Open thread: The nastiest debate yet?

posted at 8:39 pm on January 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

9 p.m. ET on NBC. Said Newt today of Romney’s panic, “If you’ve been campaigning for six years and you begin to see it slip away, you get desperate, and when you get desperate you say almost anything. And I think tonight’s debate will probably stretch the barrier of almost anything.” There’s all the reason you need to watch. Meanwhile, brand new from PPP:

PPP’s first post-South Carolina poll in Florida finds Newt Gingrich with a small lead. He’s at 38% to 33% for Mitt Romney, 13% for Rick Santorum, and 10% for Ron Paul…

If Rick Santorum drops out between now and next Tuesday, Gingrich will be the beneficiary. His voters prefer Gingrich over Romney 50-23, and in a field where he’s no longer a candidate Newt’s lead expands to 43-36…

Newt is drawing out new voters. With the 11% of the electorate that didn’t vote in the 2008 primary, he leads 40-30. Meanwhile Romney is having trouble holding onto the folks who voted for him in 2008. 37% are supporting someone else this time, with 19% of them moving toward Gingrich. This was a big problem for Romney in Iowa as well- if he could just hold onto the folks who supported him last time he’d be winning easily. But he doesn’t inspire a passionate enough following to keep folks in the fold.

Sixteen percent say they’ve already voted and, as expected, Romney leads among them — but only by a margin of 43/40, which is much narrower than analysts expected. Unless something dramatic happens this week, Gingrich should have no trouble overcoming that next Tuesday, especially if Santorum quits. (Imagine the frantic phone calls of encouragement Santorum is getting from establishment bigwigs right now.) The lingering question: How exactly did Newt Gingrich’s comeback become some sort of victory for tea partiers? Isn’t he, as James Delingpole puts it, a “rent-seeking DC insider who profited from the taxpayer via Fannie Mae and who recently attacked Mitt Romney’s record at Bain from the left”? More from Michael Crowley:

Newt has inarguably lived the good life of an Establishment man. As House Speaker he made no serious effort to take on the culture of Washington. Instead, he oversaw an expanded alliance between K Street lobbyists and congressional Republicans. And after he left Congress–purged by his colleagues, not for threatening their interests but for botching the politics of Bill Clinton’s impeachment–he settled comfortably into a life of lucrative speaking and influence-peddling…

[H]e favors huge tax cuts–probably the Establishment’s top priority. He wants to cut regulations, slash entitlements, and kill off ObamaCare–all sure fire applause lines at the American Enterprise Institute. True, his radical plan to rein in “activist judges” has drawn withering reviews from some certifiable Establishment men. But that’s not enough to explain the strong opposition to him in the sitting rooms of McLean, Virginia, which has become to the Republican Establishment what Georgetown once was to the Democratic elite (and where, incidentally, Newt himself lives). The bottom line is that Gingrich has more in common with Ross Douthat than with Ross Perot.

To the extent Newt threatens the Establishment, it’s because of his electability–or lack thereof. The GOP’s mandarins see Gingrich’s nomination as a sure way to blow their chance of deposing Barack Obama. They see Gingrich as the political equivalent of a Fukushima nuclear plant worker, with polls showing him to be lethally irradiated by his negative approval ratings.

All true. But wait — aren’t tea partiers actually more likely than other GOP sub-groups to compromise on ideology in hopes of defeating Obama? In theory, if Romney’s the most electable candidate, they should be grudgingly breaking towards him right now in the interest of beating O, not away from him. What gives? The answer, I think, lies in this nugget from Jonah Goldberg about Romney: “Politics is about persuasion and he’s simply not persuasive. I’m rapidly losing confidence that as a general election candidate he would be able to win over the crucial voters he would need to seal the deal.” That is to say, I think the base is increasingly convinced that Romney’s not appreciably more electable than Gingrich is. It’s not that Newt is looking better than he used to, it’s that Romney looks more wooden and dismal the more you’re exposed to him, which bodes ill for the general. If there’s no great electability disparity between them, why not gamble on the guy who at least has a mostly conservative record and who relishes throwing roundhouses at the left?

If that’s what’s happening then Romney’s new strategy of going harshly negative makes sense. He can’t sell himself, but maybe he can sell voters on the idea that Gingrich is a sure loser against O. There’s never really been an argument for Romney, after all, just an argument that there’s no viable Not Romney in the field. He’s got eight days to make the case. Here’s the Hot Air/Townhall Twitter widget plus a livefeed from NBC of the debate. And in case you’re wondering, no, Marco Rubio won’t be endorsing in the primary. Given how often he’s been touted as a potential Romney VP, that’s the best evidence yet of how much trouble Mitt’s in down in Florida. Exit question from Timothy Carney, who’s looking over the Freddie Mac contract that Gingrich’s camp just released: If Newt was merely a historian for them, why was he hired by their chief lobbyist?

Update: A brand new ad from Team Romney attacking his opponent’s “anti-establishment” image: Newt Gingrich, Washington insider.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



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 16 17 18 19

haner on January 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that you will do what the Rockefeller Republicans did and intentionally throw the election to the other guy because their candidate wasn’t selected. So much for ABO. Once again you expect one group of conservatives to toe the party line and vote for a candidate they don’t believe is right for the country at this time but you don’t have to toe the party line if the candidate you don’t think is right for the country is selected.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

I don’t see how Newt is anymore arrogant than MItt. Mitt doesn’t talk as much, but he’s full of himself.

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Ok, boys and girls

This firebrand needs to hit the sack, 3.45 comes early and I was 5 hours late to work on Monday.

Enjoyed it as always. I’ve had enough talking about Newt and Romney for awhile and you won’t see me on here for a week or so.

Take care.

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

You are correct. Teams that play not to lose generally end up losing.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I respect your analysis and actually agree with a lot of it, but I’m tired of Southerners and True Conservatives who think only they have the right to protest and throw a hissy fit against the party. We in the Northeast are getting tired of your act too.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM

I’m from Connecticut. I am a social and economic conservative in a blue state. I know where the heart of the Republican party lies, I know where the power base of the conservative movement is, and it’s not here in the North East. Romney has a ceiling of 25%, his voter enthusiasm is very weak among those 25% considering they just want Obama out.

As far as my views on Northeastern Republicans, The party can in fact do without them. I saw a major hissy fit thrown by these people after the ’08 election when they viciously attacked Social conservatives and their “obsession” with gay marriage as the reason McCain lost. Never mind that McCain was supposed to be a moderate (and is actually more conservative than Romney), but in that same election 30 states had referendums on gay marriage and ALL 30 states voted it down.

Conservatives are the Republican party and are the ticket to victory. After the crap social conservatives and especially Southern Conservatives had to put up with from Blue State Republicans who can’t deliver their own states when a moderate runs (your state of New Hampshire voted for Clinton twice against two moderates), I can understand their frustration for wanting a candidate who puts forth a true conservative message this time around. do I see the irony in the support for Gingrich? Of course I do and I am sure that irony is not lost on many conservatives, but at least he is articulating their message and framing the issues the way they want.

If New Hampshire isn’t anti Obama this election whether it is Newt, Santorum or Mitt on the ticket, then they are truly lost. If the South can vote for moderates, New Hampshire can reciprocate. Maine might be in play this time around and the same goes for them.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

I don’t see how Newt is anymore arrogant than MItt. Mitt doesn’t talk as much, but he’s full of himself.

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Question: Why does Freddie Mac need an historian? You know…that company that almost killed our economy.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Why was Freddie Mac, who almost destroyed our economy, in need of a historian?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

What concerns me even more today is–
why was Freddie Mac, who almost destroyed our economy, given a bailout and multimillion dollar bonuses given to Obama’s people who actually robbed Fannie and Freddie and lied on the books?
If those people can’t be prosecuted, Newt has nothing to be ashamed of

burrata on January 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Goldwater got crushed. He wasn’t Reagan. He was sort of Ron Paul type.

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

You’re very misinformed about Goldwater. The entire campaign about Goldwater was that he was too “Reaganesque” – I know I’m using an anachronism – on foreign policy. The opposite of Ron Paul. You can google the daisy add, for example.

The reason Goldwater lost and Reagan won was that country was politically different – Goldwater’s candidacy created a critical mass of conservatives and a conservative movement – and the relative strength/weakness of their opponents. Goldwater would have beaten Carter, Reagan would have been destroyed in ’64.

I have major doubts you are a conservative or a republican because you consistently show an enormous ignorance about the conservative history and creed.

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:12 AM

What concerns me even more today is–
why was Freddie Mac, who almost destroyed our economy, given a bailout and multimillion dollar bonuses given to Obama’s people who actually robbed Fannie and Freddie and lied on the books?
If those people can’t be prosecuted, Newt has nothing to be ashamed of

burrata on January 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Yes, but were lobbyists/historians advising them prior to Obama? You know…keep giving fraudulent loans to people who can’t pay them back. Seems highly likely someone on the payroll for 6 years would listen to someone speaking them down.

Concur? No shame is that advice?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

HAHA the anti-Gingrich Drudge poll has Newt winning the debate!

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Either you or I need glasses.

VorDaj on January 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Hmm, it changed from when I saw it. Newt had 32%, Paul 30% and mitt was at 23% I think. Oh well. I should get greenshot put on my computer at home. It works so great at work!

astonerii on January 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. 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, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

Furthermore, as the New York Times documents, Newt urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.

As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

because after all no conservative would do that to Mitt supporters..

Catch the updates, or the wrath of the Mittwitts will descend upon you.

Cindy Munford on December 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM

oops

Bradky on January 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Some people can’t take a little joke about an Allahpundit update going unnoticed that changed the spirit of the thread. So sad.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

The lobbyist for Freddie Mac urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Sounds like he wasn’t a lobbyist for them, to me. Or he went rogue. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that you will do what the Rockefeller Republicans did and intentionally throw the election to the other guy because their candidate wasn’t selected. So much for ABO. Once again you expect one group of conservatives to toe the party line and vote for a candidate they don’t believe is right for the country at this time but you don’t have to toe the party line if the candidate you don’t think is right for the country is selected.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’ll vote for whomever is the Republican nominee. I AM ABO FIRST. But all I see in these blogs are the Tea Partiers and True Conservatives threatening the GOP “establishment.” I’m merely saying these feelings of frustration are reciprocal. Just like the Tea Partiers are not easily dismissable, the Romney supporters aren’t either. You’ll just have to deal with us if you want to win a national presidential election.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Ok Dr Tesla. You went to newt’s site to get his spin. Found here: http://www.newt.org/answers

What historical advice did he giver Freddie mac? There is no real proof of what he told them…now is there?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Delaware Republicans voted for Christine O’Donnell in a primary. There are nutjobs everywhere, in the South or in the Northeast.

The problem are those “conservatives” who are identity conservatives and not really political conservatives, hence will care more about candidate’s personality and political attitude than at his record and policies.

For example, Newt’s biggest asset for most of his supporters is that “he’s a fighter”, “will call out Obama as a socialist”, “will call out the MSM”, etc. Basically, that he’s a firebagger who will behave as a talk-show radio host and satisfy their instincts.

The fact that he’s been fighting limited government conservatism for 30 years – often openly – and that he has no chance of beating Obama or even of running a professional presidential campaign (this is a man who didn’t even manage to get on the ballot on a few states in the primary) becomes secondary.

This is a grave error.

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Hmmm Newt seems to like tax loopholes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/01/22/gingrich-used-payroll-tax-ploy-often-attacked-by-irs/

Wonder what his taxes would look like if we went back further to times when he wasn’t running for president.

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

The lobbyist for Freddie Mac urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Sounds like he wasn’t a lobbyist for them, to me. Or he went rogue. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Why did Newt sign a contract with Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM

JPeterman on January 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Does Romney support ethanol subsidies? If so, pot calling the kettle dirty. My take is that all subsidies should be terminated.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Ok Dr Tesla. You went to newt’s site to get his spin. Found here: http://www.newt.org/answers

What historical advice did he giver Freddie mac? There is no real proof of what he told them…now is there?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Again, it doesn’t matter, if he didn’t sell out conservatism by supporting a bailout of them.

You are trying to criminalize the “historian” aspect of it. There’s no crime there. You don’t get to prosecute a man for a crime that isn’t one. It doesn’t work that way.

You Romney guys say you love capitalism. You claim Romney invented it. Yet you are attacking Newt for taking money from a government agency for a service they wanted. I find that most amusing. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Hmmm Newt seems to like tax loopholes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/01/22/gingrich-used-payroll-tax-ploy-often-attacked-by-irs/

Wonder what his taxes would look like if we went back further to times when he wasn’t running for president.

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

That’s called tax planning.

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:25 AM

I know where the heart of the Republican party lies, I know where the power base of the conservative movement is, and it’s not here in the North East. Romney has a ceiling of 25%, his voter enthusiasm is very weak among those 25% considering they just want Obama out.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

The regional power base doesn’t matter when we have the electoral college. The general election is a running game, not a deep passing game. You make deep passes only after you win the election and have the bully pulpit.

Romney’s true power base is in the suburbs. Just look at the counties he has won, even in South Carolina (Hilton Head, Charleston). The swing state suburbs are where the presidential elections are won or lost. Obama in 2008 was able to win a lot of those suburban areas.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

The problem with your analysis is that everybody left are big government conservatives. They will be good managers (fiscal conservatives to a certain extent) of the administrative state but certainly aren’t limited (small) government conservatives.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Bill Kristol on the debate:

Debate Winner: Mitch Daniels

The only spectacle in American politics more off-putting than Newt Gingrich in self-righteous defense mode is Mitt Romney in self-righteous attack mode. I thought Mitt’s attacks were somewhat more dishonest than Newt’s defenses were disingenuous, but it was good to move on to the rest of the debate, where little further damage was done.

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Bill Kristol on the debate:

Debate Winner: Mitch Daniels

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Bill Kristol the neocon has as much credibility as Baghdad Bob.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM

The problem with your analysis is that everybody left are big government conservatives. They will be good managers (fiscal conservatives to a certain extent) of the administrative state but certainly aren’t limited (small) government conservatives.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

I agree that there isn’t a single limited government conservative sans Paul (that IMO isn’t a viable candidate for other reasons, namely his past and his views on money creation and foreign policy) in the race, but why exactly is that a problem with my analysis?

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Of course he sold out…he accepted 1.6 million dollars to peddle his influence to help further destroy our economy.

Or wait..was he giving all the loan officers history lessons?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Again, it doesn’t matter, if he didn’t sell out conservatism by supporting a bailout of them.

You are trying to criminalize the “historian” aspect of it. There’s no crime there. You don’t get to prosecute a man for a crime that isn’t one. It doesn’t work that way.

You Romney guys say you love capitalism. Yet you are attacking Newt for taking money from a government agency for a service they wanted. I find that most amusing. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 1:24 AM

What’s exactly capitalist about extracting money of tax payers by selling political influence? By that standard, bail-outs are capitalist too because companies are just taking money from the government. If Newt actually had been paid for his work as an historian, then this wouldn’t be a problem.

Private equity + venture capitalism = capitalism

Lobbying = rent-seeking socialism

It’s not hard to understand, is it?

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:32 AM

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Not a Newt supporter, but you were using it to point out an electability issue with Newt. It is a problem for all of them and that is where I take issue with your analysis.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:33 AM

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Poor Mr. Kristol, he is jonesing hard for a Mitch Daniels run. I wonder if Mrs. Daniels has had any second thoughts about her decision not to allow the press to judge her now that Newt is in the race?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Does Romney support ethanol subsidies? If so, pot calling the kettle dirty. My take is that all subsidies should be terminated.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Yes.

But, Perry and Bachmann did not support ethanol subsidies.

Santorum did and won. Hmmmm…

tonotisto on January 24, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Does Romney support ethanol subsidies? If so, pot calling the kettle dirty. My take is that all subsidies should be terminated.

chemman on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM

I believe he said in the debate tonight that he didn’t. I’m not a Mitt supporter, I’m an equal opportunity trasher LOL

JPeterman on January 24, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I’m an intellectual, you are a talking points robot. Say adultery and Freddie Mac one more time. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Say good night, Gracie.

VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Did anyone notice how Mitt, ducked the question about the sugar lobbies supporting his campaign?
Amazing Grace on January 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

No. Because he answered it and tried to make a bigger point. He said that sugar beets are grown in most states. Those representatives from those states campaign on keeping the subsidies. So how do you get rid of them?

He did not specifically mention ethanol but should be a similar problem.

Newt was very frustrated by how entrenched spending is in Washington. He will not lie and say I will end subsidies when he knows that will be impossible. We have perhaps 84 in the house and a handful in the Senate that would even consider this. He will have to work with congress when he wins. He knows how. One way is to not make stupid promises impossible to keep.

Steveangell on January 24, 2012 at 1:46 AM

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Poor Mr. Kristol, he is jonesing hard for a Mitch Daniels run. I wonder if Mrs. Daniels has had any second thoughts about her decision not to allow the press to judge her now that Newt is in the race?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I’ve never heard her interviewed, so all I know about their story is what I’ve read. I think she would get abuse, but not as much as she would have at one time.

That aside, I don’t know what Kristol is thinking. It’s hard to imagine Mitch catching fire. For one thing the man is dull. And internet and VAT taxes will not be enthusiastically received. Yes, we’ve got massive budget problems. But the government takes in enough money. If they want more, we need to grow the economy while simultaneously slashing spending.

It’s easier for me to see a Bobby Jindal or John Kasich jumping in and having success. Each has real conservative accomplishments and each should be acceptable to all of the major factions of the party. I know nothing about them as campaigners, however.

Stayright on January 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM

I’m an intellectual, you are a talking points robot. Say adultery and Freddie Mac one more time. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Wait a second…you just went to newt’s site and regurgitated word for word above ^. I looked it up. Google dood.

By the way, why did Newt sign a contract with Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist?

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Private equity + venture capitalism = capitalism

Lobbying = rent-seeking socialism

It’s not hard to understand, is it?

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:32 AM

He did not Lobby. He was a consultant. I was a consultant once. Should all consultants never work for any company that have government connections.

This was about 500k a year and Newt had three offices. This contract barely covered the rent. Furthermore it was a very minor expense for Fredie. Not at all unlikely Newt did nothing but research for Fredie. He did the work and never lobbied. By this logic the person that sold bottled to Fredie was a lobyist. Fredie might give it away to some official after all.

Steveangell on January 24, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Stayright on January 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM

I like both Gov. Jindal and Gov. Kasich, if they weren’t so desperately needed in their own states I would love to see them on the ticket, top or VP. The sad thing is that there are people here who still haven’t gotten of Gov. Jindal’s speech in answer to Obama’s first SOTU. I know it doesn’t make sense, but you would be amazed at how often it comes up.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Poor Mr. Kristol, he is jonesing hard for a Mitch Daniels run. I wonder if Mrs. Daniels has had any second thoughts about her decision not to allow the press to judge her now that Newt is in the race?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I was intrigued by the idea, too, but that was before someone posted a link to his appearance on the Daily Show earlier today. I watched it. Ugh! All I can really say for him is that most conservatives would think he’s better than Mitt. However, he wouldn’t excite anyone. If someone is going to be pushed in, surely there is a better option than Mitch. I say that knowing that his expertise might be precisely what we need. It’s hard for me to believe he could win.

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I was intrigued by the idea, too, but that was before someone posted a link to his appearance on the Daily Show earlier today. I watched it. Ugh! All I can really say for him is that most conservatives would think he’s better than Mitt.

However, he wouldn’t excite anyone.

If someone is going to be pushed in, surely there is a better option than Mitch. I say that knowing that his expertise might be precisely what we need. It’s hard for me to believe he could win.

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Dammit, we need more guys to put that jaun williams in his place…that’s the difference!

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:03 AM

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 2:00 AM

It’s hard to imagine him as any better a salesman than Gov. Romeny. Newt is certainly a double edged sword, he is very interesting to listen to but I’m always on pins and needles wondering what will come out of his mouth. Anyone running for president has to have a healthy ego but I think Gov. Romney has a better grip on his.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:06 AM

sans Paul (that IMO isn’t a viable candidate for other reasons, namely his past and his views on money creation and foreign policy)

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM

So Newt can get forgiveness for his serial adultery, serial statist ideas and liberal pandering/lobbying and serial dishonesty and hubris, but Paul can’t get forgiveness over something he wrote years and years ago, and Romney can’t get forgiveness for once being pro-choice?

It must be great to live in the make believe world of the Sarah Palin “super conservative”, where nothing is more important than getting back at the “establishment” by nominating the worst candidates possible who haven’t even agreed with you on a single conservative issue before 2011.

So let me get this straight, the “tea party” candidate this round is a serial adulterer decrying the moral bankruptcy of America, a paid Fanny and Freddie lobbyist demanding those that profited from Fannie and Freddie be thrown in jail, a guy who weaseled around on his taxes demanding to see other candidates returns, a guy that reaffirmed his support for TARP, amnesty, a healthcare mandate, and Medicaid expansion all just this week while attacking capitalism and the free market, a guy that repeatedly decried Clintons promiscuity while engaging in a 6 year affair in his wifes own bed, promised to run an honest campaign until he dipped in the polls and then put out one of the most brutal and sustained negative campaigns in recent history (using PAC money and dishonest PAC ads which he also decried), tells America to give up the idea of sovereignty, tried to rally around “green conservatism” with Al Gore, spent his entire life either employed by or peddling influence in and around Washington while decrying the idea of “Washington politics”, admitted to shutting down the government because Bill Clinton made him sit at the back of the plane (that one will go over great in the general), claims FDR was his favorite president while attempting to assume the mantle of Reagan, attacks his opponents as being Rockerfeller Republicans which he himself was proud to be at one point, refers to conservative attempts at fixing the entitlement crisis as “right wing social engineering” before “apologizing” by saying it’s basically true, utterly failed once at keeping up his end of a “contract with America” resulting in being thrown out of the speakership by conservatives within his own party, voted for and passed new gun control legislation after promising that it would be completely off the table during his stewardship, denounces moderators for asking him questions about his checkered past while sending the metaphorical equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition after his opponents tax records, spent the first part of his presidential campaign cruising around on a luxury liner and taking a book tour, and looks like Jabba da Hutt in a pantsuit?

I used to consider myself one of you and spent my time, money and sweat embracing and fighting for the cause, but it’s now clear that you have chosen to embrace corruption, greed, immorality and statism in exchange for…something. I can tolerate a certain amount of imperfection, but blatant hypocrisy I will not. Good luck with your presidential race.

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Gingrich never lobbied for Freddy Mac. That $1.6 million they paid him was for modeling dresses. That should be his story and he should stick to it.

VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Newt Gringrich’s consulting firm worked the the lobbying division of Freddie Mac. So what?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Thanks , pretty much my take also.

Bmore on January 24, 2012 at 2:12 AM

For example, Newt’s biggest asset for most of his supporters is that “he’s a fighter”, “will call out Obama as a socialist”, “will call out the MSM”, etc. Basically, that he’s a firebagger who will behave as a talk-show radio host and satisfy their instincts.

The fact that he’s been fighting limited government conservatism for 30 years – often openly – and that he has no chance of beating Obama or even of running a professional presidential campaign (this is a man who didn’t even manage to get on the ballot on a few states in the primary) becomes secondary.

This is a grave error.

joana on January 24, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Actually, Newt’s greatest asset for conservatives is his record as speaker with The Contract with America, Welfare Reform, Tax Reform and 4 years of balanced budgets.

The “fighter” label has more to do with Romney. Conservatives certainly want someone who can fight for and articulate Conservatism, but it’s Romney’s apparent inability to do this, and a lack of doing so in his record, which is driving people to Gingrich. If Romney retools his message then Conservatives will give him another look. Conservatives were in the process of settling on him before he bumbled South Carolina.

The regional power base doesn’t matter when we have the electoral college. The general election is a running game, not a deep passing game. You make deep passes only after you win the election and have the bully pulpit.

Romney’s true power base is in the suburbs. Just look at the counties he has won, even in South Carolina (Hilton Head, Charleston). The swing state suburbs are where the presidential elections are won or lost. Obama in 2008 was able to win a lot of those suburban areas.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

The Electoral College actually makes regional power all the more important. The midwest and the South have been over represented in the electoral college since it was meant to give smaller rural states more of a voice versus the more industrialized urban states. republicans need to hold the South and the sunbelt to stand a chance while Democrats need to hold the Rustbelt and Pennsylvania to stand a chance. Elections are pretty much decided with a few states: Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado. The problem for Conservatives is that once a state goes blue, it stays blue because that is how statist dependency works.

Unless you have someone like Reagan who wins the trust of the people whether agree with him or not. Reagan did throw deep passes, and he did it with such confidence and self assurance that the people ignored the Democrats and the media who tried to write him off as crazy, listened to what he had to say, and realized that he actually made sense. Gingrich tries to emulate this, but he’s no Reagan; Romney could deliver Reagan’s message if he didn’t look so wooden and robotic.

As for the Suburbs, that was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit as well. If Romney can’t effectively respond to the nasty personal attacks the Obama campaign has in store for him, then he will lose the suburbs. The suburbs are full of squishes and soccer moms who vote for the most superficial of reasons and will believe everything Obama has to say about Romney if he can’t convincingly refute it, shrug it off, or throw it back in Obama’s face.

Romney doesn’t need to be Chris Christie, that clearly isn’t his style, but he can certainly be himself. Bob McDonnell in Virginia ran the exact type of campaign Romney should be running.

And for the love of God, he needs to say once and for all that despite his best efforts Romneycare is a FAILURE. I suspect that even he knows this, but some bonehead on his campaign team decided he had enough flip flops and told him to stick to his guns with this one. Flip Flopping on this will be forgiven by Conservatives and if Obama tries to call him out on it he can point out that he tried to be bipartisan and found out first hand it does NOT work which is why Obamacare has to go.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Tonite, Mitt kicked Newt’s fat lying ass.

Florida and then Super Tuesday…and then its over. And if any of you dummies think Mitt wont win the vast majority of delegates on Super Tuesday, you will get a fun surprise.

YES!!!

Jailbreak on January 24, 2012 at 2:23 AM

VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Newt Gringrich’s consulting firm worked the the lobbying division of Freddie Mac. So what?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:12 AM

You heard Freddie Mac almost destroyed our economy right? Any loving loyal Tea Party patriot knows this. I guess you support freddie mac. Sad.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Jailbreak on January 24, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Congratulations.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Yep, it was all Newt’s fault. I bet Palin was involved to.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Newt Gringrich’s consulting firm worked the the lobbying division of Freddie Mac. So what?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:12 AM

It’s not a big deal if you’re Barney Frank. It’s a big deal when you’re trying to be the Tea Party torchbearer.

haner on January 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

haner on January 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

I’m sure the tea party will figure it out.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Mitt actually thinks we should look at his record to prove he’s a Conservative?

Really?

Speakup on January 24, 2012 at 2:45 AM

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Yep, it was all Newt’s fault. I bet Palin was involved to.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Don’t get your panties in a wad undies in a bunch.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

This post deserved a QFT. This was probably the most brutal and complete shakedown of the Gingrich candidacy and the rational for his supporters to be behind him in this site’s history. Excellent, excellent work.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:38 AM

If by figure it out you mean completely disregard it, then you’re completely correct. In fact, you seem to be getting to the head of that strategy.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 AM

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:51 AM

No to worry, not possible.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I’m not sure if even Romney knows what Romney thinks.

hawksruleva on January 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Two theories:

1)Romney knows what he thinks, but if he actually spoke his mind, the inevitable meme would have gone to Mike Huckabee candidacy this cycle rather than Romney.

2)Romney doesn’t know what he really thinks; he is a Manchurian candidate paving the way for a Jeb Bush run in 2016.

By they way, if Republicans lose to Obama again, who the hell is the logical “next-in-line”? This is a repeat of the 1996 and 2000 election cycles. The Bushes will look golden after 8 years of Obama, and Jeb will be primed and ready. And the Big Government Bush Republicans will be there ready to “tweak” Obamacare, to make it function slighty better, and make it better funded with a VAT.

It’s just my theory, but I think the Republican establishment wants America to settle into a cycle of 8-year-on, 8-year-off cycles in the Presidency between the two parties.

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 2:58 AM

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 AM

The tea party was never a monolith, the only thing they probably agree on is the debt and the borrowing. After that they differ on the remedy and who is the best to undertake the challenge. I personally have more confidence in the Keystone Cops but I don’t think they are on the ticket.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:59 AM

…you dummies think Mitt wont win the vast majority of delegates on Super Tuesday, you will get a fun surprise. YES!!!
Jailbreak on January 24, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Well Dummy,
Sounds like you’re doing all you can, to
turn off those who would vote for Mitty,
should he become the last man standing.

Real fun was already consumed when the
GOP elitists failed to induce the voters
of SC to swallow the manure pill that they
concocted on the basis of IA & NH vapor wins.

Now Msr Mitt is furiously hustling to find a fig
leaf to cover his bainful shortcomings on all levels.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2012 at 2:59 AM

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 2:58 AM

There are many who feel that the party is more interested in taking Congress than the presidency.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM

This post deserved a QFT. This was probably the most brutal and complete shakedown of the Gingrich candidacy and the rational for his supporters to be behind him in this site’s history. Excellent, excellent work.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Ruiner’s post is also a good cut-and-paste from a Romney briefing book.

The only way the party will heal if the primary fight becomes a prolonged fight is if there is a fusion ticket, either Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich.

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM

Don’t get your panties in a wad undies in a bunch.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 2:51 AM

lol

This post deserved a QFT. This was probably the most brutal and complete shakedown of the Gingrich candidacy and the rational for his supporters to be behind him in this site’s history. Excellent, excellent work.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Thank you. It’s so annoying around here to see this guy arguing over this detail and that guy defending that detail when all you have to do is look at the big picture and see that the guy is a verifiable disaster, especially for somebody who wants to be the conservative standard bearer and if he goes down he’s taking us all with him (again). Let’s just hope that people realize who they’re rallying behind before we sell ourselves down the river.

I listened to Rush today spending his entire show talking about how punked “the establishment” was and how they finally got what was coming to them and they’re going to panic and this and that and I’m thinking “who’s the real enemy?” I didn’t once hear Rush comment that Newt would be the best representative of what our party is supposed to stand for, or that he would give us the best shot of beating Obama, or that he is what this country needs right now.. It was all about sticking it to “the man” – which apparently is no longer Obama and is now some shadowy “republican establishment” which seems to equal anybody that doesn’t endorse Newt Gingrich. It’s a twilight zone these days, I just want the primaries to be over.

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 2:58 AM

There are many who feel that the party is more interested in taking Congress than the presidency.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM

There is that also. But do you really think a Republican congress will thwart Obama? They’ll bring his next 2 or more Supreme Court appointments up for a vote in the Senate, and even if they have the votes to kill the nominations, they won’t vote in a block to thwart Obama like the Democrats did to Bush.

Besides, Obama will just recess appoint people to the Supreme Court if he doesn’t get his way.

They’ll pass a budget. Obama will veto it. And then he can keep on using the spending projections of the last budget that was passed, indexed for inflation.

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 3:13 AM

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 AM

I think it is easy to be annoyed with the Republican party and I don’t think any of these candidates is the standard bearer of anything. Deciding who to vote for, especially with these choices, is going to be very hard and I can’t criticize anyone for their ultimate decision.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Rush Limbaugh’s a business man. He sees that grandstanding and gratuitous amounts of red meat is the way to get people to gather around you (ala Newt Gingrich). To expect him to say anything of honest substance other than hippie-esque ‘the man is after us, man!’ is expecting too much of the poor man.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Jurisprudence on January 24, 2012 at 3:13 AM

It’s hard to know, I watch the House get schooled by Obama on almost a weekly basis. And while The Won likes to play fast and loose with the non-recess recess appointments, I don’t think he can do that with SCOTUS. What I find interesting is that both Ginsburg and Kennedy have said they won’t retire. Ginsburg would probably be a wash and Kennedy is hardly a sure thing for conservatives, but I think it is interesting that neither wants to give him another pick.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:19 AM

There are a whole lot of primaries left that are not called South Carolina. I am not impressed with them as last election they almost chose Huckabee. Enough said.

scotash on January 24, 2012 at 3:25 AM

All I can really say for him is that most conservatives would think he’s better than Mitt. However, he wouldn’t excite anyone. If someone is going to be pushed in, surely there is a better option than Mitch. I say that knowing that his expertise might be precisely what we need. It’s hard for me to believe he could win.

flyfisher on January 24, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Looks like Daniels was for amnesty before he was against it. He supported the McCain amnesty bill. He also refused to sign mandatory e-verify for his state. He did sign a bill which requires gov contractors to use e verify, and penalizes non gov businesses which do not use e verify. I laughed at Michelle Malkin calling Daniels an honorary fleebagger

I wouldn’t say Daniels is a better conservative than Mitt. Anytime there is an opening in the conversation, the RINOs try to steer the herd to Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie. First test: who would look more comfortable in a green plaid sport coat? Second test: if they were drinking Pimms at Bloomberg’s club, and the greenskeeper looked illegal, would they give him an extra big tip? I know, can’t see them with Pimms, but can see them with the after glow that comes when illegal aliens work so hard for so little

entagor on January 24, 2012 at 3:28 AM

bla bla bla…I just want the primaries to be over.

Ruiner on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Of course you do!
All that smelly RINO k-rap,
isn’t sticking to the targets – you need
a miracle! Conservatives rallying ’round the
Totem-candidate proffered by the GOP-leftwing.

Doesn’t seem to be happening this time copyboy!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 AM

I wouldn’t say Daniels is a better conservative than Mitt. Anytime there is an opening in the conversation, the RINOs try to steer the herd to Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie. First test: who would look more comfortable in a green plaid sport coat? Second test: if they were drinking Pimms at Bloomberg’s club, and the greenskeeper looked illegal, would they give him an extra big tip? I know, can’t see them with Pimms, but can see them with the after glow that comes when illegal aliens work so hard for so little

entagor on January 24, 2012 at 3:28 AM

I like the image you painted at Bloomberg’s club, I had to chuckle at that one.

I also have to say that a record counts for something and even with the blemishes Mitch Daniels makes Mitt Romney look like a Trotskyite.

I’d also take Daniels over Newt and Santorum. I heard Daniels described as more of a “trains run on time” type of Conservative, he’s not an immediate reformer but he would be better than what we have now in the White House or who we have in the Republican field. He also seems to be one of those “pro business” as opposed to “pro free market” type of Republicans, but we won’t get to true Tea Party values for 4 or 8 years when we have actual Tea Party candidates running.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 3:42 AM

Of course you do!
All that smelly RINO k-rap,
isn’t sticking to the targets – you need
a miracle! Conservatives rallying ’round the
Totem-candidate proffered by the GOP-leftwing.

Doesn’t seem to be happening this time copyboy!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 AM

What about instead of rallying ’round the Totem-candidate proffered by the GOP-leftwing that conservatives rally around the man Rush Limbaugh proffered in 2008 as the conservative alternative to John McCain?

alchemist19 on January 24, 2012 at 3:45 AM

…Deciding who to vote for, especially with these choices, is going to be very hard…Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:14 AM

EASY!
Old Bulls know it,
wise older broads do too!
We are witnessing our G-kids
futures being toppled into the abyss…
Gingrich has the voice and score to fight
the technocrat Lefty agenda in both parties!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2012 at 4:00 AM

There are a whole lot of primaries left that are not called South Carolina. I am not impressed with them as last election they almost chose Huckabee. Enough said.

scotash on January 24, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Agreed. SC’s Jerry Springer-style audiences at the debates weren’t so great, either.

I think the Romney-haters are getting a little too overconfident during Newt Gingrich’s momentary rise in the polls. Oh, well… those Romney-haters never were the most impressive bunch. I suppose it takes all kinds.

Team Mitt is ready to rumble!

bluegill on January 24, 2012 at 4:05 AM

…rally around the man Rush Limbaugh proffered in 2008 as the conservative alternative to John McCain?
alchemist19 on January 24, 2012 at 3:45 AM

4 years too late!
We now know the faulty cut of Mitt’s jib,
he’s a spitkit, in world of pirates hunting
for our blood. A better placement would be as
a VP tasked to re-energize the business climate!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM

I like how Newt stands on ideas. Romney has no ideas, so has to attack Newt on things unsubstanial. Newt is just the more knowledgeable candidate IMO.

When it comes down to it however, I’d take either. The other two? Eh.. only time. =)

freerider on January 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM

good morning!

i missed the 2nd half was is just as bad as the firs?

how many times did tingles bring up racial undertones or food stamp president?

cmsinaz on January 24, 2012 at 5:47 AM

I like how Newt stands on ideas. Romney has no ideas, so has to attack Newt on things unsubstanial. Newt is just the more knowledgeable candidate IMO.

freerider on January 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM

What boosterism. Pure tripe. Newt has nothing but style. He won SC by posing as the Pied Piper of Pissed Off. There’s no substance there. He decided to give bad Newt the night off and posed as the good Newt because he doesn’t think he needs to bad now.

Ideas? Zero taxes on capital gains for all income groups? So John Kerry, Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett would all not have to contribute a dime in either payroll or income taxes to our national defense and the rest of our Federal government? Yeah, some ideas. Go back to HS janitors, at least that idea wasn’t so ridiculous and certainly less insulting to our intelligence.

Newt says the charges were dropped against him. Zombie Nixon and Charlie Rangel say the same thing and for the same reasons. His corrupt ass was booted out and just because he wasn’t caged and has the chutzpa to show his mug again in public doesn’t change the fact that he was kicked out for being a dirty scum bag.

He says he wasn’t a lobbyist for the GSE’s. Another fig leaf that only the incredibly gullible would swallow. Of course he was a lobbyist for them even if he skirted the law enough to be able to offer his tissue thin denials. At least he didn’t try to deny backing Medicare Part D which is a brand new entitlement under Bush that is draining the treasury at an prodigious rate. There’s another fine reason for the small government crowd to rally round the Newt.

In short, Newt was pathetic. Arrogantly standing up there, all he could whine was, “it’s not true, waaaah, it’s not true, make him stop, it’s not true.” A fine, Presidential figure you cut there Newt.

MJBrutus on January 24, 2012 at 6:05 AM

This was no debate.It was cover for Obama night.I blame all of the candidates for agreeing to this garbage my God even Paul was going to sleep on stage and that never happens.I halfway expected this so called panel to ask if the sand on Fla beaches was white enough or if the oranges were orange enough.To bring up Terri Schiavo in this debate was crazy and for the candidates to answer it was even crazier.Our people always put themselves in this spot with the media .They all should just have walk on stage.

logman1 on January 24, 2012 at 6:15 AM

logman1 on January 24, 2012 at 6:15 AM

wouldn’t that have been a hoot, i do wish they would laugh at the question and say next!

cmsinaz on January 24, 2012 at 6:16 AM

I don’t think Romney attack ads will change very many minds. We all know what Newt’s shortcomings are. I think what most voters are looking for are reasons to vote for someone not reasons to vote against the other guy. The reason Newt is winning is because he stood up and represented conservative views of a lot of people in a way that the other candidates haven’t. Romney needs to come out and articulate conservative views in a way that doesn’t sound phony.

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 6:38 AM

logman1 on January 24, 2012 at 6:15 AM

It seemed as the purpose of the debate was to slow down any wildfire momentum for anyone. In this case, to slow down Newt, but also to make all of them small and not up to the task that Obama is so awesomely fulfilling as those informed about these things know and as the rest of us rubes need to understand.

BuckeyeSam on January 24, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 6:38 AM

What “conservative” views would those be? Dropping Reagan’s name 4 times an hour does not a conservative make.

Where’s this small government, supply sider hiding? Medicare Part D? Freddie Mac? Federal health purchase mandate? Cap and trade? Cronyism? Special interest lobbies? Opposition to Ryan’s plan?

With “conservatives” like that, who needs liberals?

MJBrutus on January 24, 2012 at 6:42 AM

My GOD it,s worse than i thought.I just watch a repeat of the debate.NBC must have have spent a week saying to themselves lets just ask dumb and crazy questions and make all of them looks dumb and crazy and all of our candidates fell hook line ans sinker for it.Has anyone ever seen Ron Paul this docile in any debate? He was going to sleep on stage.Sugar cane,sugar beets,Terri Schiavo ,Castro ,everglades SAY WHAT.Our people NEVER LEARN the media does not like you and NEVER will.You do these so called debates knowing damn well what coming.Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is just insanity.Newt you looked confused ,Romney you looked mean and nasty ,Rick you looked like a high school freshman ,Paul you looked bored and confused .What a loss for this country. A message to the four fools on that stage last night.This country is 16 trillion dollars in debt,18% real unemployed,social security broke,Medicare broke,home values declining,Obamacare destroying our health care and a full fledge socialist in the white house (Yes Romney he is a socialist not a nice guy just confused) and you candidates are standing up there answering stupid question with just as stupid answers. Yes i,m mad as hell at NBC but i,m madder at our people for letting this happen.No wonder the old expression still rings true .The Republican Party (AKA The stupid party )

logman1 on January 24, 2012 at 7:21 AM

They are the stupid party if they vote for Gingrich. Romney is good at the main thing that perils the country right now. He is a fixer and you higher a fixer. You don’t have to like him.

tomas on January 24, 2012 at 7:29 AM

What “conservative” views would those be?

MJBrutus on January 24, 2012 at 6:42 AM

I meant conservative viewpoints like: (1)The liberal press is unfair to republicans and we are sick and tired of it and I will challenge the leftist biased media, and (2) Work is respectable even when you are pushing a broom or a mop. These types of things are what have put Newt in the lead. It is something we have not heard from the other candidates. If you think I’m wrong I would like to hear your theory as to why Newt is winning?

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 7:30 AM

The reason Newt is winning is because he stood up and represented conservative views of a lot of people in a way that the other candidates haven’t.

To be fair, Gingrich isn’t winning. Romney has won 1 state and come in second in two. Gingrich won 1 state and showed dismally in 2. Romney has 33 delegates and Gingrich has 25. Romney has 62% favorable nation wide and Gingrich is -23. Neutron Newt is tapping an anti-media fervor, but as we saw last night, without the LSM as a bad guy, Gingrich has to defend himself and he cannot. He had his Perry “I forgot” moment last night. The difference is that he didn’t admit he had a brain lock. This is what Gingrich does whenever he is challenged. He is great when it comes to attacking people who cannot respond. Like when he attacks moderators. They are not able to defend themselves because they are not running for POTUS. His schtick will get old and utterly fail.

Romney needs to come out and articulate conservative views in a way that doesn’t sound phony.

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 6:38 AM

Absolutely true. Romney has been articulating conservative views for the entire campaign. His problem is that there is very little passion. But you saw a difference last night. That is the Romney you will see going forward. He did what Gingrich cannot do. Go toe to toe with another human being that has the ability to respond to attacks and come out on top. What Romney did to Gingrich last night is exactly what Obama will do to Gingrich.

Neutron Newt will NEVER be able to convince the nation that he isn’t a Washington insider and a great leader. His time at Freddie was influence peddling and it appears Romney has a couple of congress persons who have the proof that Gingrich lobbied them. His own party drummed him out of the speakership in disgrace because of his corrupt nature, his toxic leadership, and he reflects badly on the party.

Independents look at Neutron Newt and say:

“OH, HELL NO!!!”

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Ah, so you support him because of platitudes and grandstanding. Excellent.

And that also basically sums up why he has momentum: platitudes, grandstanding and pithiness, which folks like you are apparently all too ready to eat up.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Neutron Newt was on F&F attacking the media and Romney’s wealth again. And he had the perfect opportunity to rebut the lobbying charges last night but he blanked. After thinking about it all night long, now he has a meandering weak answer that came off as desperately trying to salvage a devastating loss.

After a week of pressing him on his lies to cover up more lies, he will have another more and more melt downs.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

In terms of economics the difference is clear:

Romney is a supply sider.

Newt is a suicider.

MJBrutus on January 24, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Screw Romney, as bad as the others are, he’s 10x’s worse. I’d take any of the other three over Willard! Obama, the MFM, the Establishment GOPer’s…all want Romney! That’s saying something. To me it says HELL NO, RUN AWAY, ABR & NEVER!!!

insidiator on January 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

In which manner was he attacking Romney’s wealth? Bain Capitol again, or in how much he paid in taxes?

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

To be fair, Gingrich isn’t winning.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Fair enough, I guess we can say that he isn’t “winning” by those standards but Newt has jumped 15% in the polls while Romney has been rather stagnant. Newt has been playing to win while Romney has been playing not to lose and it’s catching up with him. Also, I totally agree that Romney lacks any passion at all. It is clear that Newt has been able to inspire something in people while Romney isn’t. It is clear that Newt has the momentum right now and for this reason I think he is winning, but Romney could come back or even Santorum, although less likely, I’m not saying it’s over yet.

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

Mittwit romney committed political suicide when he became the old guard, blue blood, country club republican establishment. He abdicated his integrity.

tom daschle concerned on January 24, 2012 at 7:53 AM

tom daschle concerned on January 24, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Right, right. And Gingrich has plenty of integrity.

/

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 7:49 AM

It’s good to be able to inspire passion in people. When that passion is the result of a false image constructed to appeal to their basest desire, regardless of what facts or actual history would tell them, then it becomes mob rule with a grandstanding orchestrator leading the pack.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Ah, so you support him because of platitudes and grandstanding. Excellent.

And that also basically sums up why he has momentum: platitudes, grandstanding and pithiness, which folks like you are apparently all too ready to eat up.

WealthofNations on January 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

I didn’t say I support Newt. The Truth is, I don’t know who to vote for. I was simply making an observation on what I see. One thing I am certain of is that you never know who Americans might elect, Obama himself should make that that statement clear enough. I suspect by the time I get to vote on “super tuesday” the decision will have already been made. I will vote for whoever is running against Obama in the general election even if it’s Ron Paul.

Dollayo on January 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM

I like both Gov. Jindal and Gov. Kasich, if they weren’t so desperately needed in their own states I would love to see them on the ticket, top or VP. The sad thing is that there are people here who still haven’t gotten of Gov. Jindal’s speech in answer to Obama’s first SOTU. I know it doesn’t make sense, but you would be amazed at how often it comes up.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM

I live here in OH and unfortunately (bc he is a KickA@@ gov) he wouldn’t even win his own state. These freakin’ unions are so hellbent on destroying him and anything that changes their status quo. It does make one wonder why any good person jumps into this morass.

1nolibgal on January 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Ugh.
I sincerely hate all of this.
It’s terrible to have to really make a choice btwn Mitt & Newt.
I was leaning toward Newt here lately, but now?
I didn’t watch this debate, but Newt’s looooooong political & Washington insider career is wearing thin on me.
And his bi-polar-esque rantings over the years have also worn me down.

I think perhaps my vote will eventually come down to:
Who has the nicest hair.
Who is the best family man.

Badger40 on January 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 16 17 18 19