politicians who would seek to interfere in our lives exactly as Romney or Gingrich would govern. Nothing more. Subsidizing, grants and the flow (or redistributing) of money is the root of corruption. Romney merely wishes to redirect funds as he’s used to doing at investment companies – not stop the idea of the feds picking winners/losers.


        Obama leads Romney 46% to 39%


        Paul is tied with Obama 42% to 42% and leads Obama by a crushing amount among independents.

        It is Ron Paul or Obama NOBODY ELSE IS EVEN IN THE GAME!

        • StNikao

          I wish Ron Paul were more anti-drugs.

          Studies show a horrible number of Americans are increasingly becoming addicted to a substance, legal (oxycontin, etc) or illegal (heroin, cocaine, meth) or a behavior (porn, gambling). This is an economic (addicted workers mean fewer taxpayers, more health/recovery expenses, broken homes, poverty), a social/civil (safe highways, sidewalks, police costs) as well as a civil liberties issue.

          What will he do about this??? Stopping the war on drugs as he said, while people and families are being destroyed is unconscionable – especially for a medical doctor.

          • Its not up to government to stop drugs. People do drugs because they live either an amoral life or want to escape from the dregs of reality. Did we have this problem in the 1950’s? The best way to end drug addiction is getting back to a religous based moral society and a sound economic policy that promotes job creation. Both positions that Ron Paul believe in.

          • Ummmm… And stopping prohibition was unconscionable? You know, the law that single handedly led to the birth of organized crime in the US? Let me ask you this: If someone could run down the street and buy a pack of joints legally, what would happen to the drug cartels?

            Or, how about this? Smoking tobacco was never made illegal, yet usage is down remarkably from its peak in the US. How? Because of EDUCATION. Teaching people the health risks associated with it and showing that tobacco provides nothing to balance out its negative effects.

            Oddly enough, that dreaded marijuana is on the RISE, with more high school age students using marijuana than cigarettes according to: . Why? Because you can NOT enforce drug laws any more than prohibition could be enforced.

            EDUCATE the populous, and you will see a decline in illicit substances. Trying to tell them “NO”, just makes them more curious about what they are missing.

            That said, you, like everyone else are not listening. Paul does not want to legalize drugs. He wants the STATES to decide what their own laws will be, and leave it at that. Why is that so bad? Most states already have laws against narcotics with the exception of marijuana, which is legal in several places.

          • Amy

            Remember the violence & ineffectiveness of prohibition in the 20’s? Government does a lousy job at legislating/forcing morality…
            And I’m not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter, just a citizen really tired of government intrusion on every aspect of my life.

            • Legalizing drugs will force Cartels to move on to more evil means of making money. I.E. child sex slavery, kidnapping, extortion, murder-for-hire, gun-running, etc. I’d rather them sell drugs personally.

              • Come on, Brian, you know they already do those things for profit. They probably don’t pay as much as drugs, but let’s face it: nothing is off the radar for them. They don’t see their choices as “either drugs OR all these other crimes.”

                • Of course they do. But what happens if we remove their $1T cashcrop? They’re going to make up that money elsewhere (they definitely won’t take the loss). They already have the infrastructure set up for the things I mentioned, so it only stands to reason they would simply ramp up “production” of these other “business ventures” to make up their lost revenues, not to mention THEY will begin terrorizing American cities much like Mexico. Think like them, and what you would do! This is exactly what I would do!

          • Two things embody freedom to me: the right to self-medicate and the right to bear arms. My right to pollute my body with meth, pot, cholesterol, cigarettes, or motor oil should be my right and mine only. All of your arguments are solid, but people have the right to do all those things you mention as costs of drug abuse already. I’m free to stop paying income taxes by no longer working, but the healthy/recovery expenses should be my own. It’s hard to argue with your facts, but liberty must trump them all. (After all, every commie and dictator pushes those ideals, too.)

            • What happens when you can’t afford Meth anymore, and your body is forcing you to get more? Meth addiction is EXACTLY as bad as starvation (they operate on the same hormonal receptors). What happens when you’ve been tweaking for 3 days, and are now delirious and temporarily schizophrenic (which also operates on the same hormonal receptors)? You WILL perceive acts of aggression, causing you to lash out at others. You WILL rob people to pay for your habit. You WILL resort to prostitution (everyone always says “Not me”, but yet people do it. Do we think they INTENDED to become hookers?), and you will die young. I don’t care about any of that other stuff, but when your addiction catches up to you, I don’t want to deal with your withdrawals and your desperation.

              You have the right to do drugs, but you do NOT have the right to infringe on my safety and the security of my family.

        • And as we all know, you can always trust poll results when Ron Paul is included.

      • Anonymous

        Romney is certainly not successful when it comes to winning elections. Mitt has spent the last 15 years running for office, and has only ONE election win to show for it. Think about that. That does not bode well for his chances against 0bama.

        • Anonymous

          I like what Ann Coulter says – Romney came within 5% of taking out Teddy Kennedy if he had won we would have put him on Mount Rushmore. Rommney has not been a lifelong politician taking money from Fannie and Freddie nor was he kicked out of being speaker and house by conservatives. I don’t know how old you are but you better study up on Gingrich he’s a progressive and he’s worse than McCain as far as being a progressive goes.

          • The old Chappaquiddick Murderer beat Romney by 17…

            I get the attacks on Gingrich as being too left-wing. I firmly disagree with them, but they kinda have their own logic to them. But when Romney supporters say Newt is too liberal? I laugh.

      • StNikao

        Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli ““My benchmark was I want to leave with comfort that each of these six candidates is going to be a limited government conservative president. And despite pressing Newt Gingrich several times, I didn’t get that. I did not get that. We could have another compassionate conservative on our hands. I did not get that commitment,” Cuccinelli said on Fox in a post-forum interview.
        He also was unconvinced by Mitt Romney’s explanation for how he’d be able to draw a contrast with President Obama on health care after implementing an insurance program with a mandate in Massachusetts.
        “I don’t see a lot of distance there between him and the president,” Cuccinelli said.” –

        • StNikao

          I’ve been listening to this Ron Paul video –

          He’s such a libertarian…

          I don’t think he would even be for prosecuting child or adult trafficking (aka prostitution) and/or porn at the federal/national level (using FBI) or international level.

        • Anonymous

          I certainly respect what AG Cuccinelli is doing taking Obamacare to Supremes. He also thought all did a great job during the forum. What he and other conservatives are doing is looking at the end result of MA Healthcare vs looking at what Heritage Foundation (yes they did help Mitt design it) and Romney initially rolled out prior to democrats in MA changed it to what it is today. Educate yourself as I did go to Heritage Foundation website and watch the video of the pres of Heritage glowing report of Romney and the plan then stop repeating the talking points of the uninformed. Romeny has made it very clear he will work with GOP house and senate to repeal obamacare. We need to stop putting congressmen and senators in the oval office. They are use to making decisions with 100 Senators or 435 congressmen. Romney is the only GOP candidate who has the executive leadership experience and knowledge of the economy and global markets. He’s already wealthy and ethical he won’t be bought by insiders.

        • Anonymous
      • Bachmann is only in it for Romney’s sake, his stalking horse, so to speak; she attacks every candidate, except Romney.

        • StNikao

          Bachmann is in it on principle…because of her convictions. It has nada to do with Romney per se, everything to do with progressivism/liberalism and irresponsible corrupt government.

          Same with Santorum.

          Neither of them are in it for ego sake, because of special interest backers or for any particular agenda…except to restore sanity and responsibility…and thus prosperity and stability to the US.

          • Bachmann is in it on principle…because of her convictions????

            There is a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker.

            Bachmann also privately lobbied for stimulus funds for Minnesota and pork producers, sought spending earmarks that she now opposes and benefited personally from tens of thousands of dollars in federal funds for a family farm and counseling clinic owned by her husband, federal records show.

            Michele Bachmann Loves Government Pork!

            She repeatedly sought stimulus, EPA and other government funds.


            I agree about Santorum.
            Santorum is a decent man and is in it on principle and he is very consistent.

        • Anonymous

          The claims about her doing this for Romney are silly. No one would dream up something that unworkable.

      • Anonymous

        Romney (D) is no different than Obama on the issues that matter most.

        Both love the Federal Reserve. How can you have a free market when the FED tries to centrally plan fiat currency, interest rates, and banks? It’s not consistent with a free market.

        Both Romney and Obama have a Wilsonian foreign policy of nation-building, interventionism, propping up autocrats that do the bidding of the U.S. govt., and foreign-aid.

        Both Romney and Obama love subsidies, mandates, public-private partnerships, and tax credits that only some firms can access. That’s corporatism, not a free market.

        Romney has proposed no real budget cuts. He’s got his panties in a wad because govt. spending may not go up as fast as he would like.

        Romney believes in central planning. That’s who he is. He’s a progressive.

        Lastly, running a business has nothing to do with holding office. A businessman tries to anticipate consumer preferences and has a profit/loss system to guide him. A government is not a business. Big government mainline R’s need to get this idea out of their heads. I have nothing against someone who has owned a business from running from office, but expertise in one area has nothing to do with competence or understanding in another. They are different animals.

        Ron Paul 2012–The real free market constitutionalist.

    • Newt is fully capable of defending himself if he can keep the headline/soundbite damage to a minimum.

    • Anonymous

      Stir the pot, ask the hard questions, go with your gut……no matter what, Vote, your vote does count. You may be surprised how many people feel and think the way you do……. Romney is Not their choice and I’m unanimous on that.

    • Anonymous

      I am conflicted about this. Yes, fragmented voting will elect Romney, which would leave us with a RINO who would be no more effective than Boehner at reversing the harm to this nation. On the other hand, I like that Bachmann is a pure conservative; her thinking, intelligence, knowledge and commitment are exactly the prescription this country needs.
      So, if we compromise on our candidate, will the result be the same as not taking an antibiotic for the full term; the cure won’t be complete, and the infection can return in the next term?
      It’s difficult to be confident about Gingrich. He is apparently better than Romney, but it would be so sweet to be represented by a pure conservative.

    • Anonymous

      “These attacks” are accurate. There is no difference among Gingrich, Obama, and Romney. They are all big govt. statists. How many times do mainline R’s have to get conned.

      Where are the trillion dollar cuts from Gingrich and Romney? Where are the proposed eliminations of unconstituional govt. departments from Gingrich and Romney?

      How do we get back to a free market when men like Romney and Gingrich think that the Federal Reserve can centrally plan the economy? Why do Gingrich and Romney oppose a free market in money, banking, and interest rates?

      Subsidies, mandates, public-private partnerships, regulations that protect market share/create barriers to entry, tax credits that only some can access, etc. are not consistent with the Constitution or a free market.

      I’ll be voting for the only free market constitutionalist in the race. That man also called the housing bubble and collapse while Gingrich was feeding at the Freddie Mac trough.

      Ron Paul 2012

    • B-Funk

      Romney’s not my choice, but better him than Newt. Coulter’s reasoning is pretty sound on why Romney is a better choice. Truth is, though, we can do much much better in this nomination/election as the best candidates are already there.

  • Professor Why

    I’ve said it before elsewhere, but I’ll say it again… I don’t think ANY of the candidates on the GOP side are worth a damn… I’ll vote for the eventual nominee in the general election against Obama, of course, but to say that I’m underwhelmed by our choices is a bit of an understatement…

    That said… It’s too bad that Glenn Beck couldn’t have asked actual tough questions of his preferred candidate… It would’ve been interesting to see how she would’ve responded, had she been thrown some actual difficult questions…

    • GardenoftheGods

      You don’t think being asked about gay marriage & civil unions tough questions? I think you need to go back & listen to the interview. She got some tough questions too.

    • W Edward LaRue

      You likely missed Glenn’s previous interviews with Michelle Bachmann. And questions are only tough if you are trying to deceive. Michelle Bachmann debated Bill O’Reilly who was using every administration argument for raising the debt ceiling $2.5trillion. O’Reilly could not stump her and gave up trying. The only recourse he had was to say, after she left, she is “a nice lady’. thereby damning her with faint praise.

      • Professor Why

        You’re right, I didn’t see her previous interviews with Beck. That said, I don’t see how that has anything to do with the glaring difference between the two interviews… She’s been asked tough questions before? That’s cool… But so has Gingrich, and that didn’t stop Beck from actually doing due diligence and asking the proper questions.

        Also, glad to see you aren’t disagreeing with my statement that NONE of these candidates is worth a damn… 😉

  • Yea would you rather have Romney (Obama light)? As much as I think newt has his own problems he would be better than Romney and I’m afraid Bachmann does not have a chance.

    • W Edward LaRue

      So, I do not like Romney, but yes, if your going to disregard principle, I would vote for Romney over Newt. But as long as Michelle is still a candidate, I will vote for her. She has the most depth of any of our candidates, and she is as smart as Newt thinks he is. And she is right about Newt!

      • Anonymous

        Ha! Bachmann has about as much depth as a dewdrop. She blatantly lies to manipulate the easily impressionable, doesn’t have a grasp on reality (the president can declare gasoline will be $2 a gallon?), and has puritanical views that can’t realistically succeed in 21st century civilization. Anyone who supports Bachmann is not only delusional, they’re clearly disinterested in truth, facts and reality…which is why she attracts so many religious zealots who are incapable of reasoning and thinking for themselves.

        • Anonymous

          Because the media tells you to say that. Every Republican candidate for 20 years has been an ‘idiot, moron, fool, reactionary, and ‘extremist’ according to the media. All while the Democrats like Obama are called geniuses. Even though all records of his grades are still hidden.

          Reminds me of how media called Bush Jr. a moron for being a c student while hiding Kerry’s grades. Turns out that many millions voted to not elect Bush JR due to this. Yet guess what – his grades were worse than Bush’s and he would have been far far worse a President.

          I’m tired of the media telling me what to do and how to think. They are the morons and the propagandists that put our nation in this position by hiding Obama’s entire past from the public.

          • Anonymous

            Daman, I liked your comment. But I also liked Zeke’s. So, while you spoke a lot of truth, it in no way addressed or refuted the truth also spoken by Zeke.

        • Anonymous

          Anyone who writes garbage like that is no conservative. Why are you here?

  • Anonymous

    The media will not allow her to rise. They have already chosen Newt as the only alternative to Romney. Guess i will support her now as that is the right thing to do. To hell with the media and the progressives and communists that run it.

    • Bachmann supports the repeal of the 4th Amendment which is DEFINITELY what the patriot act does and was designed to do.

      Bachmann is also a clear supporter of TORTURE, PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION SQUADS, assassination of US citizens without their constitutional guaranteed due process of the law, and supports ALL OF THE UNDECLARED OVERT WARS that our federal government is engaged in, AND ALL OF THE GLOBAL COVERT operations that the CIAand other elements in our government is engaged in around the world.

      If Gingrich is the frugal Marxist that Bachmann claims he is, then Bachmann could rightfully be called a useful idiot.

      • W Edward LaRue

        Yes, that is a Randy Hitt, one of the most dishonest Posts i have seen. Bachmann does not support torture, she does support ‘waterboarding’ in extreme circumstances. Waterboarding is NOT torture, causes fear not pain. The rest is deliberate deception worthy of R Paul supproters.

        • rfrapal

          Edward: You’re right up to the point of saying “deception worthy of R Paul supporters.” It’s deception worthy of Barack Hussein Obama supporters!

        • Your post just lost all credibility. “The rest is deliberate deception worthy of R Paul supproters.”

          It is a plain fact Paul is the only candidate that has not lied ONCE about his voting record, his stance on controversial issues, and has put forth viable solutions to problems instead of making grandiose gestures and using catchy taglines.

          Everyone acts like the guy is a kook, but if you go back through history the transition to full blown socialism happens in EXACTLY the same way it is happening to us. A law here to limit freedoms, a new law there to take advantage of the loophole created by the previous law to further limit freedoms, another law… You can see where this is going. Our legal system is so convoluted with thousands upon thousands of laws, that it is impossible to know what is legal and what isn’t anymore. So now that us laymen (the American citizen) can no longer make head or tail of our own laws, we revert to listening to what our lawmakers and media tell us is legal. It is a quagmire of gargantuan dimensions, and there are only two future possibilities… We either make a systemic change to the way things are done in Washington, or we allow things to continue moving forward until there is a total collapse of our economic and political system or a total shift into one of the many forms of socialism.

          Here is a hypothetical situation for you… What happens when your computer gets so full of trash files and malware that it can no longer run efficiently? You can either continue to use it, picking up more and more malware every time you get on the internet, until the system finally crashes, or you can install highly prohibitive anti-virus software to clean your system while also severely limiting your freedom of use, or you can wipe the hard drive, reinstall your operating system, and move on. That is what Ron Paul wants to do. Strip the system back down to the Constitution, and start over. Maybe this seems radical to you. Maybe Hitler’s meteoric rise to power seemed impossible to the Germans of the 1930s. But I tell you what. I would rather err on the chance that another 9/11 happens than the certainty that we will lose all of our freedoms if things keep moving the way they are. Bottom line, you can call Ron Paul looney all you want, but you can never call the man a liar.

          • Anonymous

            Ron Paul 2012!! He’s a lunatic, be he doesn’t lie!

      • Anonymous


        She’s for all of that, and more!


    • Anonymous

      Now you’re cooking with gas, Daman69. The media and no other entity are seers, and by doing what You feel is the right thing you have stepped up.

    • Anonymous

      The last I heard the media had anointed Romney. I guess they’re wishy-washy on top of everything else.

      • Anonymous

        Their (The Media and the Democrats) left wing candidate for the Republican party is Romney, their so-called right wing candidate is Newt. Neither are really what we as Americans want. But they are the media and establishment chosen people.

        We need an outsider in here who will not stop or surrender. Bachmann is looking better and better. She could get a big boost if Cain would throw his support behind her, and Santorum drops out and pledges support for her. he would be a good VP I think.

        • Anonymous

          Let us hope.

    • I can’t believe all the blame that is going to the “establishment.” This surge by Newt is the cause of the self identified conservatives and Tea Partiers. Make sense of that. I mean either conservatism has changed or we have different standards for different politicians. I don’t see how anyone who is being intelectually dishonest. It is outright hypocrisy to say that John McCain and Mitt Romney are “Rhinos” (And I agree that they are) but come on, like Newt Gingrich isn’t? The fact is that he is a slick talker with a big ego. If you listen to his interview on Beck today, you will hear and see a classic example. He is alot like Obama he talks long enough on a subject and uses alot of adverbs and when he done your not sure what his real answer was but it sounded smart. So let’s be honest a lot of so-called conservatives really just want to beat Obama even if that means supporting someone who believes in some of the same ideals just not to the same extreme.

  • Anonymous

    I would rather have an openly liberal democrat at the wheel when everything crashes than a fake-conservative. A fake-conservative will be spun to demonize conservative as the cause. A liberal will be obvious that liberalism caused it. We need to get back to the Constitution… Now.

    • There’s not going to be a crash any time soon, in all likelihood. We’re still in pretty decent shape compared to everybody else. There will be a continuation of a slow, steady decline if we reelect Obama, who will just continue to blame the “1%”. You’re thinking apocalypticly, and you’d be right, if there was a crash imminent. There isn’t.

      • Anonymous

        I hope you’re right, but I think history shows that we can’t really know when it will be imminent, because the “trigger” that would set off everyone racing to get out of the dollar is based off of emotions, which can be unpredictable. The collapse of the Euro would temporarily prop up the dollar, relative to itself and other currencies, but there has never been a fiat currency that hasn’t hyperinflated… it’ just a matter of time.

        • That won’t mean the collapse of America. There’s no power in the world that can take our place right now. The eggheads thought it was the EU, but we see the folly of that now. Russia’s screwed. China isn’t doing as well as people like to say–their economic growth is slowing and they have many structural problems. Germany and Japan are well-prepared for the future, but we’ve been able to compete economically with a strong Germany and Japan for a century.

          Now, there might be some sort of violent conflagration or a world war if the economic turmoil keeps going for a while, but you can’t really plan for that at this point beyond keeping a strong military.

      • Anonymous

        When the dollar collapses it will be overnight. It won’t be a slow decline. One day your dollar is good and the next it will be worthless. People that wish to live in a fantasy world where we can never fail are kidding themselves, but not me. Now I hear we are going to print more money to help bail out Europe? We can’t save ourselves how in the heck can we pile up more monopoly money to help the world? We keep kicking the can down the road but it will come back to bite us in the proverbial a$$. We are enabling irresponsible spending not only here in the USA but for the entire world. Government is the PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION!! Cut Spending NOW, before it is too late! 15+ Trillion in debt and we are increasing spending every minute. The only solution is smaller Government. Bachmann espouses these same values I do, that’s why I support her, regardless of the Corrupt Media and the Haters.

  • Reagans11thCommandment

    so we’ve reached the point where the Republicans are eating each other. No longer addressing issues, we engage in personal attacks. Of course, we know that Mr. Obama won’t remember any of this after the primary season and he needs to run his attack adds.


    In the latest Marist poll ONLY RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE TO BEAT OBAMA.

    Since beating Obama is the ONLY GOAL, it is obviously time to coalesce around RON PAUL!

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul is a complete nut job. What is wrong with you people?iran with nukes is OK? Isolationism is OK? 9-11 was our fault??????? You Paul supporters are hopeless.

      • ClassicalLiberal88

        First of all, it’s a question of state sovereignty. Kind of like the UN telling us what to do. Second, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. I can’t understand people’s lack of ability to understand this fact. Isolationism would mean huge tariffs and cutting all ties to the outside world. Paul is a non-interventionist. This was the Republican ideal before it decided Wilsonian foreign policy was a good idea. Lastly, 9/11 was a terrible event, but to think that they attacked us for our freedom when they say the opposite is ignorant. Paul believes that meddling in other countries’ affairs can cause them to hate us. This in turn can lead to 9/11 type attacks. It doesn’t take a huge logical step for this argument to be made. Does it justify the actions of 9/11, no. Does it give a reasonable explanation for why we were attacked, possibly. But hey, I completely understand that fear is the easiest emotion to tap into, so I would be trying to lie about Paul if I was running too.

      • Yes, Irans with nukes is ok. We have nukes, the Soviets have nukes, the Chinese have nukes, etc. etc. No one hates us more than Russia and China, and they both would be a lot better equipped to attack the US, but they don’t. You think if Iran had nukes they would just launch a volley at any and everyone just to see what would happen? You are the nut job, sir. Isolationism is not the same thing as selective interventionism, which is Paul’s stance. And Paul is beating around the bush about the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 was an inside job, but he obviously can’t say that, so he says the closest thing, which is also true. Middle easterners attack us because of our foreign policy. Period. Why don’t they attack Australia or England (embassy doesn’t count because there were MANY issues that played into that attack) or any other primarily white “infidel” nation. We try to control them so we can make sure the oil keeps flowing, and they are tired of not being allowed to run their own country how they want to. That is why they attack us. Get your head out of the sand, man.

        • Anonymous

          I’m a nut job? Because I think Ron Paul is wrong on every foreign policy belief?
          Iran does not fear mutually assured destruction, they welcome it. They think it will bring the last imam and a global Calliphate. We have never faced an enemy like this. Making believe that they will leave us alone if we ignore them is insane and completely ignores history.

      • MichaelLee1

        Quit whining like a baby to his mama,cause all this bickering could lead to four more years of obama. Don’t fall for the divide & conquer game the left is subjecting us to.

    • KenInMontana

      I wouldn’t put too much faith in those polls, they are skewed badly considering who they asked and how many.

      Iowa: 2896 registered voters, out of that group, 916 were Republicans, and of those only 425 were likely caucus goers.

      New Hampshire:2263 registered voters, 967 Republicans and 676 likely primary voters.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul blames America for attacks on our own soil. That alone has me not voting for him. I will though vote for him if he somehow became the Republican nominee as I would vote for Mickey Mouse over the current resident of the White House.

    • Anonymous

      The contest is not a boxing match. Obama will win if Ron Paul or Gingrich get the nomination. The self satisfaction of nominating a tread worn Washington insider like Gingrich or a marginalized libertarian like Ron Paul would throw the election to Obama.

  • She has a point, God help us. I know the USA is filled with atheist commie lovers but please, for the sake of the rest of us, take the power from the Socialists and the Fascist party, aka Democrats.

  • KenInMontana

    She just can’t help herself,can she? *facepalm*

  • I like Michele, but calling Newt Gingrich a socialist is just not how you unite the party around you. Fail.

    • Stephen

      Why unite the party around you? Are only Republicans voting in the general election? Sometimes party asks too much and the 11th commandment is why we’re here today with a GOP overtaken by statists who were allowed in because we weren’t allowed to talk bad about any other members.

      • Um, the non-Republicans in the general election are more liberal than the Republicans voting in the general election, not less. Have a damn sense of realism–Americans have the government they deserve. They picked it. It wasn’t forced on them. Americans went out and chose statism in many areas. So thinking that a man to the right of 80% of the public (Newt) is a socialist is…out-of-touch, for lack of a better word.

        • Anonymous

          Indoctrination & Brainwashing by the National (liberal) Media, Hollywood, and our Anti-Capitalist, Anti-American School System is what brought us The Marxist in Chief.

          • Conservatives who insist on blaming Hollywood, the liberal media, the schools can’t take responsibilities for their own failures in failing to stop those things, and often enabling them.

    • A Kazen

      The republican party is dead. It’s time for honesty and real change. Newt is a socialist, everyone should realize that, so points to Bachmann for pointing it out.

      • This is petty nihilism. Due to the Republican party, we’re the 9th freest economy in the world, according to Heritage, and the 3rd largest major one after Canada and Australia. Republican Party is dead, my ass.

        • Anonymous

          Due to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the God of the Bible, Whom many Americans once believed in and honored, “we’re the 9th freest economy in the world, according to Heritage, and the 3rd largest major one after Canada and Australia.” (Are those stats right?)

          Due to the repub party, obama is in the White House.

          • No, it’s not due to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or God. It’s due to the Republican Party fighting to keep Democrats at bay since 1933. Constitutions are but pieces of paper if there’s nobody who cares about them. Besides, our Constitution is a procedural document, not an ideological one. One could easily have a socialist, yet completely constitutional form of government in America.

            And yes, those stats are right. Look it up.

          • Anonymous

            No, it’s not the Republicans either. It’s the Democrats doing, for 50 years, as was suggested we Republicans do a few posts previously…take small bites out of the resistance and, with patience and persistence, we will overcome ‘them’ and reach our goals. Very much like boiling a frog, or eating an elephant.

            • Anonymous

              We no longer have the time to eat an elephant. Boil a frog… maybe. I’d use a microwave, though. America is in crisis and either a solution or the end will come very soon.

    • Anonymous

      I read the transcript linked to the immediately previous video Scoop posted of Newt’s interview with Beck. I’d call Newt an opportunistic socialist. Where he thinks it will be popular, he supports some version of socialist programs, or pretends too. It’s all a game for Newt.

      He switches frequencies so often and so carefully that it’s easy to miss unless you have a transcript in front of you. Fortunately, Scoop gave us that too.

      • Anonymous

        Newt has already cut Feral Govt spending, reformed Welfare, and left a 2.5 $ Trillion budget surplus, and no other GOP candidates have to date! He’ll do it again, and now it’s mandatory, if we are to survive.

        Now, refute that!

    • Anonymous

      Bachmann is correct in saying Romney & Gingrich are “frugal socialist’s”. That is what every establishment Republican is. Why do you post as anonymous? Something to hide?

      • WTF are you talking about? You post as faustmanv. That doesn’t identify you any more than ‘anonymous’ identifies me.

        You want a glorious defeat in 2012, go for it. The rest of us live in the real world, a world populated by statists and quasi-socialists, so we do the best we can.

  • Stephen

    Not different to any election season. It’s a competition after all and it’s fair as long as the statements are accurate.

  • One candidate is staying positive about us and attacking Obaam. Not Romney, or Huntsman, or Bachmann, or Santorum, or Perry, or Paul. It’s Newt.

    • Anonymous

      You must have missed his veiled criticism of Romney then. The irony is that he challenged Romney’s character because of his flip flops when Newt himself has been just as bad on exactly the same issues.

      • Anonymous

        Truly said. Gingrich is a gymnast from so much flip flopping.

    • W Edward LaRue

      You must have missed Newt’s snarky comment about Michelle Bachmann in response to calling Newt’s amnesty plan an Amnesty Plan, calling her ‘Factually challenged, and questioning her intelligence.

      • What is he supposed to do? Get sodomized by her without replying? Point is, he didn’t start it. She did.

        • Anonymous

          Yep, and being desperate for improved ratings, she intentionally distorted (lied) about the 11 million illegals. Newt never said 11 million, perhaps a fraction of that, and his position resonates with the moderates he needs to defeat Oh-Baa-Maa. That is the goal, right, running Barry off!

          He also said he’ll build the fence from Brownsville to San Diego, quickly, first.
          Good first step, then put a mine field behind the fence, so the Dem’s higher latters are negated, for good! Get a work visa verified by VISA or Amex, or take your chances with the fence/mines. Works great, cheap to maintain, and fair for all concerned.

          • His position on immigration sucks, quite frankly.

            Romney’s stated position is the best one of all the candidates–we don’t offer amnesty, we end all the magnets like tuition breaks, ability to work here, and potential of legalization, and we secure the border. Obviously, Romney doesn’t believe in the position, but, in a vacuum, it’s good.

  • By the time this is all over the candidates will have destroyed each other.

    • Get ready for the chants of Four More Years when these bozos finish destroying each other. “Socialist”. How petty and childish.

    • StNikao

      It is important to scrutinize and compare each person’s position. It’s not attacking, it’s calling them to truth.

      NO more spin, lies, corruption, hidden agendas.

  • Professor Why

    I watched the interview. Those were not tough questions. She wasn’t asked to reconcile any of her past statements on any topics, she was asked straight-forward (no pun intended) questions on essentially softball subjects.

  • Anonymous

    You don’t really get what Bain Capital did. Nor is the 40% number anywhere close to reality.

    • Stephen

      Bain’s job was to make money for investors, even if it meant putting companies under. A majority of companies while Romney was there did not go bankrupt, but plenty did and they sucked assets out of those companies as they went down. Sounds like the consummate politician already.

  • K. Hunter

    Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, is concerned with the transition from our current nanny statism to the individualist society that many of us prefer. He envisions literally millions of U.S. citizens currently being supported in various ways and to various degrees by taxpayer money and the disruption that would result from an immediate and permanent end to federal subsidies. Evidently Bachmann and her supporters are relatively unconcerned with the widespread suffering inherent in a sudden collapse of the extended welfare system that progressive politicians of both parties have constructed over decades.

    • Anonymous

      precisely i have been trying to make this point over and over again and yet so many dont get it

    • Anonymous

      I, like Bachmann, am concerned with the sudden collapse of the national economy due to the futile attempt to continue to sustain the extended welfare system.

      Pain is coming. We can wait until the system collapses and anarchy erupts, or we can begin a painful but necessary transition now, while we still have a few minutes left.

      Gingrich is concerned with staying on top no matter what happens. He is an elitist and an opportunist.

      • You have no votes to begin this ‘painful but necessary’ transition. In Ohio, Kasich’s perfectly solid plan was crushed in the polls. You don’t seem to get that most Americans like a certain level of statism and that the way to get rid of it is to be clever about it and trick the masses into thinking that the edifices of statism that they love aren’t going anywhere, while chipping away at them.

      • Anonymous

        “Elitist/Opportunist.” Proof?

        Newt has already cut Feral Govt spending, reformed Welfare, and left a 2.5 $ Trillion budget surplus, and no other GOP candidates have to date! He’ll do it again, and now it’s mandatory, if we are to survive.

      • Anonymous

        “We can wait until the system collapses and anarchy erupts, or we can begin a painful but necessary transition now, while we still have a few minutes left”…u are right but the question is, do you force the transition on the folks by abolishing all the programs the folks rely on at once…or do you do it by creating consensus and giving some time to folks to adjust…newt can convince the folks that these reforms are necessary he can articulate it that the people are on board with these reforms…if we force this transition you will end up hurting the conservative cause in the long run

  • MichaelLee1

    Yes, she was right on all topics! Marriage is a sacred gift from God & God does not condone homosexuality. As far as Newt is concerned,she pegged him. Newt is not America first. Remember he is a bilderberger member amd also a cfr member. Here is a quote from Admiral Chester Ward,former cfr member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy,”The main purpose of the counsil of foreign relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereinty and independence,and submurgance into an all powerful One World Government”.

  • Anonymous

    It looks like Michele has been taking Gardasil and has retarded herself. Sadly Michele actually believes she’s making progress. This sort of nonsense is exactly why she lost all her support when people started taking a closer look. Michele has forgotten who we’re fighting. No Michele, Newt is not a socialist, 0bama is. She lost track of this fact and demonstrates that her home are not principled afterall, she talks about everyone that way. She jumped the shark here, and now it’s over for her now.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry is the only and best alternative to this bunch of floppers!!!!

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately Articulation is also important in this election, and he hasn’t proven himself to be able to defend his ideas.

  • Anonymous

    I think discussing mandates and subsidies would equate addressing issues.

  • I hope Michelle finds something else to do with her time, she really has no gas left in her tank.

  • Francine Bieganek

    OY! We aren’t going to have any contenders left! We will destroy ourselves! Unreal!

  • Newt loves illegals (amnesty) more than Americans (Newt wants to bring back child labor for US kids). Mitt thinks corporations are people (killing his general election chances). Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to end the TSA and end the endless wars for Israel, it all started a decade ago after a false flag attack.
    9/11, US and Israel:

    • Anonymous

      How many pieces of legislation has Ron Paul passed in 35 years in congress? What Qualifies him to be president?

      • Anonymous

        He’s an American citizen, older than 35, and is breathing.

  • Anonymous

    she is a panderer at best…newt is as conservative as she is if not more…what makes them different is tactics not idealogy…what newt realizes is that the country is not ready for the conservatism he would like so there needs to be a transition…and it will be a long transition…progressives took decades to change the folks and it will take some time to reverse course…and there is no consensus on any of her ideas…none of her ideas will pass congress or senate she is just playing to emotions.

    • Here’s somebody who is thinking.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry Odin, we don’t have decades to stem this tide, we need complete reform now. The stakes are too high……our Republic is in peril.

      • Anonymous

        Remember when everyone, including Beck, were fearing the Ominous “Fundamental Change” that Obama Promised. What Newt recognizes, and the reaction of the public to Obamacare demonstrated, is the public in general can’t deal with Big Change. We can’t pretend that the 20th Century didn’t happen. We have to roll things back, but thinking that it can all be done in a single congressional session or presidential term is naive at best.

        • Naive at best, suicidal at worst.

        • Anonymous

          Repeal of obamacare, rid the government of czars, rid the government of crony capitalism, quit the UN/get it out of USA, cut spending to the bone, austerity measures for DC, elimination of: income tax, death tax, business tax, enticements for corporations to do business in USA and compete in the global markets, balanced trade deficit, real reductions in health care via the private market, every bill presented to be proven to be in compliance with the constitution, follow the constitution to the letter in all branches of government, get government out of citizens lives, and whatever is left can be done in the next election. IMHO it can be done quickly.

          • Anonymous

            Sure it could, but it could constitute a MASSIVE defeat in 2014 and 2016. You thought 2010 was a Swing?

      • Anonymous

        what is a reform to you is a problem for moderates…there is no consensus for the reform you are advocating unless you had someone who can change peoples mind using reason..newt has the ability to teach people about conservative reform like no other…so he can create the consensus for the reform you are talking about

        • Anonymous

          Sorry again Odin, but I think there are more people who feel like I do than are moderate/liberal leaning. Sound principles don’t have to be taught to the majority of the voting public, they already have them. Heck, I don’t think people really change their core values, just learn to recognize them.

          • “Sorry again Odin, but I think there are more people who feel like I do than are moderate/liberal leaning.”

            That’s delusional, sorry to say.

            • Anonymous

              Disillusioned every once in awhile………..never delusional, sorry anon.

    • W Edward LaRue

      The only thing she panders to is principle. Newt is a Socialist, more than Romney. Reducing the size and scope of Government (Bachmann) and making Socialism work better (Newt) are not the same ideology. Do more research. And we don’t have decades!

      • Anonymous

        is it principled to call someone who has fought many battles for the conservative movement for 30 yrs… a socialist ?.

        “Reducing the size and scope of Government (Bachmann) and making Socialism work better (Newt) are not the same ideology”… the only person who has actually reduced the size and scope of govt. is newt not bachmann…

        “we don’t have decades”…u r right we don’t and that is precisely why we need newt…he can create the consensus for conservative reform..while bachmann will polarize this nation even more.

  • StNikao

    It is important to scrutinize and compare each person’s position.

    It’s not attacking – it’s calling them to the truth.

    PLEASE – NO more spin, lies, corruption, hidden agendas.

  • Newt cannot beat Obama. As much as I like a lot of things he says, nominating him would be as dumb as the Dems running Kerry in 04. Moderates and moderate Democrats who consider themselves “open minded” could live with themselves after a Romney vote. They would not consider voting for Newt. His brand is too damaged.

    So get off the Newt bandwagon now.

    • Actually, Romney is the Kerry of this race. Nobody is excited about him, like nobody was excited about Kerry. Boring, robotic, from an Eastern elite class that thinks it knows best. Flip-flopper to 10 times the magnitude Kerry was. Prime argument in the primaries is electability, like Kerry’s was. Doesn’t run on the issues, but rather on personal story (businessman, Kerry was war vet), but in fact, personal story is rather flimsy (fired thousands of people, Kerry had Swift Boat.)

      • Unfortunately Romney is the most electable candidate we have right now. He has far less baggage than Newt. Maybe if Cain can recover he could beat Obama. Really I just wish Ron Paul could win. :-/

        • They’re all electable.. If 2008 has taught us anything, it’s that anyone is electable, irregardless of record, experience, questionable associations, radical Left-Wing Ideologies, or radical agenda… Anyone saying a particular Republican candidate ISN’T electable is only parroting the media’s bias opinion…

          • You’re right in principle, Bill, but unfortunately the left is very closed-minded when it wants to be. The Republican nominee will beat Obama by driving home all the horrifying numbers on debt, deficit, spending, unemployment, etc. But if Newt is the one delivering those stats, no Democrat will even listen.

            Like in 2004, I could have voted for a Lieberman or someone like that, but because it was Kerry I just tuned it all out and held my nose and voted for the other guy.

            • “But if Newt is the one delivering those stats, no Democrat will even listen.”

              Democrats? No. But you have no evidence that moderates won’t.

              • I don’t. But any moderate with enough lefty friends and conflicted ideas on social issues and “income disparity” will easily be swayed to Obama. Also back in the ’90’s Newt was absolutely vilified by the media. Anyone who lived through that time and is only casually paying attention now probably has a negative connotation of his name. And then there is the ace in the hole, the skeletons in his closet regarding his multiple affairs. Like I said, his brand is tarnished.

                • Clinton was also vilified (by us), but is now very popular. People associate the 90s with a lost prosperity and they associate Newt with the 90s. I still don’t see any reason in what you said that makes Romney more electable. He’ll fold as soon as the media begins its assault on him.

        • I’d argue that Gingrich is more electable.

  • Anonymous

    Michelle Bachman excels at only one thing and that is attempting to destroy other Republican candidates with her catchy one liners. Her endless sniping gets on my nerves to a point where I just shut her out. Newt is a Socialist?? Really Michelle?? There is only one Socialist in the race and that is Obama. For once Chris Mathews had it right, she is a flake.

    The real question is after she suspends her campaign because everyone has become sick of her, who could she possibly throw her support to after she has thrown all the other candidates under the bus?

  • Mark Eicholtz

    I like Michele Bachmann … clear and concise … this Tea Party member’s favorite.

  • W Edward LaRue

    Newt being a ‘Progressive IS an issue, just as Obama being a Marxist is. Beck exposed Newt, his supporters hate that! And Newt is rightly classified as a ‘Frugal Socialist’, the truth has no agenda!

    • Anonymous

      I like Glenn Beck a lot. But he did not ‘expose’ Newt. He pressed Newt on some issues he and many people have concerns about, and gave Newt the opportunity to address them, which Newt did to the satisfaction of everyone but Michele Bachmann. So if anything, it was Bachmann that Glenn inadvertantly exposed as a hack and a moonbat.

    • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    Which Gingrich are getting this day? Is he the one who endorses ethanol mandates and federal subsidies for ethanol as a fuel? Is he the one who opposes the government picking winners and losers? Is he a believers in made made global warming and for cap and trade? Is he against cap and trade and a AGW denier?
    Is he for intervention in arab/Muslim revolutions or is he hands off?

    He is on both sides of almost every issue, but he talks so fast people lose track of where he is.

    • Anonymous

      No less than Ronald Reagan signed the first ethanol bill into law back in ’83; Newt testified against Cap/Trade in Congress; and Newt is strong on US foreign policy.

      Now go research instead of popping off, unless you’re just here to troll.

      • Before trashing someone as a troll, and using Renaldus Magnus to do it, maybe you should put down the Newt Koolaid and look into his actual record since 1979. You’re hard pressed to find anything Conservative about this loser.

        You WILL however find that Newt has NEVER met a BIG GOVERNMENT progressive program he wouldn’t embrace. or a vile democrat like Al Gore, Pelosi, or Al Sharpton he wouldn’t fall in love with.

        Newt is an accomplished con man. He has a way of taking the socialist and communist agenda, rewording it to make it sound “conservative” to unintelligent people, and get away with it. A Big Government Statist is a Big Government Statist no matter if there is an R or a D after their name.

        A Statist is just a Marxist in denial.

        “Newt Gingrich is More Dangerous To America Than Obama and I Can Prove It!”

  • StNikao

    Bain was a jobs (benefits, pensions) and businesses destroyer, not a jobs creator. Investor profit was their bottom line.

    • Investor profit is the goal of any business.

      Doesn’t look good, though.

      • Stephen

        If he asks us to trust his business acumen when voting for him then looking at his business record is required. And it is not comforting to think of that mindset at the helm.

    • Anonymous

      not every business should succeed. You sound like a union member

    • Does this mean Romney is liable to lay off hundreds of thousands of government employees? If so, I might give Romney a second look.

  • Anonymous

    Again, Bachmann’s desperation leads her to exaggeration. She’ll say anything at this point in her failed race.

  • Anonymous

    I used to like Rep. Bachmann and applauded her entering the race. Now she is proving herself to have no real ideas, as is demonstrated by her consistent breaking of the “Reagan 11th commandment.” Whatever the current frontrunner says is immediately exaggerated out of all proportion and turned into an attack that ends with a line like “See, I’m the ONLY solidly consistent conservative in this race.” Sorry, that in itself is not gonna do it, and won’t make the cut in a debate with Obama. No substance. She was not able to come up with anything better than Newt on her claim that his policies would “legalize 11 million aliens” (not what he said at all) when pressed on the subject by O’Reilly. Too bad…her star has fallen and she is grasping at straws trying to regain the spotlight she had 3 months ago…

    • Anonymous

      Used to like her, as well. Because she’s now desperate for ratings, she’s become crass and unreliable.

      Because Newt’s the only one observing and encouraging all others to obey Reagan’s 11th, and because he’s got the experience to get the job done now, and debates like no other… his poll #s are rising, as they should. The more Newt is smeared and attacked, the better he performs.

  • Anonymous

    I am now confused. Who are we voting for again?

  • Backmann is a great lady and i agree with most of her positions. However she is not qualified to be president and should drop out.

  • Anonymous

    Newts biggest problem is that he’s a realist. Beck, Bachmann, and may Tea Party folks only deal in ideology, and don’t really think about how to actually get this stuff made into law.

    • Anonymous

      See, that’s where I lie. My core values are in the same camp as Bachmann, but as it took 100 years to get the progressives to this point, how do get 300 million people to change in one election?

      I think we should be the “regressive” party, have a goal to return our country back to its founding and work at it one step at a time. Most people don’t understand any of this. They are too busy in their own lives to delve deep into the problems we are having and just rely on the media and sound bites. (that and a lack of a backbone from true conservatives to ever defend themselves).

      I want to be able to vote for Michelle. But how does she get positioned for a Reagan landslide? Or maybe even Santorum?

      • Precisely. It took the progressives 100 years. We want to do it in one day? It’s nuts. Thank you for saying this.

      • Anonymous

        The way this can be done is by unifying the party and Reagan did this using tools like his 11th commandment: “Though shalt not speak ill of another Republican”. Michelle Bachman could do well by taking a page out of his book.

    • Anonymous

      He said since we have to live with Medicare we have to make it work better by adding prescription drug benefits to it. How long before he says the same thing about Obamacare. After all, it is a done deal.

  • Bachmann is a dumb P.O.S..

  • Watch closely come next fall when Bachmann falls right in line with the rest of them in supporting Newt’s candidacy. It doesn’t matter that she thinks he’s a socialist – she’ll get right behind him against the evil Obama. And the lesser of two evils is still evil. Ron Paul is the only honest, consistent and trustworthy candidate in the race.

  • A GREAT Bachmann quote…

    A “frugal socialist” is really a pun with which to have fun.

    I get Bachmannn’s point, but there’s an aspect that needs clarification.

    Whoever heard of a “frugal redistributor of other peoples money?”

    Ah, right, I know.

    As PM Margaret Thatcher said, when the socialists “… run out of other people’s money.”

    More fun with a pun.

    A “frugal thief”
    A “frugal rapist”
    A “frugal pimp”
    A “frugal prostitute”
    A “frugal voluptuary”
    A “frugal gourmet”
    A “frugal glutton”
    A “frugal couch potato”
    A “frugal ________”…

    … fill in the blank.


    • Now that’s funny! I personally prefer couch potato.

  • Bachmann is only in it for Romney’s sake, his stalking horse, so to speak; she attacks every candidate, except Romney.

    Bachmann also privately lobbied for stimulus funds for Minnesota and pork producers, sought spending earmarks that she now opposes and benefited personally from tens of thousands of dollars in federal funds for a family farm and counseling clinic owned by her husband, federal records show.

    Michele Bachmann Loves Government Pork!

  • Anonymous

    Bachmann’s hyperbole is over the top. Over and over again she has attacked republican candidates by exaggerating their words to fit her meaning. With friends like Bachmann who needs enemies. Newt is not a socialist. He is a true conservative who actually succeeding in CUTTING government during his brief tenure as Speaker. He did this even though he was vilified by the press, demonized by liberals in the House, criticized by republicans who owed their elections to him and his Contract with America all while Clinton was in the White House. Newt understands that he needs the American people with him to change America. Newt listens to the people and the people listen to him. A successful fighter and thinker, Newt is the man we need in 2012 to defeat Obama and all progressives on both sides of the aisle. Newt Gringrich can and should be our nominee and our next president.

  • StNikao

    I’ve been listening to this Ron Paul video –

    He’s such a libertarian…

    I don’t think he would even be for prosecuting child or adult trafficking (aka prostitution) and/or porn at the federal/national level (using FBI) or international level.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul is dangerous.

  • Bottom line for me: This kind of overheated rhetoric turns me off from Michele. I was vacillating between her and Newt (Santorum is somewhere in the mix), but every time she opens her mouth, my support for Newt becomes stronger.

    • Anonymous

      funny, I was thinking the same thing.

  • Well put, sir!

  • sharedfaith

    I really like Michele Bachmann she is smart, she is a true conservative, she has dignity, she is of an excellent moral character. I think you need to judge her on what she stands for and the person she is. This woman really cares about our country and who America is. Not voting for her is like voting for another Democrat socialist. You want to turn our country around I mean make it truly a Godly upstanding nation then vote for one who stands and lives moral excellence.

  • Anonymous

    This was a mistake on Bachmann’s part. She needs to stop trying to vilify the other candidates, that’s the medias job! 😉

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, really. And she doesn’t come off as convincing because she’s just too nice a person. It’s not in her to get down and dirty.

  • why the heck should queers get anything at all?

  • buckaroo48

    I hope Ms. Bachmann stays in the race and does not give up. She makes more sense than ANYONE else in the race. Obama will clean Newt’s plow if he goes toe to toe in the general election. It will be like Dole and McCain all over again. The “senior” republican that is “entitled” to his turn will just give us another 4 years of Odumbo. Michelle can hold her own and take it to him based on the vast differences in their core convictions.

  • Mike Florey

    Gingrich is a ‘frugal socialist’? Then Romney is the frugal gourmet.

    • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    I really like Michele Bachmann. She is smart, she is truly conservative, she has dignity, she is made of a strong moral character and excellence. She cares about our country and what happens to America. Bring back common sense Our land has been run by fruits and nuts for a long time. Too long. Nothing makes sense anymore. Good is evil and evil is good this is what has happened to our society. God have mercy! We need Michele! Not Newt look at his record before you cast your vote please look at the candidates voting records all of them then make your decision.

    • Anonymous

      I really like Michele too. In fact I am a toss up between Michele or Newt. But she needs to stop drumming up these nonsensical attacks. One of the things I liked about Newt was that he praised the other candidates instead of engaging in a smear campaign.

      • Anonymous

        Well, I have to agree to the nonsensical attacks I don’t like that either. I am just not comfortable with Newt and his voting record. He seems to much like old Washington.

        From: Disqus
        To: [email protected]
        Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 1:40 PM
        Subject: [trscoop] Re: Bachmann: Newt Gingrich is a frugal socialist

        Disqus generic email template

        Conservative_Hippie wrote, in response to sharedfaith:
        I really like Michele too. In fact I am a toss up between Michele or Newt. But she needs to stop drumming up these nonsensical attacks. One of the things I liked about Newt was that he praised the other candidates instead of engaging in a smear campaign. Link to comment

  • Anonymous

    I really like Michele Bachmann she is smart, has a strong moral character, dignity and excellence, Our country has had the likes of Newt. Romney We need Michele someone who really cares about our nation and making the changes despite the special interest groups; Michele will do the right thing no matter what. Our nation has fallen and fallen hard look at the voting record of those who who are running and see how they have voted. and please don’t dismiss Michele just because of her sex. Listen to what she says she knows what she is talking about.

  • Anonymous

    Bachmann has a point about Newt being a big government Republican. You can pretty much say the same thing about all the GOP candidates in my opinion. People must be coming to the same conclusion cause the guy with the plan to cut the most from the government is currently polling second in Iowa:

  • Just watched the interview: seriously? Glenn asks Michele what her stance on gay marriage is? Way to really challenge her. Great journalism.

    • Anonymous

      I’m waiting on the media to start asking the tough questions of Obama. I might be waiting a long time, sadly.

  • I know Glenn is seriously in the tank for Bachmann but really…..Come on Glenn atleast be objective with your questions (remember the whole ”truth has no agenda” thing???)….I had to stop the the player because I was getting nauseous listening to it.

    At what is with the frugal comment???
    Michele…exactly what are you going to do with the current structure to the Medicare Medicade program today??? I mean right now??? There must be some form of transision or else you a) collapse the existing system, or b) keep with the current. There is no middle ground. The American Ship is a huge one and cannot like a HUGE 18 Wheeler to turn on a dime like a tiny sports car that is just not physically posible. There must be some middle or ”frugal” transitional stage to get you from A to B. That is a disingenuous statement…..I can hear Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave now…..

    • Anonymous

      You really are clueless.

      Unfortunately all of us have to deal with this new entitlement disaster that Newt encouraged all fiscal conservatives to vote for.

      MB has the best record she was against TARP, the $108 B in funding in the continuing resolutions for Obamacare, and raising the debt ceiling.

      • oooo….spiffy comsback there, NHCon…if that is all you can do then you are the one that is clueless because you obviously did not listen to what was said and how it was said.

        I listened to Beck all day today and the entire show was….ooh Michele is soo wonderful and everyone else is bad…..Plus it was pile on Newt day because Glenn knows he is the front runner and will win.

        Then he has the gall to complain how one sided others are in their interviews and opinions….give me a break….! Today’s hypocracy by Glenn Beck today really depressed me because he was sooo close minded in his views while, at the same time, claims he is the only one that is open minded.

        Discouraging, disheartning, and discusting.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been digging her for her unwavering stance and her core beliefs. It’s all an individual has left when things go down, you get back to basics, keep your head up, and move forward. Reminds me of my support for yes- Teh Fred! No one would back him (only Levin did) because they may have known some insider nonsense at Fox, not Malkin, not “Power to the People” Ingraham cuz they knew knucklehead would sell more books. All that was said “he got in too late.” He won the SC debate all the Luntz peeps said so just before commercial break then they came back and said “he’s unelectable”, “he got in too late”, “his hearts just not into it.” Do any of you get that feeling about her? She’s not a favorite I know, but I don’t care. There’s valuation in what she believes in her gut and the principles she espouses work towards helping change individuals into responsible, moral people. This woman will make every effort to do what is correct for the betterment and advancement of this nation.

  • JW

    I’m trying to figure out why the Republican establishment, Glenn Beck and other pundits are so keen on Romney. The guy is a moderate and doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body. He shy away from tough questions – which we saw when interviewed by Brett Baier last week.

    Unfortunately, for Michelle I’m very disappointed. Her attacks on her colleagues is left to be desired. Calling Newt a “frugal socialist” is the extreme. I never thought we would sell out our own. I would have expected that with Ron Paul and his elk, but never thought a professed Tea Party candidate would. Let’s take last night on BOR when asked about what she would do with 11 million illegals. I cringed when she indicated she would deport them all and ther tone she used. Perception is everything and I think she did more harm to the Tea Party than good. It makes us look like we’re racist – which we are NOT.

    We may differ in how to solve the problems, but to accuse someone of being a socialist because of supposition is wrong. Should we hold Glenn’s past against him as well?

    It looks like Newt doesn’t seemed to have been affected by any of the attacks, at least for now.

    Thank God for the American people – they seem to have better sense than all the pundits and politicians put together!

    • Anonymous

      Beck isn’t for Romney. Other than Levin, Beck is pretty much the only one in the media calling out both Mittens and Newt.

      Bachmann is right on Newt being a frugal socialist. I’m amazed at the outrage over MB for telling the truth. The question Beck asked MB was about Newt defending his endorsement of Medicare part D saying that “all fiscal conservatives should be for it.” Newt is being a frugal socialist. Instead of looking to elminate entitlements he only seeks to run them more efficiently.

      Whatever happend to free market solutions??

      Funny Newt gets a pass for calling Ryan’s plan “right wing social engineering” while MB is criticized for speaking the truth.

      If we want to fix this country we need to go after those on the left and those supposedly on the right like Newt and Romney.

      We need a real Tea Party conservative like MB not a big gov’t progressive in Newt.

      • no….Beck is in the tank for Bachmann.

      • He was right about it being right-wing social engineering. If we don’t have at least a semblance of consensus on eliminating entitlements (which we’re not close to) and do it anyway, we’re going to get our ass kicked worse than the Democrats did in 2010, which will mean entitlements will be gone for about two years, until the new Democratic Congress comes into power and enacts even more onerous socialist policies.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking of the UN I just read the NAACP is filing human rights violations against to the UN implicating the U.S. for voter suppression in 17 states, or something like that. Its an obviously political ploy to pit minorities against working class whitey and the traitor uncle Toms and such. Its going to be nasty, better make sure we have a thick skinned candidate that defends conservatism and themselves well from all the Chicago style mud that’s going to be flying their way.

  • zedoc

    The matrix is progressive. It’s impossible get a fair hearing for conservativism. Like the debate moderators, their point of view is progressive.
    FOX News operates in a progressive matrix. They entertain every left wing nut that has media exposure, but never, never allow the discussion of real conservatives. You’ll see Jon Stewart and Woopie Goldberg, but never Michael Savage.

  • I hope Michelle finds something else to do with her time, she really has no gas left in her tank.

    • Anonymous

      yeah, we need to get on with the same business as usual progressives like Mittens and Newt.

      There isn’t a problem the gov’t can’t solve right?

      Who cares about Tea Party conservtives??

      Good point!

      • NHConservative….you are sounding more and more like sour grapes to me.

        You can not even stay with one candidate you claim is the most Conservative before you then jump to say you are voting for Romney the RINO.

        Your arguments are becoming less and less relavent and more and more shrill. I think you need to change your name to NHFlipFlopper

    • I think Iowa will determine what happens because Bachmann has focused all her resources and strategy on winning Iowa. If she fails to get in the top 3 she is toast.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think Beck should have asked that “followup” question. He probably did it for comedic purposes.

    She shouldn’t have fallen for it. But that’s what she does.

  • Anonymous

    I agree

  • I haven’t committed to anyone at this stage, but I love the “honesty” of Bachmann.
    She may be a new comer to the political arena, but she has been pretty consistant AND she shares my belief in the Constitution & Laws of the land.
    Entitlements are generally socialistic. This Country was established to escape the crown and invasive government.
    We take care of our needy thru charities & Churches & now by government. When the government is involved, we begin looking at the “socialistic” side.
    Should the gov be FORCING us to assist those in need, or should that be OUR choice? The Gov giving to others upon defining their needs vs my ability to pay is socialism. Social Security began this socialistic trend. Why must we continue??In the late 60’s welfare to the needy changed names & became “entitlements” & things have progressively changed since.
    We ARE on the road to Socialism(perhaps we have arrived) Bachmann is reminding us.
    I say “Good for Her & Thank You”
    I’m not ready for USA “Lite”!!

    • Anonymous

      Bachmann would eliminate the Dept of Education and the EPA. She would severly reduce the Fed to the size of a peanut.

      Unlike Newt and Mitt she’s never endorsed the individual mandate or fallen for the global warming scam.

      Unlike Perry she’s never given in state tuition to illegals.

      • NHConservative you really are close minded. Have you not listen to Newt say he would abolish the EPA???

        Here is one of the many many clips where Newt says get rid of the EPA.

        I challenge you to listen to the whole clip and disagree with anything Newt says….I bet you cannot!

        You really need to get your facts straight buddy.

        • Anonymous

          That’s the thing Allen, candidates can say anything that can sound good and appeal people. Newt’s great at selling himself as a conservative, but his record proves otherwise.

          How do you explain being on the wrong side of major issues such as:

          1. The individual mandate (as late as THIS year).

          2. Promoting Al Gore’s global warming agenda by doing that ad with Pelosi

          3. Promoting Obama’s education agenda by touring with Arne Duncan and Al Not So Sharpton.

          4. Taking over a $1 million to “consult” Freddie Mac

          5. Promoting ethanol subsidies.

          6. Endorsing Scozzafava.

          7. Saying all fiscal conservatives need to support Mediacare Part D — this is why Bachmann called him a frugal socialist, he looks to create this entitlement programs instead of allowing the free market to work.

          There are the facts, Newt cannot be trusted.

          • Please get your facts straight.

            1. At the time the mandate you speak of was a Hertitage Foundation proposal that had many COnservatives backing it!

            2. Newt at the time was lobbying Against Al ”the chart” Gore and if you say the ad he said nothing about Global Warming. He talked about climate change. (two completely different items) Newt agrees it was in hindsight a bad idea to do the ad with Pelosi but what he said in the ad was not.

            3. Tell me exactly what Newt said that was so bad?? That education reform on a local level to improve testing scores is bad?? I would stand for better education standards too. What’s the point?

            4. As a private citizen running a business that is willing to hire Newt’s firm was bad?? I think you call it Capitalism….nothing wrong with that. P.S. Newt even hired special lawyers to make sure it was all above board, ethical, and legal.

            5. OK. so he promotes growth of American businesses versus sending the money overseas to the middle east?? I say if it is a choice between money spending in South Dakota versus Saudi Arabia….let it be in USA not elsewhere.

            6. Yep. That was a bad mistake. I agree that was a bad one.

            7. There must be some form of transition or else you a) collapse the existing system, or b) keep with the current. There is no middle ground. The American Ship is a huge one and cannot like a HUGE 18 Wheeler to turn on a dime like a tiny sports car that is just not physically posible. There must be some middle or ”frugal” transitional stage to get you from A to B. That is a disingenuous statement.

            Thus endith the lesson.

            • Anonymous


              Clearly you are no conservative. That’s fine, just don’t pretend to be one. Apparently you think big gov’t is the answer. You and Newt are made for each other.

              1. Newt supported the mandate IN 2011!!!! I don’t care what the Heritage foundation said either, they were WRONG TOO!! The gov’t has no business telling any US citizen what to buy!

              2. The libs first called in global warming, then climate change when it started getting cooler. Do we really need someone who’s going to sit on the couch and let Pelosi promote her agenda? And it’s a FACT that the ad promoted Al Gores BS climate change site.

              3. So you agree with Obama”s education agenda?? It’s about federal control over what goes on in our local schools. And catering to the teachers unions, no merit pay… and pushing their radical agenda.

              4. It’s an example of Newt selling out his principles once again. If he had a backbone or decency he would’ve quit, turned it down, or actually warned people about how dangerious GSE’s really are.

              5. This is the exact opposite of the free market system. You survive on your own merits, not the gov’t giving you other peoples money. Plus the ethanol thing is a scam. Makes gas more expensive and it’s actually less efficient.

              6. Nice to see you finally not make yet another excuse for Newt.

              7. The answer is the free market. Tort reform and getting rid of excessive regualtions — allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. NOT creating another giant entitlement program and pushing conservatives to vote for it.

              I’ve forgotten more about conservatism than you’ll ever know Allen, then again you’re no conservative. Neither is Newt!

              • LOL…..I am most definetley conservative….But since all you want to do is call names….I pity you.

                I firmly believe is the free market and there should be less Government regulation and let the free market handle itself. NO Bailouts.

                I firmly believe the IRS is an illegal government entity that should be done away with because it is unconstitutional.

                I also firmly believe in a flat tax system where even the lowest incomes need to pay taxes. (be it small)

                I believe in the right of free men to do as they please in their pursuit of happeness as guaranteed by the Constitution. That includes making it illegal for the TSA to search me as that is unreasonable search as defined by the constitution.

                I believe in the separation of Church and State but not the separation FROM Church and State.

                I believe English should be the official Language of Government and if you don’t understand it then you should not be here.

                I believe in legal immigration and a guest worker program. I also believe in a minimal fair immigration policy where those willing to become citizens will adopt the culture of the USA not the reverse.

                Plus many more….

                If those values are not Conservative then….you are nuts and need to go back into the hole be which you sprung from.

                • I must add this one for everyone to see. NHConservative just proved his real colours….. in another section of this WEBSITE:


                  Wait one minute NHConservative0221….. you said

                  ”I’d probably pick Mittens over Newt at this point.”

                  And you smear me and call me not Conservative…..Boy do you look stupid now.

                  Romney is the ultimate RINO.

                  I guess that proves….who is the real non conservative.

                  Y O U!

            • Allen, Newt was shilling for GOVERNMENT MANDATED heath care insurance in MAY OF THIS YEAR. Oh, and he has been paid $37 MILLION by the insurance and drug companies to push it. It’s worth billions, if not trillions to them in the long run.

              Newt is a BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVE. He supports virtually every disastrous program Obama and the communist party does.

              Put down the Koolaid and look into the corrupt menace’s ACTUAL RECORD. Newt is as big of a progressive as Obama or any of the rest. He’s just a better con man than most.

              That a single human being supports Newt Gingrich is a national tragedy. There is no more corrupt, morally bankrupt a person in politics today.

              If Newt is the nominee the huge fight for Liberty and Freedom we have been engaged in the last three years will have been our biggest waste of time in the nation’s history. The Tea Party will be rendered meaningless.

              Principles in politics are rapidly becoming a joke. Con mean and weasels rule the world.

  • Anonymous

    Bachmann is my kind of candidate.

    She has the best record of anyone in the race and she’s not afraid to call out the other RINO’s to expose them as the frauds that they are.

    It’s about time someone had some balls. This is a primary and I’m sick of the “let’s play nice and it’s all about beating Obama.”

    It’s not just about beating Obama, who we replace him with is of the upmost importance.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with Bachmann here, but what record are you speaking about?

      To me that is her biggest liability. Only been in the House a few years and hasn’t been there at all this year. I’m not sure she even knows that she still has a job in Washington, DC.

      Can you list a few of Bachmann’s accomplishments? Thanks in advance.

      Oh, not the foster children. I know about that. Actual legislation.

      • Anonymous

        The biggest key is MB’s record of sticking to her conservative principles. She has the best record of doing so other than anyone else in the race.

        MB voted against TARP. She fought like hell against Obamacare, fought to try to pass a bill to protect the incandescent light bulb, fought the RINO GOP house over the $108B in funding in the continuing resolutions for Obamacare, and fought against raising the debt ceiling unlike other so called conservatives (like Allen West).

        MB had Pelosi in charge of the House, really what was she going to pass? Now it’s the RINO Boehner that MB fought with over the continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling.

        We need a Tea Party conservative that we can trust, one that won’t sell us down the river. That person is Michele Bachmann.

      • ApplePie101

        The less legislation, the better. More laws infringe upon our freedoms. We should elect someone who will repeal laws.

        Michele Bachmann’s record includes organizing the big November ’09 Washington DC tea party rally to stop Obama’s health care bill, and persuading Mark Levin to speak there. She tried to pressure GOP leaders to include language to deprive Obamacare of funding in the continuing resolutions. She was one of the handful of representatives who opposed raising the debt limit this past summer. She doesn’t just talk the fight, like Newt. She fights.

    • no doh you are for Bachmann… anyone can see are so far in the tank for her you have completly closed out any other point of view.

      • Anonymous

        Yet all you can do is make up pathetic excuses for 8 different cases of Newt straying far from conservative principles.

        • you facts are not correct….. and Yes I agreed with you on one of them if you took the time to read my answers. but since you can to stoop to name calling it does not suprise me in the least.

    • Anonymous

      i can see why u would support bachmann…both of u like to throw labels around

  • Anonymous

    where did you get your info Huffington Post?
    Indeed, during the 14 years Romney headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent.[38] Romney excelled at presenting and selling the deals the company made.[44] The firm initially gave a cut of its profits to Bain & Company, but Romney later persuaded Bain to give that up.[44]
    We need to stop putting congressmen and senators in the oval office who are use to legislation with (100 senators or 435 congressmen) …

  • Mike Lee

    No, Michelle. He’s an OPPORTUNIST. And they say that Romney has no core? Newt has absolutely no core – except his narcissism. He talks out of both sides of his mouth constantly. He will say anything to justify his positions. Nobody knows what he is, because he is “everything” and “nothing” – at the same time.

  • Anonymous

    4get Newt guys. This woman is, as they say, the shiz.

  • Steven

    We can’t settle! Bachmann 2012!

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Bachmann on Gingrich. I would use the word progressive instead, but her point is valid.

    My question is why Bachmann never goes after Romney? I have yet to see Bachmann go after Romney on any issue since she entered the race except for some stupid pledge he didn’t sign.

    I hope Romey is paying Bachmann well because she is one hell of an attack dog for him.

    • Bachmann is going after Newt because he is the frontrunner.

  • Anonymous

  • Anonymous

    This is why Bachmann is going nowhere…. she does not wear well!

  • Anonymous

    Was the golden rule in play when she labeled Newt a Socialist?

  • Anonymous

    I encourage you all to send Bachmann a nice email from her campaign website explaining to her that she is only hurting her future chances in the next election cycle with comments like this one today. She would be wise to adhere to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment to Republicans. Namecalling is beneath her.

    • Anonymous

      Bachmann could be using the primaries to establish herself as a leader in the House. Instead she is estranging herself from our next president, and the Tea Party base that wants to DEFEAT 0bama.

  • Anonymous

    … following Bachmann’s logic, she would call Margaret Thatcher a frugal socialist because when Lady Thatcher was the UK Prime Minister, instead of dismantling the UK’s National Health Service, she helped make it more efficient.

    The attack by Bachmann is wrong and the fact that Beck did not call her out also is disappointing, but so be it.

  • I can’t stand Romney but Newt is just flat out dangerous. Open your eyes people. If you want 4 more years of a more suttle and cunning Barack Obama you’ve found it in Newt.

    • Anonymous

      4 years of balancing the budget is dangerous? Moreover, do you think the Republican Congress is just going to lay down and pass his ENTIRE agenda with no debate? You need to be realistic. Right-wing fear mongering is no better than the trash we frequently see from left!

  • Anonymous

    Here’s another possibility for the election excitement- –

    It’s still almost a year till the elections.

    Some Dems are calling for Obama to not run. Millions of Americans are coming to recognize that Obama is, quite possibly, not eligible to be President, nor never has been because of his natural born citizen status (or lack of), and he may either be legally removed from office for cause, or short of that, he may declare a national emergency, abolish the election and assume control through martial law. Or, even shorter than both those, follow suggestions and abstain from running, like LBJ.

    Things are never so bad they can’t get worse.

  • Anonymous

  • Michelle Bachmann has always had my vote in the bag.

  • Richard Wohltmann

    No doubt M. Bachmann is our best candidate. But if you are of the crowd that has been convinced by Big Media and the poll masters that she is “unelectable”, than at least minimize the damage by ensuring that Gingrich is NOT the nominee. We have a chance of helping to slow the socialization of America with Romney.