What happens when a Great Debater loses a lesser debate?

posted at 8:40 am on January 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Call this the Battle of Dueling Disclosures. Newt Gingrich made a lot of political hay in South Carolina by demanding that Mitt Romney release his tax returns, getting Romney to trip up twice in debates last week on the topic. When Romney finally decided to release his tax returns, he issued a demand that Gingrich release his contract with Freddie Mac, which Gingrich promptly did. Who got the better of that exchange? Last night, it was clearly Romney:

Gingrich has claimed for months that he did no lobbying for Freddie Mac, but as the contract made clear, Gingrich didn’t report to the History Department at the GSE:

GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, who has said he never lobbied on behalf of his consulting clients, reported to a top lobbyist with Freddie Mac as part of a $25,000-a-month contract,according to records released late Monday.

The one-year contract overseen by Freddie Mac executive Craig Thomas represents only a portion of the former House speaker’s long relationship with the mortgage giant, which spanned eight years and resulted in at least $1.6 million in fees for Gingrich’s empire.

A chief lobbyist at Freddie Mac isn’t going to pay $25,000 a month for history lessons.  Romney took this point and repeatedly hammered Gingrich with it, as well as with the revolts by House Republicans in 1997 and 1998 that ended up pushing Gingrich out of the Speakership and into the private sector.  Gingrich reacted by claiming that he wouldn’t spend time refuting Romney’s “falsehoods” point by point, but spent plenty of time calling Romney’s attacks “false” … and promised to respond on a website later.  Meanwhile, Romney’s tax returns turned out to be straightforward affairs, with a 15% tax rate on his capital gains, showing that Romney paid $3 million in taxes and donated almost the same amount to charity as well.

Romney won this debate rather handily, although it wasn’t a terribly entertaining affair.  All of that took place in the first 30 minutes, and what followed was more of a roundtable than a debate.  There were few intriguing moments, mostly because this was the 19th debate and almost everything else was a rehash.  Rick Santorum had the only real notable moment after this, which came at the very end — and which in a more rational cycle might have been a game-changer.

Some complained about the lack of audience participation, specifically the admonition by NBC to not applaud or cheer.  I actually liked that approach.  These debates are too much like game shows as it is; we shouldn’t weigh candidates by their applause or cheers.  The quiet definitely seemed to take the wind out of Gingrich’s sails more than the other candidates.  The real problem with the debate was the questions.  NBC’s Brian Williams basically asked the same questions we’ve already heard ad infinitum in these debates, or else focused on attack themes from the campaigns in an attempt to generate some drama.  It was no coincidence that the debate got dull after that section of the questioning.

Williams may have been dull and unoriginal (perhaps necessarily so after 19 debates), but his Florida media partners on stage made him look brilliant in comparison.  Questions about Terri Schiavo took up five minutes of debate, which was last an issue in 2005.  What, no Elian Gonzales questions?  In an economy where millions can’t find work and Florida is almost in double digit unemployment, we got a question about whether the Everglades would continue to get federal pork.  It was an entire section of non-sequiturs.

Gingrich’s poor performance raises this question: if Romney can outbox him over his Freddie Mac contract and win a debate, what does that do for Gingrich’s claim that he can win the Presidency by outdebating Barack Obama and the entire national media?  It would not surprise me to see Florida voters rethinking that premise somewhat this morning, especially since Gingrich lost this debate by walking into his own disclosure trap.


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 3 4 5

Very funny, but Mike’s sample size is actually 1 larger than most of the people who post here.

HTL on January 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Possibly, but the presentation did create an opportunity for a little levity. Teed up.

I mean, c’mon.

nico on January 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

A Gingrich nomination will guarantee that those memes will be never be available for use credibly by conservatives again.

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

A growing sentiment as the vetting of Neutron Newt progresses. And we haven’t even begun to get into his history.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Here’s what I’m getting out of all of this: NOBODY is to be trusted. Not Drudge, not HA, not Michelle Malkin, not Ann Coulter. Not American Spectator, not The Hill, not Breitbart. Not even Ace, although I gotta ahmire him for being up front about it. They’re all in the tank one way or another and all of them are skewing their reporting to get their guy elected, and they’re all doing it without regard to the issues.

And really, that may be the important thing. The new media is quickly becoming just as unreliable as the old media. So now more than ever it’s up to each of us individually to decide what’s important and what’s not.

What frightens me is, though, is how few people here actually care about the issues. It’s all about hit points and character assassination.

If the conservative base doesn’t get its act together, coalesce around a candidate and hold their feet to the fire, we could end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And maybe we as a nation would be getting exactly what we deserve.

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

If I were Mitt I would tell fox I want the same audience rules as Mondays debate. President Obama is not going to allow Newt a cheering section and neither does Romney. If Newt says no then Mitt should say that Newt is “afraid” to debate without a cheering section

gerrym51 on January 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 12:50 PMI am far from an expert but from what I understand, the off shore accounts were to help with Bain’s ability to be an international company, not to hide funds or escape taxes since neither occurred. If the accounts have indeed been closed it was probably because perception is all too often more harmful and the rational explanations. Read any thread here to verify.

That would be the explanation for the Cayman Island accounts, not so sure it applies to the Swiss account. But I’m no expert, either.

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I don’t think you can go at this on the basis of trust. Everyone brings their own unique perspective to any given situation. People, for the most part, aren’t trying to mislead, they are just explaining the situation seen through their own prism. In the end you know what is important to you and make your decisions accordingly.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

It is not in my nature to immediately suspect someone of wrong doing and so far I have not been convinced. The Newt supporters are trying hard enough I guess. Dedication is fierce amongst the Gov. Romney supporters.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

On Monday, Mitt Romney articulated, more effectively than ever before, his opponent’s least defensible ideological heresy: influence-peddling on behalf of special interests, and thereby profiting off their attempts to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government.

The former House speaker was engaged in behavior so much like lobbying that he had to hire an expert on lobbying law to avoid meeting the legal definition. It is folly for Gingrich to keep claiming that he was paid $1.6 million as a historian.

Gingrich was hired by the Chief Lobbyist of Freddie Mac, not the CEO, not the head of public affairs; he was hired to peddle influence by the Chief Lobbyist at Freddie Mac.

Gingrich lied; he was exposed as a liar. He has been on K-Street for 15 years and he has been lobbying and influence peddling for all that time and profiting off of taxpayer miseries and homeowner miseries, increasing our danger economically, and now he’s trying to lie about it.

He lied when he was Speaker of the House, too:

When Newt was speaker of the House, 84 ethics charges were filed against him, and he was reprimanded and penalized $300,000 by a 395-28 House vote, hardly a close divide along partisan lines. That disgrace marked the first time in the history of the House that a speaker was disciplined for ethics violations. The special counsel to the House Ethics Committee concluded that Newt had violated federal law and lied to the ethics panel.

Gingrich’s unethical and corrupt behavior helped RE-ELECT BILL CLINTON TO THE WHITE HOUSE. Now, you want to give him another opportunity to help RE-ELECT BARACK OBAMA TO THE WHITE HOUSE!

Stop the madness.

mountainaires on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Well said, and I agree. I don’t need the blogs to tell me who to support. I’m supporting Gingrich and Santorum–because even though they are scoundrels in their own way–I feel confident they will fight hard to bring this country back. Romney is too pliable IMO, and I supported him in 2008.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It is not in my nature to immediately suspect someone of wrong doing and so far I have not been convinced. The Newt supporters are aren’t trying hard enough I guess. Dedication is fierce amongst the Gov. Romney supporters.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Okay, you’ve convinced me, Newt took $1.6 million over ten years to bring the nation to the brink of financial ruin. Gosh he’s a cheap date.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

+10

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I wouldn’t be too quick on this analysis. Romney’s style was revealed last night by Newt letting him go. This is about electability, and you are going to need more than staff people sitting on google all day and writing your script. That is what Obama does. Can you imagine all the debates of Romney and Obama going back for forth with quips the whole time and never addressing the issues and/or solutions? When Obama attacks Republicans and conservatives and the Tea Party, what’s Romney going to say? He was in the private sector and doesnt know anything about it, and that’s what will make him a better President? I just don’t see where he is more electable. Do we need another scripted puppet in the White House?

Newt, let him have it in the next debate, and if we are lucky enough, there will be a moderator that will ask questions on what can be done to save America. And I want specifics, Mitt.

lea on January 24, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Poor Noot…needs his back row houligans to cheer him on and jeer romney. Those “debate skills” go out the window without them. Now he’s back to whining.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

This is Florida. I think Newt’s support of Medicare is going to be more of a plus in that state than the Freddie thing. As far as houses being underwater, when someone buys a house they know what their payment will be, the fact that the house looses value doesn’t change anything unless they try to sell. Only for those people will it matter. Our house has lost value but our payments are still the same. It doesn’t matter to us.

Rose on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I wonder how many others feel the way I do?

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I know that MikeRuss’s girlfriend does.

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Some complained about the lack of audience participation, specifically the admonition by NBC to not applaud or cheer. I actually liked that approach. These debates are too much like game shows as it is; we shouldn’t weigh candidates by their applause or cheers.

Have to disagree with Ed and others who liked this approach.

MSNBC didn’t suppress the audience to advance the debate. MSNBC suppressed the audience to avoid being embarrassed the way other Media sponsors have been embarrassed. They didn’t want to be exposed by Newt and humiliated by the audience. They are cowards who understand their credibility and their influence is at stake.

For far too long the Media has had too much influence on our politics, and they have used that influence to support their favored Democrat candidates and advance their own Leftist agendas. They understand they can’t afford to be held up as laughingstocks repeatedly on national stages. Nothing could be more destructive of their power than for them to be mocked.

Too many good people will not run for office because they don’t want to be smeared endlessly by a hostile Media. Too many times our politics are twisted by the Media’s intentional distortions of the Narrative. One of the best things to come out of these debates is the damage Newt has done to the Media’s credibility. Others need to follow suit, and strike some blows while we still have the national stage provided by the elections.

novaculus on January 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I submit, Barack Obama is a better family man, a better Christian and a better carrier of the family values label than the Republican Party of today.

I have changed my party affiliation to Independent and urge all of you to do the same.

This election is no longer about defeating Obama, but of defending the family. Obama is no more of a communist than Newt Gingrich is. Gingrich declared war on Capitalism.

But Obama, at least as far as we know is an honest man who keeps his marriage covenant. Michelle Obama did not carry out an affair and steal another woman’s husband.

The Democrats are now the Party of Family Values. I can’t be a Democrat… yet. But I can no longer support a Party that applauds and promotes adultery as the preferred lifestyle.

Please, leave this morally bankrupt Party and let’s start something better.

petunia on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Wow. I hardly know where to begin …

The Democrats are the Party of Family Values? The ones who champion partial-birth abortion? Abortion in general? That party?

Obama is a better family man? The guy who doesn’t want his daughters “to be burdened with an unplanned pregnancy?” The guy who through his surrogate Kathleen Sebelius of HHS has just revoked conscience protections for hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church and other religiously-based health services to fall into compliance with the offering of “reproductive services” (code for abortion and the morning-after pill)?

This election is no longer about defeating Obama? Surely you jest. You obviously are not paying any attention to anything going on around you in your community or in the nation and if you have, you likely think it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Gingrich is a closet Communist? That’s about as ludicrous an assertion as I’ve ever heard. Gingrich “declared war on capitalism?” Uh, huh. And Obama didn’t by taking over GM, right? Or by shutting down offshore drilling, or nixing the Keystone pipeline, or wanting energy prices “to necessarily skyrocket.” Right. Obama didn’t do any of that — those were all Gingrich’s ideas that were somehow funneled to Obama surreptitiously under the cover of darkness which Obama then incorporated into his policies. /s!

Instead of hiding behind the label of Independent, why don’t you just cut to the chase and be a Democrat? That’s what you are in all but name anyway.

PatriotGal2257 on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

FACT: The Gingrich Congress added over twenty million jobs, balanced the budget and started to pay down the national debt. Only Gingrich Republicans have a successful record of both economic growth and controlling Federal deficits (despite Bubbah’s infamous Midnight Basketball largess).

mountainaires lied: He lied when he was Speaker of the House, too: When Newt was speaker of the House, 84 ethics charges were filed against him, and he was reprimanded and penalized $300,000 by a 395-28 House vote

Of the 84 ethics charges filed by Leftist lynch-mobs against Newt, he was found innocent of 83 of them. The IRS then determined that the 84th was also bogus. The IRS determined that he violated no tax laws. none. nada. zip. zilch.

Romney-toadies should avoid parroting refried DNC smears.

Now, can any of you silly parrots answer Professor Thomas Sowell?

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone?

anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?

*crickets chirp*

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

From a Reuter’s Jan 12th article:

They have opted not to have a figurehead since the founding partners moved on. “Their success is based on relying on a process rather than a star system. This is part of their consulting legacy originating from Bain & Company,” said Joe Healey, who co-heads Korn/Ferry International’s private equity practice and who has recruited for Bain.

Bain has also preferred to lobby for its interests separately from the rest of the industry. The firm is not a backer of the industry’s main lobby group, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC).

The PEGCC was set up in 2007 and Bain is only one of three private equity firms to have pulled out of the group out of the 38 firms to have signed up. Instead, Bain relies on lobbying firms that include law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and Public Strategies Washington Inc.

Sources close to both Bain and the lobby group said the private equity firm did not renew its PEGCC membership in 2010, which costs between $750,000 and $1 million, because it found its interests best represented outside a body that also included publicly listed private equity firms

Oh my. $1 million a YEAR from Bain’s purse to PEGCC until they pulled out AFTER Romney left. And, true, Akin Gump et al are at a more prestigious address than K street, but nonetheless…(and you can bet your sweet bippy that $35,000 a year would get you an hour of Mr. Gump’s time. Romney hires the big guns. Oh, and I’m very sure Akin et al has all sorts of advisers who are there to advise on legislative and political and legal history.)

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I know that MikeRuss’s girlfriend does.

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM

In fairness, we only know that she thinks Mitt repeats himself regarding non-substansive issues while Newt had a better response about the space program. I’m not ready to settle on a candidate until she fleshes out her position fully.

nico on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Things that Nootie takes credit for:

1. Fall of Communism
2. Reagans victory in 1980
3. Conservation of conservative conservatism
4. Flat bread pizza
.
.
.
By his logic, would it be fair to say that the Republican congressional tornado of 2010 was solely because of Boehner?

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM

This is Florida. I think Newt’s support of Medicare is going to be more of a plus in that state than the Freddie thing. As far as houses being underwater, when someone buys a house they know what their payment will be, the fact that the house looses value doesn’t change anything unless they try to sell. Only for those people will it matter. Our house has lost value but our payments are still the same. It doesn’t matter to us.

Rose on January 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Yup…and Mitt’s desire to deport all illegal aliens ain’t going to go over too big in Miami…and unlike Mitt, Newt doesn’t despise Paul because of his views. He’s smart enough to show a little respect. Wonder how Mitt’s going to do in Texas? (just thinking of all that below the belt action he took on Perry)

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:31 PM

…anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?

*crickets chirp*

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Wait, is National Review a RINO conclave that salivates for Romney or not?!! I just can’t keep up anymore. Not at the rate the Einstein-esque Newties are exposing everybody as RINOs.

I think Newt should select Our Sarah as VP. I have never seen the map of the US completely painted blue…and this would help me fulfill my dream.

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Yup…and Mitt’s desire to deport all illegal aliens ain’t going to go over too big in Miami…and unlike Mitt, Newt doesn’t despise Paul because of his views. He’s smart enough to show a little respect. Wonder how Mitt’s going to do in Texas? (just thinking of all that below the belt action he took on Perry)

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Are you saying that ILLEGAL ALIENS vote?

Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

…anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?

*crickets chirp*

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Clinton was calling the shots. Newt melted every time he got in front of him….thus being run out of congress by true conservatives. That’s the long and short of it.

rubberneck on January 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

What is new is the vetting of the candidates that haven’t been vetted for POTUS. All have run the gauntlet and failed except Gingrich and Santorum. Now we are vetting Gingrich. His history is the news that needs to be fully vetted. In my view, those issues, even his history of infidelity, need to be fully vetted and considered to the very last detail.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I fully approve of vetting all of our candidates csdeven. By all means we should do this process with every intent and purpose to decide who is best to unseat Obama. What a shame that “we” allowed the liberal media to basically censure the vetting process of our current President, the result of which millions are now paying dearly for in an unprecedented federal government spending spree in the hideous name of “fairly distributing wealth”—(see Obama’s SOTU address tonight) That said, I was not making the point of what Romney’s deficiencies might or might not be. I was however positing what right2bright was saying: that many here that support Romney give their all to prove Newt Gingrich is not worthy of consideration for President, but rarely give any credible reason why or what Mitt Romney has to offer as the alternative choice.

Those who support Romney have heard the arguments against him for years.

Then, at least once in a while, wouldn’t it be prudent to provide the readership with some “arguments for” this candidate?

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Romney-toadies should avoid parroting refried DNC smears.

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Coming from a Newtron-toadie, that is pure irony.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Yes, indeed! Someone needs to evaluate the Republicans who didn’t want Newt any more. They replaced him with Dennie Hassert, one really disgusting corruptocrat (he bought worthless land and passed a bill to make it not so worthless…).

And wasn’t it the Republicans AFTER Newt who spent like drunken sailors and paved the way for Obama of hope and change fame?

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Then, at least once in a while, wouldn’t it be prudent to provide the readership with some “arguments for” this candidate?

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Interesting concept.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 1:41 PM

@xxessw: Important positive things that Mittens takes credit for:

1. waiting
2. waiting
3. waiting
4. romney-care? anyone?

By this logic, would it be fair to say RINO-Romney would be a nearly seamless complement to sell-out Mitch McConnell?

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Here’s a question:

Why does Santorum get no press after he wins a debate?

Zybalto on January 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM

xxessw bedwet: Wait, is National Review a RINO conclave that salivates for Romney or not?

They were.

Mitten’s consumate NROnline cheerleader, Nordlinger, had this to say about last night;

Newt is just superb, I think — in complete control of his thoughts and words. Graceful, interesting, effective. He manages to come off as both rebel-like, or maverick, and presidential …Mitt? Despite a couple good answers late in the game, he is weak, all too weak. On the tax-return thing, he is pathetic. I don’t know why.

Try harder to keep up.

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You have convinced me. Newt/Sarah 2012

xxessw on January 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM

rubberneck: Clinton was calling ducking the shots. Newt melted out-manuevered Bubbah every time he got in front of him…

FTFY

Cluebat: Mittens opposed the Contract with America

Try harder to keep up.

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Here’s a good article from Bloomberg that disusses Gingrich’s lack of transparency on Freddie Mac and contains this excerpt which gets us a little closer to the heart of the matter.

During his second stint as a Freddie Mac consultant, Gingrich was hired by company executive Hollis McLoughlin as part of an effort to shape a message that would win over allies in Republican circles, people familiar with the arrangement told Bloomberg News.

And just why would Freddie Mac need allies in Republican circles? I mean, other than to stifle reform. No wonder he said he was paid as an historian.

So here we have this supposed champion of conservative values promoting a socialist sub prime mortgage scheme and being handsomely paid to provide advice as to how to stifle reform.

Small government conservatives, as well as those who are anti-corruption, should be appalled. Here we have an organization being funded by the government using government funds to influence politicians. How is this any different than the Pentagon funding members of the Appropriations Committee?

Gingrich, of course, is not alone. All of those who took money from Fannie and Freddie, including Obama, were engaging in corrupt practices. This is bad public policy which never should have been allowed and the proof of that is in the pudding of the near collapse of the banking system.

Basilsbest on January 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Basilsbest chirps!: Bloomberg

…as in Michael We have to get behind the President Bloomberg?

color. me. underwhelmed.

*yawn*

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Basilsbest chirps!: Bloomberg

btw: The author of that “people familiar” hit piece also wrote;

The Dangers of Defanging the IRS

‘nuf said

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Let’s say Newt peddled influence for FM/FM. It’s not like Obama can attack him for it. He and the dems luuuuuuv FM/FM and everything they did to promote cheap, available housing to people who could not or would not save up to afford a home. So, what ammunition does this give them? Nothing.

There is no evidence that Newt ever lobbied for FM/FM (doing so would be illegal, and accusing someone of a crime is defamation, per se); to the contrary, the evidence is that he did not attempt to lobby anyone for FM/FM.

Did he provide consulting services to them to help them bolster their reputation? Probably.

Did he provide consulting services to them to assist them in weathering possible calamities and to encourage them to restructure in order to do so? Probably.

I’m not seeing the outrage.

As for his time as speaker, all of you who are harping on his so-called ethics violations, remember who filed those charges: David Bonior filed those charges. Maybe you might be interested in Levin’s take. He doesn’t even like Gingrich and he has plenty to say about Christie’s/Romney’s claims. http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-blasts-christie-for-parroting-old-left-wing-ethics-propaganda-against-newt/

totherightofthem on January 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Yup…and Mitt’s desire to deport all illegal aliens ain’t going to go over too big in Miami…and unlike Mitt, Newt doesn’t despise Paul because of his views. He’s smart enough to show a little respect. Wonder how Mitt’s going to do in Texas? (just thinking of all that below the belt action he took on Perry)

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 1:31 PM

That isn’t quite correct. He said they will self deport because they won’t be able to work without a valid ID card, and they can then get in line(at the end) for legal citizenship. Makes a lot more sense than Newt’s idea of letting local communities decide who goes and who stays. Can you think of any system more easily corrupted?

a capella on January 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Wow

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Crist is a real yuck.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Am I the only one who thought RINO Romney sounded like a sniveling, little snot-nosed spoiled brat last night??? If you looked away from the picture, you could swear whenever sniveling RINO Romney spoke, that it was OBAMA!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on January 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM

AtlasShrugs.com’s Pamela Geller writes that Gingrich “…may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch. And we need a son of a bitch to defeat the snake in the White House.”

That, more than anything else, describes Newt’s rise in the polls. Voters now that all the candidates are flawed, but Obama and his political hatchet-man David Axelrod will make mincemeat of Mitt (or Santorum or Cain or Mitch Daniels). Gingrich will at least fight back, as would Allen West.

My preference is to have no president for the next four years. Continue with the House-Senate stalemate, which at least insures that little gets done. If they don’t pass any legislation, they can’t spend any more money.

Colony14 on January 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Colatteral Damage: Am I the only one who thought RINO Romney sounded like a sniveling, little snot-nosed spoiled brat last night???

Nope.

Mitten’s consumate NROnline cheerleader, Jay Nordlinger, had this to say about last night;

Newt is just superb, I think — in complete control of his thoughts and words. Graceful, interesting, effective. He manages to come off as both rebel-like, or maverick, and presidential.

Mitt? Despite a couple good answers late in the game, he is weak, all too weak. On the tax-return thing, he is pathetic. I don’t know why.

*weak*

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Basilsbest on January 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I hope we approach Bloomberg with more than a grain of salt.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/heres-a-look-at-the-liberal-medias-dream-conservative/

This is disgusting, I’m glad they changed their minds.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Then, at least once in a while, wouldn’t it be prudent to provide the readership with some “arguments for” this candidate?

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I will when the atmosphere settles here. The minute I start listing the reasons for Romney, some recalcitrant Romney hater will show up and sidetrack the discussion. I am just not that interested in making an argument to people who IF they really wanted to know, would do the research on their own just like I do. I don’t get my info about any of the candidates from HA. I don’t ask others to do my research. I read articles and then research links etc to find out the facts on my own. That research informs my opinion.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Are you saying that ILLEGAL ALIENS vote?

Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Er, no. I didn’t say that. I was talking about the Hispanic vote. Lots and lots of legal ones.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I don’t get my info about any of the candidates from HA.csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM

99% smart self-advice. And I do respect your opinion more than many here, (for what that’s worth). Take your time a put together a good piece on Romney, and I’d be pleased to post it in the Greenroom for an honest discussion and a civil debate.

Rov

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Wow

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

No wonder. No freaking wonder. If a man can’t pick good support people, he’ll be herding cats, not leading.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

csdeven sobbed: I will when the atmosphere settles here

all. mouth. no. action.

Terp Mole on January 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 12:50 PMI am far from an expert but from what I understand, the off shore accounts were to help with Bain’s ability to be an international company, not to hide funds or escape taxes since neither occurred. If the accounts have indeed been closed it was probably because perception is all too often more harmful and the rational explanations. Read any thread here to verify.

That would be the explanation for the Cayman Island accounts, not so sure it applies to the Swiss account. But I’m no expert, either.

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Then WHY doesn’t Mitt give that simple explanation? And why hasn’t he said: “I paid 35% on my income when it was earned. I invested my earnings and pay 15 ADDITIONAL percent on that.” This worries me if he can’t make a simple case for his own income.

Just read his staff comes straight from Charlie Crist. This is a huge problem and a big answer as to his absurd campaign strategy.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Excuse me, but I don’t think that Newt lost the debate. Partly I feel that way because I think NBC did a really lousy job of moderating the debate, so that it is a little hard to say who won and who lost — sort of like the next to last Obama-McCain debate that NBC’s Tom Brokaw moderated. Partly I feel the way I do because I am tired of the sniping as to tax returns, Freddie Mac and Bain Capital.

For me, I am unpersuaded by Romney either as to his electability or his effort to cast himself as a conservative. Romney’s only public service was a short term as the Massachusetts Governor, and in that term, he raised taxes, was adamantly pro-abortion rights, appointed Democrats to the state judiciary and championed RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare. There is nothing in that record to do anything but drive conservatives away. Newt’s characterization of Romney as a Massachusetts moderate is fair. Consequently, I am not sure that Romney will take the conservative case to Obama.

At least Newt has a record of conservative achievement with Contract for America, leading the election of a GOP House for the first time in decades and with that GOP House, require and work with Bill Clinton to balance the budget and effect welfare reform. Newt has dealt with the specifics of balancing the federal budget, and that is hugely important. There is no doubt that Newt will and can take the conservative case to Obama.

Phil Byler on January 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Rov

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Are you serious? What format?

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Go to this Greenroom post at the last comments and I’ll hook up with you.

Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Newt clearly did not lobby. He taught others how to do so effectively. That IS a simple significant difference.

{^_^}

herself on January 25, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5