Gingrich: Why yes, I’d team up with Santorum to take down Romney

posted at 11:10 am on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Most people would agree that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney scored political-narrative and strategic wins in the final results of the Iowa caucuses last night.  Santorum’s stirring come-from-behind performance in the last two weeks and his almost-victory speech late last night gives him the edge as the night’s biggest winner, while Romney’s actual win and the dimunition of his most-organized competitors makes it a long-stretch win for him as well.  After that, there are mostly degrees of losing, but who ended up as the night’s biggest loser?  Rick Perry spent a ton of money in Iowa and ended up barely in double digits in a fifth-place finish, but Perry’s standing at least improved in the final weeks, as did his organization.  Michele Bachmann’s standing among voters crashed months ago, and she ended up at about where polling showed her all along, at the bottom of the field that actually and seriously competed for votes in Iowa.

The biggest loser?  Major Garrett makes a compelling case for Newt Gingrich at National Journal this morning:

Gingrich never committed the kind of nationally televised blunder that Perry did – failing to remember the three government agencies he would close if he became president. But make no mistake. Gingrich did much worse than Perry. And that’s saying a lot.

Yes, Perry led in September and blew it. Gingrich led in December and blew it. That’s almost impossible. At the heart of Gingrich’s downfall lay a messy mix of his worst traits – hubris, disorganization and disdain for his opponents. …

“I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who aren’t going to be the nominee,” Gingrich said. “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

Right.

Viewed in retrospect, that bit of arrogance has to be disconcerting for Gingrich supporters. What Gingrich said next, though, stands as an act of staggering political malpractice that may lead the remaining Gingrich backers in New Hampshire and South Carolina to re-evaluate everything.

“I don’t object if people want to attack me,” Gingrich told ABC’s Jake Tapper. “That’s their right. All I’m suggesting is, it’s not going to be very effective. People are going to get sick of it very fast. I will focus on being substantive. And I will focus on Barack Obama.”

Republicans did attack Gingrich. Iowa voters did not get sick of it. And Gingrich’s poll numbers were cut in half in less than a month. Yes, negative ads took their toll in Iowa (more on this in a minute). But Gingrich’s national numbers fell in the same period of time and at roughly the same rate. Viewed more closely, Gingrich looked less and less appealing and he did nothing to sharpen his message, contrast his record against his opponents or explain why he would be the best nominee.

Recall that Gingrich has been complaining for the last few days that he has been “Romney-boated,” a weird reference to the Swift Boat veterans in 2004 that objected to the depiction of John Kerry as a war hero.  Romney’s super-PAC ran the negative ads that Gingrich practically dared them to run, and they turned out — as Garrett notes — to have been pretty effective.  Putting aside the specific complaints that Gingrich made against Romney, what did he expect would happen if he won the nomination?  Did he think that Obama would not make these same arguments, and more like them, in a general election campaign?  This is why negative campaigning in primaries matter, and why showboating with pledges of nothing but niceness is a dangerous conceit for primary candidates.

Certainly Obama would have exploited the one attack that seems to have had the most impact: his work with Freddie Mac.  Gingrich insists that Freddie Mac paid him $1.6 million for just consulting on historic and strategic looks at lending policy, and that he did no lobbying.  I’m sure that’s true in the technical, legal sense, as Gingrich was surely smart enough to know how that would look in a later presidential campaign even without the collapse in 2008.  But no one thinks that Freddie Mac would hire a former Speaker of the House merely for his opinions on historical lending patterns.  They hired him to give themselves a little more gold-plated heft in pushing for federal policies that benefited their organization.  There’s nothing illegal about that, but it’s not a hands-off relationship no matter how much Gingrich argues to the contrary, and Obama would have a field day with that in a general election.

Garrett then points out that the disappointing fourth-place finish in Iowa will depress Gingrich’s fundraising and organizing efforts, leaving him to pursue the Obama strategy against Romney:

That means Gingrich must earn media attention he cannot buy. The only way to earn it is to roast Romney as a phony conservative and a poll-driven flip-flopper.

The great risk for Gingrich here is that these lines of attack are already part of the Obama re-election playbook and may do nothing more than soften Romney up if, as many expect and the contours of the race suggest, he becomes the GOP nominee.

Actually, it might toughen Romney up rather than soften him up.  Romney’s smart enough to know what the Obama playbook will be, and if Gingrich gives him a preseason scrimmage on that field, Romney can tune up his game.  That’s what primaries do — they produce better, more prepared candidates.  Romney’s real worry will be Santorum running to his right, who could benefit if all the other Not-Romneys got out of the race.  But Santorum wouldn’t be in this position at all if Gingrich had kept a lead in December and showed that he could close the deal from the front.

And speaking of which, Gingrich himself seems to recognize this in his conversation with Laura Ingraham this morning (via The Right Scoop):

Ingraham: Can you see a scenario under which the two of you [Santorum and Gingrich] would align together to try to defeat the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney?

Gingrich: Absolutely. Of course. I mean Rick and I have a 20-year friendship, we are both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that’s interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney…if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents.

That’s true if the combined Perry-Bachmann vote in Iowa went to Santorum.  It’s less true if it went to Gingrich alone — and as I’ve already mentioned, it’s less true in South Carolina for Santorum alone and even less true in New Hampshire in either or both scenarios.  Some of those voters might be inclined to go to Romney, however.  We won’t know until the field narrows.  But shouldn’t Gingrich be making the case for himself alone at this point if he was confident of his standing in the race, rather than endorsing tag-team efforts against one other opponent?  Gingrich seems to acknowledge that Romney has become the clear front-runner in a crowded field.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

their = they’re

/ugh

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Well, Mitt, it’s like you said it’s a rough game out there so if you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. Except you have your paid minions do your dirty work while you and your stepford wife act all pious and innocent. Newt may be a little harsh, but he tells it like it is and old Mutt should have told his goons that before they trashed him. It will be great to see old phony Mutt get his comeupance.

mozalf on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Ed…your insest love affair with Romney is evident.

Some (maybe 20%) of those voters might be inclined to go to Romney, however. We won’t know until the field narrows. But shouldn’t Gingrich be making the case for himself alone (Do you mean the “Moderate” vs the “Reagan Conservative”..you mean that comparison Ed”?) at this point if he was confident of his standing in the race, rather than endorsing tag-team efforts against one other opponent? Gingrich seems to acknowledge that Romney has become the clear front-runner( You mean your boyfriend ED…and the GOP establishment poster boy).in a crowded field.

Ed…you are become irrelivant with your perspective and infatuation with Romney. Hot Air IS now HOT GAS!!
Did you get your marching orders from Michele Malkin?

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I sure know how to pick ‘em.

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Well, having a sense of humor helps. At least you didn’t go all in for ?fred? in 2008.

csdeven on January 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Operation Chaos in NH.

Let us stop Romney by voting for Huntsman. Perry and the other conservatives have little chance of beating Romney, who has a 40+% poll lead.

I am guessing that most of us can’t vote in NH.

lea on January 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I would contribute to Newt’s campaign just to help him bring Romney down. And, Perry dislikes Romney almost as much.

Sparky5253 on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

If Newt goes after Romney, it helps Santorum. End. Of. Story.

Romney has tried to evade attacks, and it worked so far only because not enough firepower was directed at him. I’d like to see some nicely toasted RINO Mitt-on-a-spit roasting over a fire.

Release the hounds.

WhatNot on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Wow. Reading that made me dumber.

Red Cloud on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Ed,

Hate this sort of made up news …

Recall that Gingrich has been complaining for the last few days that he has been “Romney-boated,” a weird reference to the Swift Boat veterans in 2004 that objected to the depiction of John Kerry as a war hero.

What is weird about it? I assume you know that he was asked directly IF he had been swift boated and he humorously said no … Romney boated.

Newt didn’t make a “weird reference,” he was – using the reference made by the questioner – making the point that it is Romney, not some group who is culpable. He said it once, NOT “for the last few days.” as you also erroneously report.

You might disagree with that … but since that IS what happened … why not comment on that? Instead of giving two VERY false impressions?

Sloppy.

MarkCasper on January 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

TheRightMan on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

As suggested above, I’d second it that you go after Santorum and Gingrich. That leaves Perry vs Romney. Considering your support and confidence in Perry, wouldn’t you prefer that rather than going against Santorum and Gingrich?

csdeven on January 4, 2012 at 11:54 AM

ruh-ro! McCain is set to endorse Romney?! Can you spell Jinx.

uber-con on January 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Do you realize that irrespective of the outcome, Gingrich is damaged good for the rest of his political life?

csdeven

The real damage was done losing to McCain 2008 and Ted Kennedy in 94…and to add Romneycare.

The 75% will be speaking loudly in South Carolina.

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

You are defending this lying, despicable piece of crap? Do you really need to do that? Do you think this retread will soar again like a Phoenix? This is more like his Icarus moment, this turd ain’t a floater.

Igor R. on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Uh, yes. Obviously I disagree with your characterization. Who do you support? Mitt Romney? We have to make our decision from the available options. Romney, Paul, Newt, or Santorum (I’m betting Perry is out)?

Why, yes, I AM going to support the guy who took back the house after 40 years of democratic rule, balanced the federal budget, restrained spending, has a record of ACTUALLY reforming entitlements, understands the threat of radical Islam, and would run circles around Obama in the debates. How crazy of me!

All Mitt (or any candidate) has to do is run an ad featuring audio of a baby crying and run video/sound bites of Newt’s sore loser blame game moments over that sound track. No extra narration is necessary. Newt’s juvenile invective speaks for itself.

Philly on January 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Wait what? Newt’s a baby for saying he’s tired of Romeny’s lies and he’s going to fight back? We finally have a guy who says he’s going to take the fight to Romney and that’s a BAD thing? Romney needs to be challenged, he needs to be fought, and he needs to be beaten. This is a self described progressive (Who is not trying to return to Reagan Bush!) and he’s about to walk away with the Republican nomination at a time when we need a conservative most.

Half of all the ads run in Iowa were negative ads against him. Why shouldn’t he be peeved at Paul and Romney? Newt is far from perfect, but I am simply amazed at how many people are trashing him in this thread. Sorry I;m rooting for Newt. I don’t want Romney or Paul. I doubt Santorum has staying power or has the fiscally conservative credentials. And Perry has a great resume but is terrible in the debates. I could easily see Perry saying something stupid in October that hands things over to Obama.

Who does that leave? NEWT.

MikeRuss on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Since Perry has more money, it would be better for Newt to drop out and endorse Perry. However, I doubt Newt’s ego would allow that to happen.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

This is great news for Mitt, Santorum would look worse by teaming up with the angry sore loser Gingrich.

echosyst on January 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

What say you all?
:)
TheRightMan on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Nah. There might be some unforeseeable way it could help Perry.

Akzed on January 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Wow. Reading that made me dumber.

Red Cloud on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Yeah…pretty hard going from dumb to dumber..Congrats on that.

Now stick to the topic wise guy.

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM

What a useless turd Gingrich is turning out to be. Now he’s going to dedicate his campaign to smearing others, after pontificating for the entire cycle about how positive and honest he was. No principles at all, and even less of a chance of winning a single state. I hope he finishes behind Paul again in New Hampshire and South Carolina, completing the humiliation.

Ruiner on January 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM

The 75% will be speaking loudly in South Carolina.

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

The polling over the last two years undermines your claim. But, since the dynamic has change because Romney has won Iowa, we will see if the GOP base really wants to beat Obama as the priority or if a Romney nomination scares them.

I insist that the GOP base will nominate the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. That means the candidate that polls best among the indies. As of this time, and over the last 8 months, Romney is the only candidate that does so.

csdeven on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

MikeRuss on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

+1

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I insist that the GOP base will nominate the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. That means the candidate that polls best among the indies. As of this time, and over the last 8 months, Romney McCAIN is the only candidate that does so.

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM

/2008

Just sayin’

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Good. Anybody but Romney now.

Conservative4Ever on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Oh great, another Obama supporter.

Gunlock Bill on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

But shouldn’t Gingrich be making the case for himself alone at this point if he was confident of his standing in the race, rather than endorsing tag-team efforts against one other opponent?

Good post Ed, I agree with your analysis about Newt. I think even Newt now realizes he blew it for himself but he also knows that this is a fight for control of the Republican party itself. If conservatives are going to win it they have to consolidate the conservative vote. Santorum should already be on the phone to Newt promising him a spot in his Adm. if he will drop out and support him. Romney has shown no ability to move past 25% while the other 75% anti-Romney vote switch between all the other candidates. I don’t believe many of Newt’s, Perry’s, or Bauchmann’s supporters will move to Romney.

Dollayo on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Recall that Gingrich has been complaining for the last few days that he has been “Romney-boated,” a weird reference to the Swift Boat veterans in 2004 that objected to the depiction of John Kerry as a war hero.

Weird, indeed. Considering most conservatives believe the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their claims about Kerry. What is Newt insinuating here? That Kerry was unfairly smeared?

Kataklysmic on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Nope. Newt is insinuating that HE is being FAIRLY & ACCURATELY smeared….

Lenguado on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The GOP leadership needs to tell this stupid idiot to stop acting like a spoiled brat…… or he will be crushed like a bug. Seriously, he reminds of a moping teenager that got told he can’t go to the school dance. The arrogance of three weeks ago when he stated that his nomination was inevitable has been replaced with a three-day temper tantrum. This is doing nothing to make Gingrich look more Presidential.

I especially like the concept that he really didn’t lose by all that much if you just added up every vote cast except those of Romney and Paul there is some kind of conservative groundswell. It’s really stupid because Santorum tied Romney so of course when you add Gingrich’s paltry number of votes it is going to be “more” than Romney’s votes alone! GO HOME NEWT YOU FAT SPOILED BRAT CRY BABY!

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

MikeRuss, I’m not trashing Gingrich’s ideas; I’m trashing his juvenile behavior. Perhaps we now know why he is not so well-liked: It’s not his ideas; it’s his demeanor.

He’s an insider, not a rebellious firebrand (as he likes to call himself). To say he’s anti-establishment is a joke. When you are Speaker of the House and are run out of town by your own party, there might just be at least one decent reason. I think we’re witnessing this now.

It’s too late for Newt to unring the bell.

Philly on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You are defending this lying, despicable piece of crap? Do you really need to do that? Do you think this retread will soar again like a Phoenix? This is more like his Icarus moment, this turd ain’t a floater.

Igor R. on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Uh, yes. Obviously I disagree with your characterization. Who do you support? Mitt Romney? We have to make our decision from the available options. Romney, Paul, Newt, or Santorum (I’m betting Perry is out)?

I supported Cain, and then Bachmann. I don’t particularly support anyone now, but I prefer Mitt to Newt, and Santorum just a tiny bit to Mitt. I don’t really care at this point, unless it’s Paul, Newt, Perry, or Hunstman.

Igor R. on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

ruh-ro! McCain is set to endorse Romney?! Can you spell Jinx.

uber-con on January 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Simple: McCain beat Romney 2008
Obama beat McCain 2008

McCain endorsing Romney 2012…..

Now there’s a winning ticket….Romney/McCain….
Ah..the kiss of a loser endorsing another loser…just great.

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Petulant. If you want to help, Newt, why don’t you get out and support Santorum or Perry?

Dead Hand Control on January 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Romney has shown no ability to move past 25% while the other 75% anti-Romney vote switch between all the other candidates. I don’t believe many of Newt’s, Perry’s, or Bauchmann’s supporters will move to Romney.

Dollayo on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

And I don’t believe that when push comes to shove the anti-Romney crowd is going to stay home or vote for Obama. Many of us had to hold our noses and vote for McCain who was the least worse of two bad choices. If all the sore losers decide to throw a Newt Gingrich like temper tantrum by letting Obama win, then they have betrayed all they claim to care about in this nation.

Romney is far from the nominee at this point. Too much can happen, including some third party attempt which would split the vote in some way BUT to plan on destroying this nation just because Romney is the nominee shows a level of selfishness and spite that is well within keeping the immaturity Gingrich has shown these last few days.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The polling over the last two years undermines your claim. But, since the dynamic has change because Romney has won Iowa, we will see if the GOP base really wants to beat Obama as the priority or if a Romney nomination scares them.

I insist that the GOP base will nominate the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. That means the candidate that polls best among the indies. As of this time, and over the last 8 months, Romney is the only candidate that does so.

csdeven on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Polls?? Really Polls?

Actual votes…RESULTS.
75% of VOTERS VOTED YESTERDAY…NOT ROMNEY!!
Undermine…laughable. GOP Base=Establishment like yourself….convincing yourself that Romney is the “only one electable”….and at 25%? I’ll stick with the 75% that says otherwise.
Please don’t give me polls…..swami.

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Well here is how I see it…The Narcissist in Chief is the enemy and must be removed at all costs…that being said…you have to put yourself in the mind of your opponent and think like they do…so you know the chicago thuggery politics is going to come out hot and heavy starting somewhere between April and June…so if you were the sitting President what would you use against the GOP candidates…

Romney: “The legislation that the former governor passed was in great measure the “template” upon which we founded our own healthcare” We find it difficult to believe he would renounce his support of an idea that is benifitting millions of our fellow Americans as we speak” THIS in and of itself ensures that the Democrats win the Presidency in 2012!

Paul: “We find it unimaginable that the Congressmen would cause America to shirk her duties as leader of the free world by becoming reclusive and not participating in world affairs. Additionally how he could sabotage the future of our children and country with crazy talk of eliminating the department of Education proves he is nisguided at best and heinously mean at worst” Though Paul is right and I support his idea of eliminating whole departments you can see how easily this is spun!

Santorum: “It is unconscionable that the former Senator would consider placing the lives of young women across this country in grave jeopardy by his incessent desire to eliminate the choice of reproductive healthcare”. This will energize only the basest and hard core of the leftists but will not play as bad with the independents.

Gingrich: “We all know that the former speaker was “steeped” in the most vile and feckless portions of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle that we have worked so tirelessly to rebound from. Did we mention that he and he alone nearly brought this nation to her knees because of his partisan stonewalling that lead to a shutdown of the government where our military and seniors were almost not paid their just compensation. How many millions of people would his draconian policies affect today if I were not here as the only alternative to him?”

Say what you will when these scenarios would actually play out the order of being able to diffuse, recover, and build a new dialog shows that the strength for deconstructing the lefts narrative Starts with Newt, then goes to Santorum, then Paul and finally to the man who CANNOT win against Obama…Romney. If Romney ends up as the Nominee you might as well not vote because Romneycare is a TRUE Achilles heel that the others do not have in such a pronounced way!!!!

RedLizard64 on January 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Petulant. If you want to help, Newt, why don’t you get out and support Santorum or Perry?

Dead Hand Control on January 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I could say the same for RPaul or…if Mitt really cared he’d get out right now. No one wants them.

tinkerthinker on January 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

MikeRuss……good job! While I think Newt is wrong in his defense of GSEs’, he did nothing wrong with those fees his company received.

AS for Ed’s conclusions, don’t forget, Ed, 75% of Iowa voters have rejected Romney!

tomshup on January 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Aaww, how cute. Grandpa Grumpypants wants to make friends.
Though seeing Gingrich win the nomination would be fun to see him debate Obama and have that photo-negative effect going on, same person, different color.

Zaggs on January 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I have never followed a primary this closely before. Are there always these weird surges? The way popularity is going round-robin is about to make me nuts.

I’ve never been bonzo about Romney or Gingrich, I like Paul, but there just seem to be too many people that think that he’s like the crazy uncle that nobody talks about in polite company, Perry and Cain had a chance, but blew that out of the water, and I just don’t know a lot about Santorum. I hadn’t paid much attention to him, because I didn’t think he had a chance in hell.

This is all just making me crazy. Anybody think Santorum stands a chance against the O-man?

sage0925 on January 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

So just to make sure I have this right, in 2008 66% of the Iowa Caucus voted not Huckabee right? So that must mean in 2000 60% voted not Bush.

Zaggs on January 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Anybody but Romney. Must. Beat. Romney. I’ll take Huntsman, Santorum or Newt happily to do it.

Go for it Newt!

Galadriel on January 4, 2012 at 12:28 PM

You know, maybe the liberals were right, maybe we conservatives ARE too stupid. Maybe we do deserve to lose.

Romney will get destroyed by Obama. DESTROYED.

ROMNEYCARE
ROMNEYCARE
ROMNEYCARE

That’s all we’ll hear blaring from the media for the next year if Romney is the nominee. And he’ll have to spend 90% of the time defending the indefensible.

I’m just tired and fed up…with the whole lot of y’all.

tkyang99 on January 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Was Romney chosen at the Bohemian Grove this past summer?

Just sayin . . . .

guitarman67 on January 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

ROMNEYCARE

That’s all we’ll hear blaring from the media for the next year if Romney is the nominee. And he’ll have to spend 90% of the time defending the indefensible.

Not really. If the media goes full force Romneycare, that invites comparisons to what? Exactly, another program that is way over budget. Romney can still say Romneycare didn’t turn out how he envisioned it. Obama would have no such defense.

Zaggs on January 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Igor R. on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

How on earth could a Cain supporter like Mitt better than Newt?

Newt’s economic plan is far closer to Cain’s and he’s more reliable on just about every other issue too.

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

This marriage of convenience (Newtie & Ricky) will not last longer than the 72 Kardashian fling. If they truly hobble Mittens in their tag-team wrestlemania, Newtie will then drop Ricky like a hot rock!

Bob in VA on January 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Love all you Romneybots…..Newt’s coming out fighting and you all complain…. saying Newt’s: immature,juvenile behavior,Petulant,retread,complaining,spoiled brat,damaged good and temper tantrum…..
Can’t you admitt that Newt took it on the chin in Iowa? I can..let’s move on.Really? Aren’t you up for a good fight? I am…
Newt’s going to take the gloves off and start giving it back to Romney and now you all start whinning…..
Not sure what you Romenycare lovers are afraid of if Newt is a non contender candidate…right? What can Newt do at this point to the 25% candidate?

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Rush Limbaugh doing an awesome job in shooting down the narrative that Santorum is a “big government conservative.” That is plain BS mean’t to take Santorum out.

KickandSwimMom on January 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM

STOP. WITH. THE. ROMNEY. SHILLING.

The latest posts by Ed & Allah trying to spin everything to Romney’s favor is pathetic.

Norwegian on January 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Let’s see. Ed, Allah, and Michelle get together some time way back when, work their tails off posting and analyzing and providing opinion and commentary through three POTUS elections, night and day slaving and putting in all kinds of sweat equity to HA..

..and you just now saunter up and object to the fact that they express an opinion or offer their views?

You want objective reportage, I submit this is not the venue for that. You want to express an opinion? Please go ahead — or start your own blog and blather away.

The War Planner on January 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM

It appears that many non-Democrats are willing to take another fours years of Obama just to defeat Romney. With that kind of attitude it’s no wonder Obama got elected the first time and that he’s about to get another term to complete the destruction of the United States. Good luck with that people, but when you do it don’t be whining about the dire state we are in because you’re holding the bag on this one.

rplat on January 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

75% of VOTERS VOTED YESTERDAY…NOT SANTORUM!!

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Fixed it for you!

Gunlock Bill on January 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I was referring to the Republican primary and not the general election. The conservatives need someone to drop out to over take Romney the RINO. If Newt drops out and supports Santorum I think most of his 13% would probably go to either Santorum or Perry. I think if Perry drops out most of his 10% will go to either Santorum or Newt. I just don’t see many Newt or Perry supporters switching to Romney in the primary if their candidates drop out. In the general election I believe most Republican primary voters will vote for anyone but Obama.

Dollayo on January 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

There does seem to be this morning an annoying lean among conservative punditry to unite around Romney. This will happen if necessary, but only after ALL of the potential anti-Romneys have been examined. The audition is over for Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and even Ron Paul’s soft support is peeling away.

Rick Santorum’s opportunity is underestimated, but he must stand through the coming barrage of establishment Republican fire. Romney and minions will tie Santorum to DC excesses circa 2000 to 2006. This is the worst they can say about him, “Hey, he was one of us.”, hence not a conservative champion. Republican Party excesses during this period were disgusting (only to be exceeded by the more recent Democratic party excesses.)

Rick Santorum needs to conservatively support and defend the United States Consitution, educating about the importance of individual liberty and limited government. We will decide whether he has gained enough distance from establishment Republicans to render this defense credible.

The 2012 general election debate needs to be simply Big Government (job killing) vs. limited government (job promoting). It is already clear Mitt Romney’s campaign will be for fiscally responsible government, i.e. the biggest goverment which can be afforded. I can settle for this only if no credible, limited government proponent appears.

Liberalism has taken a giant crap on the country, and a time is coming to smear lefty noses in it. Romney is not the guy. Santorum? I am eager to be convinced.

exdeadhead on January 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The problem with Newt that I have is that if positions were reversed, and he had money, super-pacs and yet faced an upstart in the polls, that he would have hammered the new threat just as hard if not harder than Romney did. Its a little disingenuous of him to have all this outrageous outrage at the fact that a political operator took advantage of an opportunity he himself would have taken.

Tacitus on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I listened to Laura this morning and she is onto something. If Newt would step aside, endorse Santorum, then the both of them combine resources and time to take down Romney, we could still get a Conservative in office. Santorum/Gingrich 2012!

Decoski on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

What a petulant little turd Gingrich is- and mark my words, if Santorum is the candidate and gets his ass handed to him by Obama, Newt will be right there pontificating about how “If HE were the nominee, it would have been a whole different story”.

I simply can’t understand why those of you who are giddy at the prospect of a Republican food-fight, can’t appreciate how this will all reflect on the Republican party. It’s pathetic, and it ensures an Obama victory.

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

rplat, many of us don’t buy the narrative that Romney is “electable.” We also feel that he is dishonest, has no principles other than naked ambition, and will set back the conservative movement a generation.

Which is worse- Obama or Romney? I’ll probably vote for Romney if he gets the nom, but there are some who won’t. It’s just a fact. If you want to try to win without conservatives, be our guests.

As for me, until this is settled it is anybody but Romney. And I mean anybody, except maybe Ron Paul. I would almost take a ham sandwich over Romney at this point I’m that fed up with him.

McCain was a moderate who only managed to do as well as he did because he had a fabulous personal story as a war hero. What does Romney have to attract independents and assuage conservatives? He’s got nothing, except a few years laying people off so he could make a bloody fortune. What in the heck is electable about that?

Galadriel on January 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Makes me laugh how Newt is painting Santorum and himself as rebels and outsiders to the Washington establishment. They both worked in Washington and were part of that establishment. Romney never worked in Washington but he is the establishment. What a farse. And didnt Santorum endorse Romney in 2008 as a true conservative? Again, what a farse!

WyoMike on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Not sure what you Romenycare lovers are afraid of if Newt is a non contender candidate…right? What can Newt do at this point to the 25% candidate?

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

1. You haven’t had enough of Obama’s petulance? You may accept that Newt took one on the chin (although that didn’t stop your little rant about Hot Air bias earlier), but he doesn’t, blaming it on everything but his own past.
2. I’m in Perry’s camp. The Kamikaze candidacy was obnoxious when Huckabee did it, even more so when Bachmann did it, but now people are totally on board because Romney’s the target again.
3. Romney is fair game for negative attacks, but why shouldn’t this be about who the best person to serve is among those with skin in the game, rather than Newt’s butthurt?

Dead Hand Control on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

If Newt would step aside, endorse Santorum, then the both of them combine resources and time to take down Romney, we could still get a Conservative in office. Santorum/Gingrich 2012!

Decoski on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

What, are you going to wave your magic election wand or something? Santorum may be a “true” conservative in your opinion, but he’ll never get elected in the general. Never.

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Its a little disingenuous of him to have all this outrageous outrage at the fact that a political operator took advantage of an opportunity he himself would have taken.

Tacitus on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

If Newt is going to get into a snit over the first ads challenging his version of the record, he isn’t emotionally mature enough to deal with a general election where he will be challenged by the MSM machine and Obama propagandists.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Romney is the petulant turd here, I am surprised you can’t see that.

Santorum cannot compete nationally. Neither can Bachmann or Perry. Gingrich can. He’s smart enough to know not to antagonize people’s supporters, which is the reason for this Santorum comment. The fundamental criticisms are that Gingrich is not conservative and has too big an ego. Romney is equally guilty of both of those shortcomings. Conservatives need to realize that there is not a viable conservative in the race and decide whether they would rather have Romney or Gingrich, who is the only remaining candidate with the following, money and name recognition to challenge him.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Lie Gingrich did NOT get 1.6 Million and did NOT lobby. A firm he worked for did he got 35K per year a very small pay according to him.
Facts are stubborn things.
At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac
To Make this clear go to the NY times and see how Newt consistently voted against Freddie Mac

This is why Newt cratered sites like this and many others repeated the Romney lies with no checking. Guess this site is no better than Media Matters sometimes.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

If Newt is going to get into a snit over the first ads challenging his version of the record, he isn’t emotionally mature enough to deal with a general election where he will be challenged by the MSM machine and Obama propagandists.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Like Mitt’s snit when he was challenged by Chris Wallace? Romney cannot take the heat he dishes out.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

People seem to be missing the point here. Newt is floating a balloon: join my ticket in the VP slot.

Santorum is much younger and has less political experience than Newt. He is a perfect veep candidate. He can (theoretically) deliver a major state, having carried it twice (and been blown away too). He shores up credentials with the conservative base and serves as a sort of moral counterweight to Newt’s various peccadilloes.

spiritof61 on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Just sayin’

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM

This isn’t 2008. WE have Obama to remove. Romney is the only candidate that has shown the ability to attract indies. That makes him the most electable.

csdeven on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Well, I respectfully disagree. I personally find Newt Gingrich to be a completely disagreeable, egotistical, pig. HOWEVER, if I thought, for one minute that he could beat Obama, I might vote for him. But he can’t. The only people willing to even consider Newt are far right conservatives, and that’s not enough to win an election. In fact- if you were to poll independents and moderates they would overwhelmingly say, “No thanks” to Newt. And we’re left with four more years of Obama. Oh boy.

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Gingrich can also get far more conservative republicans on board than Romney the Moderate RINO ever could. Newt may like Government more than he should but he is definitely conservative. “Contract with America” was the only reason the Republican Party began to matter. Newt can bring that back. We will all benefit. Romney basically will continue in the GWB/Obama model of incremental change towards more and more Socialist policies. I seriously doubt will actually get rid of Obama Care he will just find that impossible according to him in a few years if he wins.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Cool. His royal Newtness is about to get another lesson in why you don’t argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. He and Rick together can barely scrape up the money for air fare to the Palmetto state. There’s a reason it it’s called a war chest and not a make nice chest.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Name me a Politician that does not have a huge ego. Were it too bad he would have never been named Speaker. You do know how difficult becoming Speaker is do you not.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Cool. His royal Newtness is about to get another lesson in why you don’t argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. He and Rick together can barely scrape up the money for air fare to the Palmetto state. There’s a reason it it’s called a war chest and not a make nice chest.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I think he finally has. Too bad it took so long. I will criticize him on that one a bit. However he may prove me wrong. Iowa has never mattered in history he finished exactly where McCain did. Will that mean he will win the nomination hardly but it also means do NOT count him out.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM

My opinions can be found here. Let’s just say they do not favor Newt.

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Coach is definitely the most hilarious Romney hater I’ve seen yet. His passion is simply delightful as he lashes out furiously against anybody he even suspects of supporting Romney. I always get a kick out of watching people like coach jump back on board during the general.

Zetterson on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Iowa is not a place where you win the nomination. It is where you lose it. Mitt’s only realistic opposition lost it there.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

People seem to be missing the point here. Newt is floating a balloon: join my ticket in the VP slot.

spiritof61 on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Like the balloon he floated just becoming Speaker perhaps.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Rick Santorum seems a genuinely humble person. He’s convinced and passionate about policy though.

exdeadhead on January 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM

No one is going to help Newt go after Romney. No donor…no elected official. In fact, Gingrich will destroy his standing in the party if all he wants to do is bludgeon another candidate.

rubberneck on January 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM

“This guy’s unelectable.”

Mitt would beat Obama.
Newt would beat Obama.
Perry, Santorum, hell even Bachmann would beat Obama.

The Democrats are running a failed president for reelection. John McCain could beat him. The only certain loser in a matchup with Obama is Ron Paul.

It doesn’t matter which candidate you’re pumping. Focus on why that candidate is best for the country. Because if you think that it’s all over but the shouting and the media propaganda machine decides the issue, you might as well stay home and shut up.

spiritof61 on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

This is why Newt cratered sites like this and many others repeated the Romney lies with no checking. Guess this site is no better than Media Matters sometimes.

Steveangell

And I thought only the Obamatons were this brainwashed. Lets examine two sentences from this masterpiece:

“A firm he worked for did he got 35K per year a very small pay according to him.” and compare it to “This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients.”

So the first question is, how do you simply “work at” a firm you own? Anyone? Also going by the name Newt was either the only, or primary owner. So saying he was given the 1.6 million is not off the mark.
Now we move on to:

“At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm.”

Yes, the Gingrich Group, who’s first Google result says “launched in late 2000 as a strategic consulting company” was paid 1.6 million to analyze historic lending patterns. Because thats what Strategic Consulting groups do apparently. I mean no lobbying group has ever called itself that right? Why not Newt? If there is one thing the man has no experience in, its historic lending patterns. Though degrees in History and European History really lend themselves to housing lending patterns.
NOw I present another whopper:
Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac

To Make this clear go to the NY times and see how Newt consistently voted against Freddie Mac

So he voted against the group before he was hired by the group. Wowzers. Yeah, he lobbied for them AFTER he lost the power to vote. Its weird I know.

Zaggs on January 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Prince Newt knows personal revenge is a dish best served without regard to the consequences to the party or nation and devoured with the same gusto he employs with fatty foods and future ex-wives.

borntoraisehogs on January 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Newt needs to stay in long enough to spend millions of dollars on negative ads against Romney, and then he can drop out.

besser tot als rot on January 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Who is gonna give Newt a red cent to make that happen? You?

rubberneck on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Name me a Politician that does not have a huge ego. Were it too bad he would have never been named Speaker. You do know how difficult becoming Speaker is do you not.

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

A strong ego, a strong sense of self, is a good thing. Making a friggin’ public statement that, “Let’s face it, I’m going to be the nominee” back when he was temporarily riding a nice high was idiotic. Newt also tends to have knee-jerk reactions based on his enormous ego. Like right about now, he might be regretting that he spoke out loud about joining forces with Santorum to defeat Romney. There are well founded reasons why everyone he’s ever worked with, hate him!

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I would contribute to Newt’s campaign just to help him bring Romney down. And, Perry dislikes Romney almost as much.

Sparky5253 on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Are you a talibangelical suicide bomber?

borntoraisehogs on January 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I simply can’t understand why those of you who are giddy at the prospect of a Republican food-fight, can’t appreciate how this will all reflect on the Republican party. It’s pathetic, and it ensures an Obama victory.

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Huh? Mitt gets to throw all the food and no one else does? No way- FOOD FIGHT!

tinkerthinker on January 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM

“I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who aren’t going to be the nominee, I’m going to be the nominee.” -Newt’s Ego

we hardly knew ye

hanzblinx on January 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

BettyRuth on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

He’s a chronic sufferer of Newt in mouth disease.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

“I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who aren’t going to be the nominee, I’m going to be the nominee.”

That’s not ego.

tinkerthinker on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Gingrich is angry with Romney because he got 1/1000 the negative ads Obama would have run against him in a general that he couldn’t respond to because a) they are true and b) he has no money. But, what I am talking about? It’s not like a guy with more baggage than a 747 and not much money can win the messaging wars with an incumbent president looking to spend $1B.

So, yeah, let’s consolidate behind Santorum, whose organization outside of Iowa is on par with my organization outside of Iowa, because as we all know, this election is more about settling scores among primary opponents than throwing Obama out on his ear. Brilliant strategy.

The Count on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

No, he’s probably angry that we’re doing the DNC’s work for them rather than taking the fight to Obama.

Obama’s minions are going to find dirt or make it up. Let them spend their own time and money to do that. Why do we want to help them?

I’d be po’d too. You note that the candidates did the best when they were taking it to Obama, not each other.

Actually, I’m now really po’d as well. There’s a difference between campaigning for yourself as opposed to tearing down others.

But that seems to be something that’s been sorely forgotten here, so it’s not a surprise that doing the DNC’s work for them is not an issue.

I’m really starting to believe that an Obama second term is an inevitability if the comments on this blog are representative of the public at large.

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Our top 4 are really Mitt, Santorum, Paul and Newt?

Paul is really my best option?!?!!

Oh brother. In a year when a ham sandwich could beat Obama and this is the best we’ve got? Forget windmill power. Hook up some generators to the Founding Fathers. They are spinning in their graves fast enough to light up Rio.

miConsevative on January 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I’m not a big fan of alliances between people running for the same office, it creates too much strife with the supporters. We have enough of that already and only one person can win. And I doubt it will be either of these two gentleman. Sen. Santorum is still in the early glow of a surprising accomplishment and it will end any minute now. Colmes was nothing.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

It, (alliances).. works on some of those television shows like “Survivor”…and the strife, just gets more intense when the number of people dwindle.
Colmes is a Mother Teresa, compared to what’s coming to any nominee we have.

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

No, he’s probably angry that we’re doing the DNC’s work for them rather than taking the fight to Obama.

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Personally, I’m fine with Mitt getting his hair mussed. It should toughen him up a bit more, if he needs it. However for one who feels as you do, then it seems passing strange that you should want to see Newt “doing the DNC’s work” for them.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Anybody recall the outrage when Huckabee threw his delegates to McCain in order to derail Romney back in 2008?

yeah, me neither

I can do Santorum or Romney but I’d prefer Santorum.

DanMan on January 4, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No, he’s probably angry that we’re doing the DNC’s work for them rather than taking the fight to Obama.

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Personally, I’m fine with Mitt getting his hair mussed. It should toughen him up a bit more, if he needs it. However for one who feels as you do, then it seems passing strange that you should want to see Newt “doing the DNC’s work” for them.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Where did I say such a thing? I’ll wait.

But just to burn your strawman: All should answer for their past POLITICAL decisions and what they believe in. Isn’t that what the debates *should* be for?

Anyone who does a negative ad on another Republican candidate should be tarred and feathered, whoever it is.

The negative ads (or gentle reminders of how useless he is) should be solely towards Obama.

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The negative ads (or gentle reminders of how useless he is) should be solely towards Obama.

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Let me try this again. I think that negative ads, even against primary opponents is a good thing. That is provided they’re honest. The other side won’t play nice and if our guy can’t take it we should know about that before we’ve nominated him.

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Boy, the Romney folk are sure upset about Newt fighting back after weeks of being Romney’s punching bag. I thought Ed and others were all over Newt because he chose to run a positive campaign, and not respond in like manner.

Romney and friends earned many beloved pinocchio awards for the lies they told in their incessant barrage of ads. Not to mention the collusion of the establishment media in destroying Newt’s candidacy. I have…never…seen any candidate savaged the way Newt Gingrich has been. Never.

Now Newt is fighting back, and the Romney establishment folk are having little hissy fits. If Newt is as inconsequential as you keep telling us, why are you whining so much?

Newt will tell the truth about Romney’s liberal record. That should do the trick.

The not-Romney candidates should have joined forces against Mitt long ago, but it’s never too late.

Go for it Newt!

IndeCon on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Now Newt is fighting back, and the Romney establishment folk are having little hissy fits. If Newt is as inconsequential as you keep telling us, why are you whining so much?

IndeCon on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

What blog are you reading?

MJBrutus on January 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

OMG. via Fox, Sen. Bob Smith, Newt supporter, pushing lie that Mitt made fun of Newt when he teared up over his mother.

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Anyone who does a negative ad on another Republican candidate should be tarred and feathered, whoever it is.
kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

This is a preposterous statement. I wager there has never, ever been a primary which did not use “negatives” about another opponent in the history of the country (whether it be through ads, or other ways of voicing negatives about one’s opponent through speeches, debates, letters to the Editor, op-eds, speaking from a soapbox, or duels).

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 2:10 PM

People are going to get sick of it very fast.

Never underestimate the gullibility and outright stupidity of we the people. Obama did get elected afterall. Newt should know better.

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Wall Street corrupt pawn “promise them anything, just get their votes” Obamalite Mitt Romney, Repo Men.

Wall Street not only bought itself a president, but … Now there’s a whole bunch of people wanting to get paid back and not enough money for everybody to get made whole, and the big Wall Street banks want to make sure that they’re first in line, with the government rewriting the rules of bankruptcy to put them ahead of the local-yokel customers out in the sticks. So there you have it: hedge-fund titans, i-bankers, congressional nabobs, committee chairmen, senators, swindlers, run-of-the-mill politicos, and a few outright thieves (these categories are not necessarily exclusive) all feeding at the same trough, and most of them betting that Mitt Romney won’t do anything more to stop it than Barack Obama did. Either way, the last thing Wall Street wants is for the Corzine scandal to launch a new round of frenzied outrage out there on the fruited plains where dwell people who don’t know an IPO from a CDS, and who might suspect that something here is not entirely on the up-and-up. They’re hoping that conservatives can be buffaloed with a bit of cheap free-market rhetoric into not noticing that something is excruciatingly amiss here. They are the repo men, headpiece filled with subprime-mortgage derivatives, and they are looking to repossess the Republican party they abandoned in 2008 …

And the neoconservative pay-off is to see that result through, with Santorum’s bonus baby ablaze: “I’ll Attack China!”

Of all the wheeler-dealers, the only voters surprised that Newt can spin a political alliance with Santorum were born yesterday. And as Ingraham noted in her conclusion, Newt’s FLA et al. polls are still very strong. There’s no sense expecting Newt’s pull out now, especially given Santorum’s johnny-come-lately surge that could expire at any moment.

maverick muse on January 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM

kim roy on January 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

That would be great but I don’t think it is realistic.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM

It will be great to see old phony Mutt get his comeupance.

mozalf on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

yeah, like a big-time looser like Gingrich could derail Romney’s race to the top…not to mention that his campaign is in debt, his ‘treasury’ empty, he couldn’t run one ad in Iowa, let alone from now on when his donations will go south…bottom line is he’s over his head in this, and he’d just better get out of there and stop making a fool of himself… he’s just a sore looser and people see him for what he is, a pathetic arrogant a*^& who got exactly what he deserved in Iowa….and talking of Stepford wife…hahaha, at least Romney’s wife is real, a mother of 5 wonderful boys…actually that robotic Calista is the perfect poster child for the Stepford wife :-)…

jimver on January 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM

maverick muse on January 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I agree, it is far too early for this to be over.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3