Gingrich on Romney: “Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

posted at 4:50 pm on January 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

A cute zinger which Romney will instantly destroy as soon as he reminds people of where this same logic would have gotten us in 1980.

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Newt asked a standing-room only crowd in Myrtle Beach, S.C…

Gingrich then challenged Romney to a 90-minute, one-on-one debate “anywhere in the state” of South Carolina on Friday night. He said they could sell $10 tickets and donate the proceeds to the charity of Romney’s choosing.

“There is zero chance he’ll take it,” Gingrich said. “He won’t debate and the reason is simple, he can’t defend his record as governor.”

He’s attacking Romney’s alleged electability here, which is fair enough, but I think it’s too late to change public perceptions about that now. Check out these three data points from today’s Fox News poll. Point one: Republican voters are, understandably, placing more weight on electability as the campaign heats up.

Point two: Not only are tea partiers willing to support a nominee who isn’t ideal, they’re considerably more likely to make that compromise than the average Republicans is:

That jibes with what Scott Rasmussen found when he surveyed Florida, where fully 94 percent of tea-party likely voters say they’ll back the eventual nominee versus just 77 percent of Republicans generally who say so. Job one for TPers this year is beating Obama, even if that means holding their noses and voting for you know who.

Finally, point three: The race for the nomination lurches onward but the race to convince voters who’s most electable is well and truly over.

Yeah, granted, Romney’s numbers there are a product of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire and would take a hit if Gingrich upsets him in South Carolina, but he’s almost certainly going to rebound in Florida 10 days later. He leads by 17 points there in the new ARG poll out today and has all the money and organization he needs to bury Gingrich. At worst he’ll go three for four in the early states, including a win in the last and largest of the four, which will leave him still looking like the most electable candidate in the field come Super Tuesday. In fact, go read this depressing Nate Silver number-crunch of Romney’s national numbers claiming that no one who’s had a lead this large has ever gone on to lose the nomination. Exit quotation: “Thus, although Mr. Romney would help himself to lock up the nomination with a win South Carolina, it is not clear how vulnerable he would be even with a loss there. Polls normally become considerably less volatile after New Hampshire as voter preferences become firmer, which means that Mr. Romney’s Republican rivals have already missed their best window to upend him.”


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 4

Comparing Romney 2008 to Reagan in 1976 is far fetched. Ford was the sitting president. How many times has a sitting president lost in a primary? Has it ever happened?

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM

LOL – In your way of thinking- you would NEVER have approved or Voted for Ronald Wilson REAGAN because of his Barry Goldwater-less moderate background and would have hung him for the Pro-Abortion bill he signed as Gov. of CA. Nope- you would have denied the Gipper !

And we all know how that turned out.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM

EddieC on January 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I wonder if Newt could hear ocean sounds coming out from her conch

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:24 PM

but I think it’s too late to change public perceptions about that now.

Funny how that works, spend all your time running around screeching the class warfare crap, then the clock runs out on ya. Deserved.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Thanks Newt! Finally, one of the candidates makes the argument that I have been wondering for years.

HellCat on January 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The myth of Romney’s electability is way over rated, but the psychology of herd’s is in effect.

SMACKRUNNER on January 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Yep I don’t know how the Establishment Republicans expect to turn the herd – but the pens are waiting for them.

Dr Evil on January 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I’ve read and heard that Newt is the smartest guy in the room and the best debater. Then I remember the same things being said about Obama. The way the left rhapsodizes about O’s genius, you’d think he was a polymath, but when you see him speak, you realize quickly that he’s a one trick pony and a charlatan. I wish Romney were more polished in his speeches, but on business, economics, management and executive experience, he’s so superior it should be called in the first round.

flataffect on January 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

And why would Romney want to bother debating someone who came in 4th in Iowa and New Hampshire? Or was it 5th in New Hampshire?

JPeterman on January 16, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Because it would sharpen him up for Obama. You will recall this conversation this summer/fall.

Also, Romney declined before he won too. He is too cautious and ‘too good’.

The Cain/Newt forum was excellent, even if none of us are for any of the two.

Please think things through – you definitely are a sharp mind. If he refuses to debate Newt, Obama will decimate him, not on substance, but on b/s and his overhyped ‘charisma’.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Why would anyone vote for someone like Gingrich who has a colossal temper and an inability to moderate his tongue. Ye, gods….he’d push the little red button in a heartbeat and destroy us all.

chai on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

JPeterman on January 16, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Plus, what is he afraid of?

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Another poster asked this in the headlines, will Huntsman still be on the ballot in SC? If so that should take away from Romney’s totals, even if only a little. Maybe that is payback from Huntsman.

txmomof6 on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Guess Democrat smellers ain’t so good…FDR, JFK, LBJ

Limerick on January 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Did any of them every get caught on tape saying I LOVE TO FIRE PEOPLE?

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

All perfectly legal but it fails the smell test

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Your side has no credibility on smell tests.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Take this skeptic (against AGW theory) blog’s recent uncomplicated, positive view of the R nomination:

I can’t see any outcome other than Romney. Gingrich is fatally flawed…The press has already destroyed all the best candidates.

The good news is that Romney is articulate, and unlike the dithering old guy that ran in 2008 – he should be able to take Obama apart in a debate.

anotherJoe on January 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Hey Gunlock Bille Bob,

Tell me again how Romney cut $1.6B from the budget even though spending increased by 30% during Romney’s 4 years as governor?

I love Gunlock Billie Bob math where 1+1=19

Debbie Wasserman angryeyed on January 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I have explained it to you already, but in typical Libtard/ABRtard fashion, it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

High School concepts like budgeting are hard for ABRtards like you.

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

flataffect on January 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Romney will win the “Anybody but Obama” voters.

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

None of the other candidates are really making a challenge to Romney. The only time they took good shots at Romney was on the Sunday morning debate that nobody watch. I’m for Ron Paul but not even he is taking any shots at the White Obama.

Tonight’s debate is going to be Romney’s big feather fight. Not worth the time to watch. Since when liberalism became the new conservatism?

Capitalist75 on January 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Seriously, if your objective is to be an idiot, than you are succeeding immeasurably.

rubberneck on January 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Just trying to keep up with idiots like you!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

::rolls eyes::

rubberneck on January 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Lets see. Newt lost to romney in iowa and newhampshire.

why should we vote for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy.

gerrym51 on January 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Indeed, how about we nominate the guy who lost to everybody and their dog in NH. Brilliant.

hanzblinx on January 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I have explained it to you already, but in typical Libtard/ABRtard fashion, it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

High School concepts like budgeting are hard for ABRtards like you.

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

In high school you learned that $X – 1.6B > $X ? Because that’s what you’re saying when you claim Romney cut $1.6B from the budget even though the budget had more spending each of his years as gov.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Newt doesn’t believe cap and trade is the best way to combat global warming. The only reason he filmed that commercial with Pelosi is because Calista’s t-cell count came back higher than expected the previous week. Jeez, give the guy a break.

EddieC on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Can I get a “time for a brokered convention!” Hell YEAH!

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Let’s nominate the guy who lost to the guy who didn’t even put up a fight against Obama.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Why would you want to nominate the guy who can’t win even a single primary of his own party?

Why would you want to nominate the guy who twice in the last month lost to the guy who lost to the guy who lost the last election?

Newt, you’re making it too easy…

JustTruth101 on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

::rolls eyes::

rubberneck on January 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

less histrionics next time

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Did any of them every get caught on tape saying I LOVE TO FIRE PEOPLE?

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

And your point? Seems to me a good firing is as good as a good hiring.

Limerick on January 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Option 1. A serial adulterer, anti-capitalist, hypocritical egotist and global warming alarmist who attacked the Ryan plan and supported an individual insurance mandate in addition to raking in 1.6 million dollars of taxpayer money for services as a consultant to FM.

Option 2. A businessman who generated an impressive record of turning around bloated, overstaffed companies with unsustainable pension commitments who couldn’t meet their bottom line (just like the current federal government).

Wow, what a tough choice. I’d love to see someone go Bain on the Federal government.

talkingpoints on January 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

why should we vote for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy.

gerrym51 on January 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM
+1

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

There you go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:32 PM

In high school you learned that $X – 1.6B > $X ? Because that’s what you’re saying when you claim Romney cut $1.6B from the budget even though the budget had more spending each of his years as gov.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Like I said earlier and you demonstrate here, it is beyond your ABRtard ability to comprehend.

But in a few years, you will be in High School and they will attempt to help you comprehend it.

I doubt they will succeed.

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Can I get a “time for a brokered convention!” Hell YEAH!

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

You’ll vote for Obama, again. Why do you even care?

The land needs a leader, and none are in the race, on both sides.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I have to admit that some of you are kind of cute when you go all drama queen on people….If you had the principles you claim you have you would respect the democratic process that is occurring.

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The same “democratic process” that ultimately brought us Obama? That’s lovely.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And your point? Seems to me a good firing is as good as a good hiring.

Limerick on January 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Imagine!

A President looking to curb government waste in Washington, DC who LOVES TO FIRE PEOPLE

I just felt an up tinkle!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Newt looks desperate. This won’t work

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

U mad? Who, I wonder, would fare better than Romney at this point? That’s the central question, as most Republicans want, first and foremost, to beat Obama. Do you honestly believe Newt would do better against the One, with all his baggage? Or Santorum, with the heavy emphasis on social issues his candidacy would bring?

No, Romney isn’t the ideal conservative candidate…but, none existed this go ’round, either.

changer1701 on January 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Ask yourself why that’s the case.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

The same “democratic process” that ultimately brought us Obama? That’s lovely.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

That was democratic; what about Obamacare?

May Nancy’s broom, er hammer, take her on a flight, never to return. Waving at you Nance…

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Plus, what is he afraid of?

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Rule number one on engagement. Never put yourself in a position that could lead to an unforced error.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Like I said earlier and you demonstrate here, it is beyond your ABRtard ability to comprehend.

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Why don’t you just answer his question? Do they do 10-year budgeting in MA and did Romney cut $1.6B in planned spending over that period?

EddieC on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And the one that brought us Reagan. yes the same one. But the priests of self professed conservativism will not agree.

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Rule number one on engagement. Never put yourself in a position that could lead to an unforced error.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

He hasn’t been to war, yet. Wait until the primaries are over.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Stop the feeble comparisons of “The Legacy” Mitt Romney to Ronaldus Magnus. There is none. Reagan was a Conservative.

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Let’s nominate the guy who lost to the guy who didn’t even put up a fight against Obama.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Honorably!

/s

Joe Mama on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

He hasn’t been to war, yet. Wait until the primaries are over.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Can’t wait to see Obama run on his unemployment record!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

We nominated the guy who lost to Gerald Ford in 1976 when Ford went on to lose to Jimmy Carter.

msmveritas on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Given Mitt’s lead, if he agreed to the one-on-one debate Newt demands, people would rightfully question whether Mitt is smart enough to be Prez.

Not to mention: there is already a debate tonight!

kunegetikos on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Stop the feeble comparisons of “The Legacy” Mitt Romney to Ronaldus Magnus. There is none. Reagan was a Conservative.

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Well, he wasn’t always, and in his second term he made a few dire mistakes, slipping on his conservatism.

Romney still isn’t one.

But to compare anyone to the great RR is risible.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Ahh not so young Jedi… soon you will call him Master!

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Can’t wait to see Obama run on his unemployment record!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

He won’t have to. Isn’t it clear to so many of you why Obama and his capos want Romney? That the rightie establishment, with Hume holding the flad up front, don’t see it is incredible. They’ll get theirs. Too bad the land will too.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Romney lost to McCain because it was McCain’s “turn.” Romney would’ve been a better candidate than McCain then, and he’s a better candidate now. It’s hard to over-express the terribleness of McCain, but the real tragedy is that this doesn’t necessarily mean the other candidates were worse.

HB3 on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Here’s a prospect to warm your hearts, Mikey Kaus at the Daily Beast thinks Mitt will flip-flop on amnesty for illegals after the convention before the election to pander to the Hispanic vote. http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/15/will-mitt-flip-a-third-time/

txmomof6 on January 16, 2012 at 5:10 PM

There is not a doubt in my ming.

katy the mean old lady on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I already have a Master…and a Savior.

Mittens is just a politician.

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

anotherJoe on January 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Spot on. And I agree picking Condi Rice makes Mittens untouchable on many levels- and would screw up the whole demoncrite populist smearing process. Hide your emails Condi ! They’ll be comin for ya !

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Why don’t you just answer his question? Do they do 10-year budgeting in MA and did Romney cut $1.6B in planned spending over that period?

EddieC on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I already explained it to Debbie Wasserman angryeyed. But she has her panties in a bunch and is too stupid to grasp the concept.

Now, if you would like me to explain it to you, I will be glad to. But I won’t waste my time explaining it to her AGAIN!

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

flad = flag

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

mind either

katy the mean old lady on January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

There is not a doubt in my ming.

katy the mean old lady on January 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

None – it’s a given! It’s also just one item.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

why should we vote for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy.

gerrym51 on January 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM
+1

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

APPLES AND ORANGES…NEWT is talking on the national level…not a mere two primary votes in very less than conservative states!!!!

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Exactly, these sanctimonious ‘purists’ would never vote for Ronny, ever. They have re-written the ‘conservative’ history of the Man to satisfy their feelings.

Don’t forget, the fiscal nightmare hoisted upon us due to Amnesty and the forever revolving southern border door to illegals that he promised to close but never did due to compromise with Democrats.

Reagan was a fiscal conservative at best and understood business. Very similar to Romney and no one wants to hear the truth.

Anyway, how conservative is a candidate whose first instinct is to attack their competitor from the left of center? Really, Newt the progressive is really a conservative? No he isn’t. And, neither is Perry cause that was Perry’s first instinct, too.

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

True, at this point according to the numbers, he has nothing more to win but quite a bit he could lose. He will coast if he can. So far it appears he can. He is thinking the battle is won, now onward to give closure to the war. He is at the 2:00 minute warning up by 9 , kneel and let the clock run down. He wants to remain as ding free as he can for the next battle.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Why would we nominate someone we were glad to get rid of years ago?

pedestrian on January 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

your’e gonna have to let go of your family values guy Newter.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Cant compare Reagan to Romney.

Ford was President at the time. Regan had no shot at beating a siting President in a Primary

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The circular argument of Reagan lost to Ford and so forth is pointless MITT IS NO REAGAN.

evergreenland on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

that is a cute zinger by gingrich. Although I’m not enthusiastic about a Romney candidacy, the time for the “not Romney” candidate is rapidly passing, and many of us will switch to a fervent bout of “not Obama”.

truth.

ted c on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

kevinkristy on January 16, 2012 at 5:00 PM

In one liberal state out of a total of two states to date out of 50 states total..ROOT FOR NEWT!!!!

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

APPLES AND ORANGES…NEWT is talking on the national level…not a mere two primary votes in very less than conservative states!!!!

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Newt’s pacing himself, huh?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Mittiots probably think running to the left of Obama on abortion is a good strategy. Worked out great against Teddy Kennedy.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Carter, like Obama, could’ve been beaten by a ham sandwich.

Mitt asks, “would you like chips with that?”

comparisons.

ted c on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I guess nobody told Newt that preferences aren’t transitive.

“Why play Rock against Scissors? It loses to the thing that loses to Scissors!”

CliveStaples on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

And the one that brought us Reagan. yes the same one. But the priests of self professed conservativism will not agree.

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

That was 32 years ago, kiddo. Times are different and Reagan only won because he was charismatic and principled and because Carter was not only an ineffectual president but an ineffectual (and in 1980 non-existent) campaigner.

Total dis-analogy, as I’ve said already.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

el hombre on January 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Echoed sentiments…if we can’t man up against the establishment our country will get what it deserves for its collective consciouslessness in the political, economic and social realms.

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

There isn’t much Newt could say now to get me to support him. Mean girls will be mean girls after all.

Philly on January 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM

your’e gonna have to let go of your family values guy Newter.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Observe better. None are any good, the ones in the race, on both sides. On the “family values”…the land is so down on a spiral that those will not compute, due to speed of decline.

It’s this simple: constitution, economy/jobs/debt, security

When these are addressed the others follow. Otherwise they don’t even register on the radar, not even as a blip.

Also, other people’s lives/bedrooms are none of my business.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Newt the history major needs a history lesson:
First, he attacks Romney on all his losses. How many losses to Abraham endure before he won any election?

Second, now he is lecturing the voters on who wants to vote for the guy who lost the primary to the guy who was beat by Obama. Again, the same could have been said and was said about Reagan.

Seriously, Newt wants us to believe that he gave history lessons to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Well, maybe he did and they took his advise. No wonder they failed so miserably.

And, to think this is the guy some purists call conservative and want to run against Obama. Go figure.

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Reagan lost to Ford, who lost to Carter. That worked out pretty well for America in the next couple of elections. As a historian, Gingrich should know this. He’s reduced his campaign to one of silliness. Show us what you are FOR, Newt. I’m ready to support anyone who lays out a clear vision that drags our country out of the socialist mire.

Wingo on January 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

losses *did* Abraham endure

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

That jibes with what Scott Rasmussen found when he surveyed Florida, where fully 94 percent of tea-party likely voters say they’ll back the eventual nominee versus just 77 percent of Republicans generally who say so.

They know the stakes. Some here need to wake up if Romney is the nom.

CW on January 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Cant compare Reagan to Romney.

Ford was President at the time. Regan had no shot at beating a siting President in a Primary

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

How sad is it when the resident liberal troll has more common sense than the Mittbots?

They’re pathetic.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

The circular argument of Reagan lost to Ford and so forth is pointless MITT IS NO REAGAN.

evergreenland on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Plus Ford was also a sitting President. Reagan had no shot at winning the nomination

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Carter, like Obama, could’ve been beaten by a ham sandwich.

ted c on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Pulled pork is Obama’s kryptonite

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

What about the nomnation process then is any different than it is now?

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Why vote for the guy who sat on a couch with Pelosi? Why vote for a guy who calls us heartless for not condoning illegal immigration? Why vote for a guy who supported No Child Left Behind? Why support a guy who blames us for 911? Why vote for the biggest fraud in modern-GOP primary history? My country was stolen from me. Freedom lovers have no refuge, no port in the storm. I will not vote in 2012. I have no country. I have no home.

jubalearly on January 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Occasionally you’re pretty sane.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Do you honestly believe Newt would do better against the One, with all his baggage?

changer1701 on January 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM

YES because his baggage and weak points for attacks are less wehn looked at by the population as a whole..ROMNEYCARE is the ACHILLES heel if MITTENS gets the establishment/electorate nod. AND Gingrich will more easily sucker Obama into making mistakes during any and all debates. Romeny will be too busy defending against Romneycare…Newt has nothing to explain, he is either has for forgiveness (affairs), admitted making a bad decision (pelosi and couch)..or doesn’t care (advisory fees)!!!

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I will not vote in 2012. I have no country. I have no home.

jubalearly on January 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Need a moment alone?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Cant compare Reagan to Romney.

Ford was President at the time. Regan had no shot at beating a siting President in a Primary

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Not so fast o ye of liberal faith—-
Ford was not an elected sitting president. Many people did not care for Ford- but Nixon has sucked all the oxygen out of Rep party. Watergate hate was still in the air. Reagan had a shot as a Gov. vs. a congressman. (albeit a default president for 2 yrs)
.
Ford was NOT infallible. Difficult to vote out, yes- but Reagan had a shot.
The parallels between Reagan and Romney are many.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

So, is Newt conceding that he’s not the conservative alternative to Romney?

Aizen on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

While Obama is the lesser to Carter, there is no way in hell that Romney comes even close to Ronald Reagan.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:53 PM

My country was stolen from me. Freedom lovers have no refuge, no port in the storm. I will not vote in 2012. I have no country. I have no home.

jubalearly on January 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I believe Alec Baldwin has an extra room in the Caribbean….

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

“I paid for that microphone” — Ronald Reagan

“But, but…it’s my turn to speak…” — Mitt Romney

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

but you think instinctively (Both Perry and Gingrich did this) attacking Romney from the left of center shows their bonafide conservative creds? And, how is this a good thing if not a liberal or progressive NOT running for the Republican nomination?

Seriously??? The logic some of these folks have commenting here is amazing. This is: I like the guy so I am only going to see those facts that back up my feelings about the guy. Look at the facts, Newt is not a conservative and neither is Perry. I can pull out liberal actions on all of these so called purist conservatives.

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

This is not quite a Hail Mary pass by Newt..But it isclose..:)

Dire Straits on January 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Newt’s pacing himself, huh?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

No just willing to fight for the life of the party and the Nation a little bit longer in hopes that his conservtism however slight everone thinks it is, speaks to the more conservtive base of the south.

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM

So, Iowa and New Hampshire (and more than likely SC and FL) conservatives believe Romney has the best chance of cleaning up the mess left by Obama.

Who can argue with that?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

The polls show Mitt beating Obama or close will change once Mitt is nominated,they will be showing Obama rising and what will Mitt do ? as usual when he was governor he will move to the left ( like he said I had 85 % of house and senate Dems. I had to work with them.)

evergreenland on January 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Ford was NOT infallible. Difficult to vote out, yes- but Reagan had a shot.
The parallels between Reagan and Romney are many.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Romney is now Reagan? There is not doubt you are being paid by the Romney camp. No one in their right mind will type what you just typed.

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan Bush” -Romney

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Cigars and champagne sales/consumption are as overrated as Obama’s unemployment and retail sales figures.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The parallels between Reagan and Romney are many.

FlaMurph on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

List them. I’ve got my guns aimed.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Is this the same Shad that posted almost verbatim Axelrod’s comments on John Huntsman? The one and the same and you want me to think you even know a lick about Ronald Reagan?

I am a California native and was living under the Governorship or Ronald when he signed the all inclusive abortion legislation back in 1968. Ronald has been re-written by many as being more than a moderate. He was a moderate, that is why he appealed to Democrats and Independents so well. He did understand about taxes and the impact to business and employment.

I am so tired of the Reagan mantra that is not rooted in so many facts as feelings.

Believe me, I voted for him as President and do think he turned things around for a season. But, he left us with the fiscal nightmare of illegal immigration and he did ‘compromise’ with the Democrats to get things done. Reagan was not a perfect conservative and I am tired of people’s skewed perspectives of history clouding today’s reality.

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

+7

RedLizard64 on January 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Hang in there Newt…!

Seven Percent Solution on January 16, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Buy lottery tickets. liberal4life and I are on the same side of the arguments. You might strike it rich.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4