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 2 3 4 5

Amjean on January 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

This fake “award” went out as part of Newt’s now defunct tax-exempt 527 org “American Solutions/Winning the Future”. Political parties are not tax exempt “527″ orgs, and unlike with this phony award scheme, it is clear as a bell why and to whom donations are being made.

Anyhoo, here’s someone who was “bewildered” as to why he was chosen to have received this awesome award.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I know $1.6 million over ten years is big money to you and I but seriously are you kidding me? And it went to his consulting firm, he didn’t pocket the whole amount. I don’t know what he did for Freddie and the point is, neither do you. You want me to accept at face value that Gov. Romney is a fine upstanding man and I have no problem doing that but you want to view Newt as a villain and I don’t have enough information to cast him in that role. If you can’t vote for him, I understand and respect your view.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

How about common sense? Why do you think Freddie Mac paid Newt $1.6M? Of all the possible reasons, which are acceptable for somebody running for election as a conservative reformer?

Was Newt really a paid historian? Did Freddie pay Newt $1.6M to lecture on the history of mortgage lending? If not, why did Newt offer up this lie when first questioned about it?

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Do I think this is possible? Yes i do.

A lobbyist is someone who takes money from a client and goes to a politician and advocates for the client’s position because he was paid. Lobbyists must register with the government otherwise what they are doing is illegal. So what you are saying is that Newt was illegally lobbying because Newt was never a registered lobbyist.

If you are accusing Newt of being a lobbyist on behalf of Freddie you better have more proof than his consulting firm took $1.6 million over several years. Are there any congressmen who say that Newt lobbyed them on behalf of Freddie?

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Mr. Arkadin on January 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You sound like Romney’s mom.

Vince on January 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Santorum won this, but I have to wonder how many people were able to keep watching long enough to see it. IMO it was the most boring debate thus far.

Eren on January 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Amjean on January 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I imagine that he still considers Georgia his home but I truly don’t know about all of his businesses. I bet I will before it’s all over, or at least the bad ones.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I just want to point out one thing. If Newt maintains his lead in the Florida polls after this debate Romney is in serious trouble. All Romney has are the negative attacks and if they aren’t hurting Newt then Romney’s got nothing.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:27 AM

How about common sense? Why do you think Freddie Mac paid Newt $1.6M? Of all the possible reasons, which are acceptable for somebody running for election as a conservative reformer?

Was Newt really a paid historian? Did Freddie pay Newt $1.6M to lecture on the history of mortgage lending? If not, why did Newt offer up this lie when first questioned about it?

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:16 AM

It is funny, how people attack Newt…but they never give any reason to vote for Romney.
You don’t get it…we are at “war” with this administration, we don’t need a “saint” we need a fighter, a street fighter. Newt has led a conservative revolution…what has Mitt led? Staples and Home Depot or something.
You guys would not have chosen Churchill, a drunkard, rebellious, out spoken, over weight, cigar smoking, arrogant arse…but would have chosen Chamberlain instead.
At times we don’t select the “nicest”, we select who can win, and change the direction of our nation.
We say, now, it’s Newt…so give us a reason why Mitt is better, don’t drag down Newt, we get it, he isn’t perfect…show us where Mitt is better, where he has led the troops to battle.
But repeating the same gossip, 20 year old gossip, and regurgitating what the MSM is saying doesn’t convince us…we get the game.
Show us what Mitt can do…and relax on attacking Newt.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You can’t have it both ways. If you say Newt was so hated by everyone when he left the house, how can you turn around and say he any influence on congress to peddle anything?

Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Easy. He had become a liability to House Republicans as Speaker…that doesn’t mean he couldn’t still sway on policy outside of that role.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I truly don’t know about all of his businesses.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Here’s a good place to start.

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Ed asked “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?”

A: It doesn’t change the fact that Newt’s ability to capture important moments still remains. Last night wasn’t a great debate for Mitt or Newt, though Mitt got the better of it in terms of being the aggressor.

The reality is, though, that Mitt’s answer on what he’s done for the conservative movement was pathetic. It’ll be highlighted the rest of the way to the Florida Primary by the alternative media.

They’re starved for someone who’s one of them. Conservatives still outnumber liberals by a 2:1 margin. The demographic that matters most is starting as a conservative.

Mitt isn’t a conservative. I won’t call him a RINO or a Rockefeller Republican or anything of that sort but I can’t call Mitt a conservative.

That answer, more than all the others combined, will hurt Mitt the most.

LFRGary on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

BTW, csdeven and buydanish are two of the most obvious Mitt supporters..yet I have never seen any post where all they do is rip Newt, but never give any support or evidence of what Mitt can do to help this country.
Apparently they think like that old joke with the two hunters and the bear…you don’t have to out run the bear, just the other hunter.
They think all they have to do is show Newt is not worthy, and it clears the path…but to what? The bear?
Show us where Mitt can take on the bear, and defeat Obama…and worry less about how to make an opponent look bad…with gossip no less.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

+1000

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM
We say, now, it’s Newt…so give us a reason why Mitt is better, don’t drag down Newt, we get it, he isn’t perfect…show us where Mitt is better, where he has led the troops to battle.
But repeating the same gossip, 20 year old gossip, and regurgitating what the MSM is saying doesn’t convince us…we get the game.
Show us what Mitt can do…and relax on attacking Newt.

I posted this elsewhere; I find it fascinating how we are letting the media dictate the discussion. Even the Washington Times has run an op-ed explaing why Newt’s character is the defining question of our age. What a load of hooey.

Our focus needs to be the issues.

Let’s start with Mitt. Can anyone tell me Mitt’s position on the following:

Repealing Obamacare
Offshore drilling
ANWR
Ethanol subsidies
Cap and trade
Voter IDs
Illegal immigrants
E-Verify
Border security
Balanced Budget
Abortion

Heck, what’s his position on CFLs?

Quit rummaging around in these people’s bedrooms and focus back on their conservative credentials.

AJsDaddie on January 24, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Newt lost the debate? Not the guy who droned on and on and on? Let’s be honest here, Santorum won it in spite of practically being shut out by Williams who was clearly trying to help Romney. I’d say Newt came in 2nd, Paul 3rd and then Romney.

The GOP Est. and its pundit minions, Drudge, Fox, the Obama admin, and HA etc. are trying to get us little people to swallow the **** sandwhich that Romney is and we won’t.

CCRWM on January 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The fact that there are as many people as there are on here defending Newt’s time at FM/FM baffles me. It is a perfect example to objective people as to how politics, getting your guy in there, or making sure the other guy doesn’t can cause people to quickly and completely go against their supposed principles without even batting an eye or doing a double take. The human animal, it’s pretty amazing.

Nobody wants Mitt. And many would rather pretend apparently that this line of attack against Newtisn’t powerful, effective, worthy of being brought up, or as justifiable vetting of a candidates character(and Conservatism), than let Romney gain a solid footing against him on an issue. And issue that you KNOW if we were campaigning against a democrat, or even if Romney had done it(what’s the real difference between those two, right?!), that to conservatives, lobbying for FM/FM would be a heavy millstone we’d be strapping around your neck and beating you with.

These GSE’s caused the market collapse. Newt was one of their representatives in DC. I wonder if he and Barney Frank ever car pooled together? After all he’s been on the couch with Nancy. Endorsed Scozafava. Loves him some Medicare part D. Helped pioneer and push the idea of the Mandate. If fact, one could make the argument that Newt himself had a big hand in Massachusetts ending up with the plan that they did, and a mandate. He agreed with climate change. The list goes on and on. Yet here we are, buying in to Newt’s do called “conservatism” and blocking out reality in order to defend it and hang onto this fleeting notion. Because god, please, pleeeeeeeease, don’t give us Romney.

The Tea Party never had a chance. And we don’t have a choice in this election. This is sad.

Boomer_Sooner on January 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I know $1.6 million over ten years is big money to you and I but seriously are you kidding me?

The dollar amount is incidental. His willingness to lobby is what’s important in judging his fitness for office.

I don’t know what he did for Freddie and the point is, neither do you.

Yes, I do. I don’t know the specific ways in which he attempted to secure government support, but common sense says that’s what he was paid to do. And that alone is a strike against him. It doesn’t disqualify him completely, but, as an advocate of small government, and IMHO, it’s a giant red flag. The fact that he lied about it is another.

You want me to accept at face value that Gov. Romney is a fine upstanding man [...]

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Hey, I never said that! :)

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Newt was given money by Freddie to act as a firewall and influence GOP legislators against Bush and conservative GOP members of congress who were trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie in the years preceding the crash of 2008.

Newt is in the same league as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. You koolaid drinkers are just too drunk to see the truth for what it is.

fight like a girl on January 24, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Newt was never a lobbyist for Freddie Macor Fannie Mae. You are accusing him falsely of a crime.

There are numerous regulations governing the practice of lobbying, often ones requiring transparency and disclosure.[7] People paid to lobby must register with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives within 45 days of contacting a legislator for the first time, or 45 days after being employed.[7][4] An exception is that lobbyists who earn less than $3,000 per client for each fiscal quarter, or whose total lobbying expenses are less than $11,500 each quarter, do not need to register.[7] Part-time lobbyists are exempt from registering unless they spend more than 20% of their working hours doing lobbying activities in any quarter. If lobbyists have two or more contacts with a legislator as a lobbyist, then they must register.[7][4] Requirements for registering also apply to companies that specialize in lobbying, or ones that have an in-house lobbyist, particularly if they spend more than $11,500 on lobbying.[7] Generally, nonprofit organizations, other than churches, are exempt from registering if they hire an outside lobbying firm.[7] Filing must be made each quarter, and a separate file is needed for each of the lobbyist’s clients, and include information such as the name and title of the client, an estimate of lobbying expenses, and an estimate of income the lobbyist achieved after doing the lobbying.[7]

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The group that consulted with Freddie, they aren’t strictly about health care are they?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM

We say, now, it’s Newt…so give us a reason why Mitt is better, don’t drag down Newt, we get it, he isn’t perfect…show us where Mitt is better, where he has led the troops to battle.
But repeating the same gossip, 20 year old gossip, and regurgitating what the MSM is saying doesn’t convince us…we get the game.
Show us what Mitt can do…and relax on attacking Newt.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I’m game. For me, because this field of candidates sucks, it’s been a process of elimination, boiling down to who has the best shot to beat Obama. For my money, that is Romney. He doesn’t have the conservative record I’d like, but neither do any of the remaining candidates. Beyond that, he has executive experience, both at the state level as well as the private sector…those are big considerations for me. I think he’s demonstrated that he can lead, and do so competently. He won in a state dominated by Dems, demonstrating he can appeal across the aisle. Nobody likes to hear that, but it’s important in a general. Plus, he has the organization and the money to go toe to toe with the Obama machine…the remaining candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, do not.

Again, as I say, it has been a process of elimination though. He’s not my ideal candidate, but out of this field I think he has the best shot.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

To my fellow Conservatives… the real ones:

The Republican Party has totally lost it’s way.

It is no longer the party of traditional family values.

It is no longer the party of good clean government.

I watched, as my party gave a standing ovation in praise of adultery.

And now they have rejected the man who stands firmly for traditional marriage and family and lives it in his private life.

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

I don’t know the specific ways in which he attempted to secure government support, but common sense says that’s what he was paid to do. And that alone is a strike against him. It doesn’t disqualify him completely, but, as an advocate of small government, and IMHO, it’s a giant red flag. The fact that he lied about it is another.

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Newt would have to register as a lobbyist if he was accepting money from Freddie or Fannie to lobby. Where is your proof that he lobbied? Hunches don’t count.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Ed,
I’m not sure we were watching the same “debate”. Even though I fell asleep about half way in, your wishful descriptions are, well, wishful descriptions. Romney, as usual, looked like the nerd kid on the playground who all he could say was “nyah, nyah, you’re a liar”. Pitiful. This is not someone who I would want as President. If you want to know the truth, Santorum won the verbals, Mittens lost the visuals, Newt was a draw on both. Oh, and Granpa was as unintelligible as usual.

NOMOBO on January 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Newt would have to register as a lobbyist if he was accepting money from Freddie or Fannie to lobby. Where is your proof that he lobbied? Hunches don’t count.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Come now. I accept he didn’t register as a lobbyist, but they don’t pay that amount of money for history lessons.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM

So I don’t know what you mean by “influence peddling”

What I mean by influence peddling is going to active GOP legislators and trying to convince them to vote for or against a piece of legislation, not because it is the right thing to do, but because you are on the payroll of the corporate entity that will benefit or lose from that legislation. It is whoring out your principles, and, to my knowledge, Reagan never did that.

Priscilla on January 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM

AJ… Romney was asked about the sugar cane subsidy, gave a canned non answer and then in a total non sequitur went on to drone out his rehearsed canned statements(I can’t even remember an iota of what he said just that he deflected again). But Newt lost the lesser debate!

CCRWM on January 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM

AS far as all this can’t wait for Newt to debate Obama stuff…
we’ve kind of already seen this match up –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Afr-zI8Ys

verbaluce on January 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

But Obama, at least as far as we know is an honest man…

petunia on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

petunia, your petals must be closed shut. Obama is the most dishonest and disingenous President the nation has ever seen, worse than even Nixon. If it wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing out loud at your mindless comment.

NOMOBO on January 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Show us where Mitt can take on the bear, and defeat Obama…and worry less about how to make an opponent look bad…with gossip no less.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I agree with you there. Not sure he can.

Priscilla on January 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So what you are saying is that Newt was illegally lobbying because Newt was never a registered lobbyist.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM

If you want to let him off on that technicality than so be it. I don’t care whether Newt was a registered lobbyist or a mere influence peddler. He had no problems working within that entire corrupt apparatus and for that reason his reformist pitch rings hollow.

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Hey, I never said that! :)

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

That’s true, I stand corrected. For all I know Newt could have been giving health care insurance advice to Freddie for their employees. If you look at this chart that Flora Duh was so nice to link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-house-that-newt-built/2011/11/26/gIQAqxpazN_graphic.html

That particular company seems to deal with healthcare. I find that odd. Maybe a new scandal! Fingers crossed.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Show us where Mitt can take on the bear, and defeat Obama…and worry less about how to make an opponent look bad…with gossip no less.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I am with you on this. Mitt is the guy I am supporting right now, but I’m not sure that he CAN take on the bear. I’m hoping.

Priscilla on January 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM

It is funny, how people attack Newt…but they never give any reason to vote for Romney.
You don’t get it…we are at “war” with this administration, we don’t need a “saint” we need a fighter, a street fighter. Newt has led a conservative revolution…what has Mitt led? Staples and Home Depot or something.
You guys would not have chosen Churchill, a drunkard, rebellious, out spoken, over weight, cigar smoking, arrogant arse…but would have chosen Chamberlain instead.
At times we don’t select the “nicest”, we select who can win, and change the direction of our nation.
We say, now, it’s Newt…so give us a reason why Mitt is better, don’t drag down Newt, we get it, he isn’t perfect…show us where Mitt is better, where he has led the troops to battle.
But repeating the same gossip, 20 year old gossip, and regurgitating what the MSM is saying doesn’t convince us…we get the game.
Show us what Mitt can do…and relax on attacking Newt.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Absolutely right. We need a freakin’ street fighter to turn the USS America around. Romney will only manage the decline.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM

oops, semi-double posted.

Priscilla on January 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM

ED MORRISSEY,

What debate were you watching last night?

Romney had an epic fail!!

The most defining moment of all the debates for Romney was when he was asked what he had done to promote Conservatism.

Romney answers:

I had a family….so did Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid!
I was a businessman….so is Buffet, Gates, Soros,
I was Governor of Mass….Romney Care, tax hikes, funded abortions

The crucial, final question where you leave a lasting impression with voters, and this is what Romney says!!!

The epic fail on this question is why Romney is a moderate, not a true Conservative, and cannot be President!

Sparky5253 on January 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

You can’t have it both ways. If you say Newt was so hated by everyone when he left the house, how can you turn around and say he had any influence on congress to peddle anything?

Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM
+a bazillion!!!!

Vince on January 24, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Thanks, I just noticed I left out a word. Oops!

Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Newt did just fine, Mitt did what he had to do, and MSNBC proved it’s incapable of doing debates with Republican candidates.

bflat879 on January 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

“The Battle of Dueling Disclosures.” Was funny

In March we should be getting to the Important stuff Like finally getting to see there birth certificates.

boogaleesnots on January 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Boy, do I disagree. I thought Romney’s charges were disjointed–literally all over the place. He’s still making the absurd charge that Gingrich made $1.6 million from Freddy when the payment was made to his firm(s).

Historian? He was being paid for his experience and knowledge which was worth the price since Gingrich is a walking encylopedia re history of the GSA’s, including Freddy, and the specifics of its establishment laws and their subsequent iterations. THAT is what historians do. Influence peddling? Like Romney wasn’t influence peddling with his checkbook with Republican politicians who were happy to endorse their contributor? Does Bain have a lobbyist? Does it belong to professional groups whose entire existance is lobbying? Not advising. Lobbying. The kind which requires lunches and golf trips and money give to PAC’s. Pontias Pilot may have washed his hands but no one believes he wasn’t a part of the execution.

The attack or assumption of debate superiority on this is very puzzling…petty and inaccurate and a strawman since I doubt Freddy HAS a “history” department. Romney just lobbed charges incoherently–associating support for Part D with Freddy? That didn’t make sense.

As an old debate coach, I wouldn’t score Romney the winner. Romney lost that debate and did it without grace. Saying Newt retired in “disgrace” is like saying Sarah retired in “disgrace” and that HE failed to run for a second term because as a governor HE was a “disgrace”. Someone needs to explain the post-Newt Republican party that elected Dennie Hassert and morphed into the Democrat lites.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Myth Romney gazes at fellow arch conservative, Charlie Crist, in a manner suggestive of scented oil and candles…

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-crist-rubio-gingrich/2012/01/23/id/425195

Typhonian on January 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

ED MORRISSEY,

What debate were you watching last night?

Romney had an epic fail!!

The most defining moment of all the debates for Romney was when he was asked what he had done to promote Conservatism.

Romney answers:

I had a family….so did Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid!
I was a businessman….so is Buffet, Gates, Soros,
I was Governor of Mass….Romney Care, tax hikes, funded abortions

The crucial, final question where you leave a lasting impression with voters, and this is what Romney says!!!

The epic fail on this question is why Romney is a moderate, not a true Conservative, and cannot be President!

Sparky5253 on January 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I keep bringing this point up on the debate threads, but you never get a response from the Romney supporters. That is how bad Romney’s answer was. At least Gingrich can point to conservative causes he’s fought for.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Excellent points.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:54 AM

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

Good golly Miss Molly. Petunia wants an Imam checking for virginity and adultery. Ms. Petunia would have luved John Adams but rejected Jefferson, Adam’s own brother Sam, Washington, Franklin, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mitt’s own grandfather…and she’s threatening to join the party of Bill Clinton and John Edwards and John Kennedy and FDR and….

Was Lenin faithful? I don’t know.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Rick Lazio who is supporting Mitt Romney on Newt/lobbying/FM.

Friday morning, I talked with Lazio (who tells me he is backing Mitt Romney for president) to see if his recollection matched Gingrich’s.

“[Gingrich] was supportive of the work that I did in housing — and the efforts at reforming a whole slew of programs,” Lazio told me via telephone.

“I don’t recall that he ever intervened or asked me to do anything that would have protected or helped either Freddie or Fannie during those years,” he said.

Interestingly, Lazio also implied that Gingrich might have had good reason to use his influence to try to lobby him:

[Gingrich] had awareness of the fact the many of us were calling for the then regulator…that we were kind of pushing that regulator to provide more oversight [on Freddie]. I’m sure he was aware of that. And I don’t recall any effort on his part to intervene — to kind of water it down — or to try to convince anybody on our side that we ought to be a lighter touch on them.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/16/rick-lazio-gingrich-never-lobbied-me-for-freddie/#ixzz1kOM6T3qM

momoftxmomof3 on January 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Maybe this can help.

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Romney also gave himself a death blow in Florida with his self-deportation solution for illegal immigration.

How many illegals from Cuba will willingly self-deport back to Communist Cuba under a ruthless dictator, and happily wait for the chance to legally immigrate back to the US.

These illegals risked their lives to escape Cuba, and should they go back, will probably end up bearing the brunt of Castro’s militia.

Romney desperation is becoming Romney stupidity as he just lost the immigrant vote!

Sparky5253 on January 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

HotAir declares Romney the invincible victor, news at 11!!!!

abobo on January 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM

And you guys daydream that Barry will do more than 2 or 3 ninety minutes debates for the General Election? And is it not true that Presidential debates are conducted in controlled climate (ie : no audience participation) and Newt would not get his oxygen?

galtani on January 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM

BTW, csdeven and buydanish are two of the most obvious Mitt supporters..yet I have never seen any post where all they do is rip Newt, but never give any support or evidence of what Mitt can do to help this country.

right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

At this time I do support Romney. In the past I have supported Palin, Bachmann, T-Paw, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. But since the truth is out about Gingrich, he will never be a consideration again. I doubt I will ever support Paul unless my choice is the clueless Paul or the corrupt liar Gingrich. Santorum is my firewall against Neutron Newt. If Romney collapses, I go full bore for Santorum. If Santorum fails, I reluctantly support Paul.

Many of the ABR’s worshipers do not want to discuss rationally, so there is no point. Not to speak for anyone else, but I am not interested in the echo chamber, so there is no reason to carry on long conversation with others who support the same candidate as I do.

So, all that is left is ripping the only politician in the race with a history of violating the marriage bed, the sacred trust of the public, and the faith of those he led in the house. So ingrained is this behavior as a part of his character that he has cheated on two wives, lied to the public and the bipartisan ethics panel, and was drummed out in disgrace as the speaker. Additionally, he has been a Washington influence peddler and disrespects all of America to the point that he tried to call it being a “historian”. This is the typical world of the typical Washington insider. He thinks that Americans are stupid enough to follow the shiny lights when we have the truth about his lies.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

JC Watts on Newt/lobbying/FM

Former Oklahoma congressman J. C. Watts defended Newt Gingrich’s involvement with Freddie Mac in a conference call with reporters this afternoon.

Watts has served as chairman of FM Policy Focus, which describes itself as “a coalition of financial services and housing-related trade associations working with affordable housing and consumer advocates, taxpayer groups and financial institutions.” The group closely monitors the activities of housing giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Given his close observation of the lobbying efforts on Capital Hill, Watts said he was surprised to hear that Newt Gingrich had supposedly served as a lobbyist for Freddie. “In six years, I never heard Newt Gingrich’s name mentioned,” he said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288945/watts-defends-gingrich-over-freddie-mac-brian-bolduc

momoftxmomof3 on January 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I appreciate your help with my laziness and sad lack of computer skills. I must say that after reading that information/mission statement I am even more confused as to why Newt is getting hammered for consulting with Freddie Mac. Obviously I am missing something since surely our hosts wouldn’t allow the perception of mortgage impropriety to be attached to Gingrich is he was just consulting with a company of many employees and the best way to handle their health needs.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Obama is praying for the first time in his life …that that Master Debater Gingrich wins Florida.

profitsbeard on January 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

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

That’s really sweet. You’re an idiot. Sorry, but you are. This election isn’t about family values. It’s about the economy. Jobs. De-regulation. Tyranny. Gas prices and many other more important issues than how many wives a man has had or if he has stayed married to the same one. I don’t condone adultery, who does? Do you not remember who the defacto head of the Dem party is when it isn’t Obama? Yeah, that would be Bill Clinton. The dude has slept with or attempted to sleep w/more women than you can shake a stick at. He was accused of harrassment and molestation. But Obama now makes the Dems the “family values party”, rigghhhtt. Whatever. Don’t burn your lips on that crack pipe, Petunia.

JAM on January 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

The most telling part of that debate was the question to Mitt on what he has done for conservatism. He gave one of the most pathetic answers I’ve ever heard. He is not a conservative and to expect the conservative base to support him is insane.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Agreed, he did. And so did Santorum and so did Gingrich. Actually, the most direct and articulate answer came from Paul; unfortunately, he was articulating libertarianism, not conservatism.

The problem is that none of these candidates are conservatives as you define conservatism; at the same time, your conservatism isn’t particularly conservative in the strict sense of the term. Paul is an old-Right libertarian, whose “crazy” views would have been comfortably main stream Republican in the early part the century. Newt is an uneasy mixture of Jacksonian and Hamiltonian conservatism who occasionally mutters Jeffersonian small-government platitudes but doesn’t really believe them. Romney is a moral rationalist who sits squarely in the Hamiltonian tradition. Santorum is a Reagan Democrat, conservative Catholic wing.

The very real problem facing the Republican party at this moment in time is that modern conservatism no longer exists. Created by William F. Buckley and Company out of elements of the above in response to the cold war, the modern conservative coalition was always an uneasy alliance. The pressure of the Communist threat kept that alliance intact until the Soviets imploded; then the cracks started to show. 9-11, the threat of radical Islam, and disgust with our first true “post Cold War President”, Clinton, provided a temporary reprieve, and got George W. Bush elected. It’s all been downhill from there.

In time, a new conservative coalition will form; like the old, it will form in response to an existential threat. In my opinion, that threat is not radical Islam, which is a great problem, but not as great a problem as it is made out to be. Rather, the threat is the incipient collapse of the post-war welfare state, which has the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. Despite their rhetoric, conservatives have been just as complicit in the growth of that welfare-state as have liberals. People sense this; this is why we have the Tea Party, and why Paul, who is part of a tradition that attacked that state at its inception, is a real factor in this election.

None of these candidates are True Conservatives, but all are conservative after a fashion. Quite frankly, I would like to see Romney elected President, with Newt as his VP. The two actually complement each other nicely. Romney the rational technocratic manager allied with Newt’s fearless rhetorical brilliance. Together they might just be able to set this country aright.

Mr. Arkadin on January 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

For all I know Newt could have been giving health care insurance advice to Freddie for their employees.
Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Ha! Not hardly likely. If that was the case why wouldn’t he have made that case instead of claiming he was hired as an “historian”? He may have been very knowledgeable on health issues but there are many more people who do this corporate advisory work exclusively for a living that corporations turn to for advice on these matters.

Their own website states, “Our benefits rank among the best in the nation! We annually assess our benefits in a benchmarking study facilitated by a well-known national consulting firm. This study includes 21 well respected financial services companies in the nation”

Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

All of this gets crazier by the day.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

The urban legand that Newt is some sort of super debater who will destroy Obama in the debates is now subject to Newt’s own narcissism on that subject and his reckless use examples that doesn’t jive with facts.

Tater Salad on January 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Newt wasn’t a lobbyist, he only “consulted” the chief lobbyist for Freddie.

Tater Salad on January 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Oh dear.

It’s all over for Newt.

In a sleepy and quiet debate he did a bit lackluster in one exchange with Mitt.

Yeah it’s all over for Newt now….

Good grief the establishment is getting hysterical.

Reggie1971 on January 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Easy. He had become a liability to House Republicans as Speaker…that doesn’t mean he couldn’t still sway on policy outside of that role.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Sorry, I forgot for a minute who I was talking to.

If you want to let him off on that technicality than so be it. I don’t care whether Newt was a registered lobbyist or a mere influence peddler. He had no problems working within that entire corrupt apparatus and for that reason his reformist pitch rings hollow.

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

This is, I think, why we are so far behind dems in the overall fight. You are talking about something Newt did, but compare it to something that is actually illegal and call it a technicality. I think it’s great that we hold ourselves to high standards, but our “standards” have already chewed up and spit out a lot of candidates in this race. This is what we are left with. One of these two is most likely going to be the nominee.

Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Anybody else remember when Conservative bloggers were getting their panties in a wad claiming Newt and Perry were using the dem playbook?

Southernblogger on January 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Excellent find, thanks!

Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ed,
I’m not sure we were watching the same “debate”. Even though I fell asleep about half way in, your wishful descriptions are, well, wishful descriptions.

NOMOBO on January 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Oh that’s typical of Ed! Yesterday he was a Gingrich shill!

**shakes head**

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

It didn’t help Newt much either that Williams didn’t open himself up for a diving elbow drop (Ooh Yeah!).

ncconservative on January 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

And Newt the Crybaby Returns

Gingrich Says He Will Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

Presidential, right there.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I must say that after reading that information/mission statement I am even more confused as to why Newt is getting hammered for consulting with Freddie Mac. Obviously I am missing something since surely our hosts wouldn’t allow the perception of mortgage impropriety to be attached to Gingrich is he was just consulting with a company of many employees and the best way to handle their health needs.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

You honestly, honestly believe he was just an historian…even though he was basically hired to work under Freddie’s lobbying arm?

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Its the context thingy. The dude just demolished Romney in South Carolina. He was in cruise mode. I figure newt is best when he is under pressure. He pretty much lost the last debate, but watch out for the next one. The Florida GOP voters will be watching closely, and as I suspect, if newt wins that one, he’ll win Florida. And if he ends up as our nominee, you can be sure that team obama will keep up the pressure right uptill D day.

tommy71 on January 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I don’t think Romney had any breakthrough moments in the debate, he just threw too much at Newt and in a muddled whirlwind of attacks. However, it is good to see him starting to find his voice and as more time goes by, he should be able to get better at landing blows and responding to attacks. This is why it is good Newt won South Carolina, to extend this primary and test all of the candidates.

I still haven’t heard a full fledged, heart felt defense from Romney about his time at Bain Capital, simply expressing his disappointment in Conservatives for attacking him on the issue gives would not work against Obama. I also would like to hear Romney’s defense of his Capital Gains tax rate – does Obama want to raise the capital gains tax rate which serves as a double tax on investors? Make Obama say something stupid like that.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

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

At least Gingrich can point to conservative causes he’s fought for.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

And his lies, unethical behavior in the house and with his wives. He was drummed out of the speakership in shame because he was an unethical toxic anchor around the party’s neck.

The same will happen in the general. Neutron Newt will implode and that will be that.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Gingrich Says He Will Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

and Mitt should say he won’t debate unless audiences stay quiet. You know who that helps

gerrym51 on January 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

And Newt the Crybaby Returns

Gingrich Says He Will Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

Presidential, right there.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Newt, standing up for the citizens to be part of the participatory government that we call a Republic. This is the most unpresidential thing I have ever heard of! There needs to be a law.

astonerii on January 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Presidential, right there.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

No kidding. I’m fine with him not participating, personally.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I don’t know what he consulted with them on and neither do you. According to the mission statement of the company that consulted with Freddie Mac, it seems to focus on healthcare but if you want to insist that he took $1.6 million over ten years to try to ruin the country, I’m on board.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

To the Romney supporters:
You still don’t get it, do you? The Conservative base does not want Mitt Romney as the nominee. They never did and never will. There isn’t any candidate out there they would trade Mitt Romney for (not even McCain as we saw in 2008). Mitt Romney is a man without belief and position. He is the ultimate politician that will say anything to get elected. He is a fraud and there is nothing he can do to change that.

It took time for the base to get behind a candidate and they are getting there. With Perry dropping out, it’s between Mitt and Santorum. Sarah Palin got the base to rally behind newt in South Carolina and until she says otherwise, Newt will get the majority of the Tea Party vote regardless of how he performs in debates. If he implodes, that vote will just move to Santorum.

Mitt Romney is DONE because the Conservative base does not want him. Mitt
Romney will NEVER be the GOP nominee, period. The base will not let it happen. The race is between Newt and Santorum and Sarah Palin is the referee. For now, she is behind Newt so the Tea Party is getting behind Newt.

jules on January 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Hey you know what Newt might want to bring up Thursday?
Mitt Romneys Swiss bank account that he had until 2010.
Seems like that might sort of matter in the general election – right ?

jjshaka on January 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Presidential, right there.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I wonder what it means when he says this?…..

“We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

What will he do if he doesn’t get his way?

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

petunia, I’m sympathetic to the idea of leaving the GOP, having made that step m’self a while back. But joining the Dems because ‘the Dems are now the party of family values?’ Wow, you’ve lost your grip, and may need counseling I’m afraid.

james23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Will the Romney-bots kindly 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… 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 11:23 AM

and Mitt should say he won’t debate unless audiences stay quiet. You know who that helps

gerrym51 on January 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I certainly know which one looks more dignified and presidential.

And I know which one most closely mimics the debates the Debate Commission will set up.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

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

petunia on January 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I think you should change your mental state to insane.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I don’t think Romney had any breakthrough moments in the debate, he just threw too much at Newt and in a muddled whirlwind of attacks. However, it is good to see him starting to find his voice and as more time goes by, he should be able to get better at landing blows and responding to attacks. This is why it is good Newt won South Carolina, to extend this primary and test all of the candidates.

I still haven’t heard a full fledged, heart felt defense response from Romney about his time at Bain Capital, simply expressing his disappointment in Conservatives for attacking him on the issue gives would not work against Obama. I would also like to hear Romney’s defense of his Capital Gains tax rate – does Obama want to raise the capital gains tax rate which serves as a double tax on investors? Make Obama say something stupid like that.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Had to clean that post up a bit. Ugh, I need lunch.

Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

What will he do if he doesn’t get his way?

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You know the answer as well as I do… the same thing he has always done when someone has has him out for being the blowhole he actually is.

He’ll cave.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Hey Ed, Allah, Tina, and Jazz,

I don’t care if you dislike Newt, but why don’t you have the decency of just coming right out and saying so? You’re one of the most influential conservative blogs on the internet yet every post about Newt has a tinge of anti-Gingrich bias.

Just say you’re for either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Stop pretending to be neutral when you clearly are not.

Mitt Romney looked desperate last night. Gingrich was off his game. And the fact of the matter is the issues Romney was going on about are not the issues that will frame this next election: It’s going to be about what kind of a nation we want to live in.

I am for Newt Gingrich because I believe he knows how to articulate that.

I am not sure that Mitt Romney does. He has not given me a compelling reason to support him.

joshleguern on January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

One’s documents will show he made a ton of money, millions, legally.It will show he paid all of his taxes, millions. It will show he gave millions to charity, especially to the Mormon Church.
The other’s will show he lied his employment. He will be shown to have been performing work within the legal definition of lobbiest, and his failure to register is a crime for which others have gone to jail.

borntoraisehogs on January 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Romney appeared more Presidential than a flustered Newt last night. Newt’s true strength is his quick thinking in debates. Last night he was newtered effectively by Mitt.
No matter, the machine is going Newt and to me it is a bit premature.

FireBlogger on January 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM

People underestimated Newt in SC. It seems like they are doing it again, at their own peril.

Look, Newt isn’t a one-trick pony. The guy is a genius. You couldn’t have his career or his accomplishments just by graduating from a Toastmaster’s club.

People said Newt couldn’t organize in SC. He proved them wrong. Now they say all Newt can do is debate. He’s going to prove them wrong again.

Newt is not Romney. He can out-think his opponents and can strategize on his feet. He’s not going to make the same mistakes twice, nor will he rely on the same strategies over and over again.
Notice how Newt didn’t go all bashing the media the last debate?

tkyang99 on January 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Newt is acting like a dem. He is lying to you and feeling your pain. He will then take your money and give it to others to try to heal their pain.

Did I mention he hangs out with Nancy Pelosi?

tomas on January 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I saw Gingrich on Fox & Friends and I read the article you linked to. NOWHERE does Newt state that he will not participate in future debates. What he does say is that he will object if the media tries to silence the audience again. Your crazy if you think that Newt doesn’t want these debates. They are his forte.

KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Oh my. Drudge just linked a NYT story that Newt won’t participate in any more debates unless the audience is allowed to participate.

Slainte on January 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Gingrich Says He Will Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

Well he better get used to the idea. Last night’s debate is a preview of how this fall’s debates will go. No cheering or booing. No audience participation. Newt better learn to deal with it now rather than later.

independentvoice on January 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Come now. I accept he didn’t register as a lobbyist, but they don’t pay that amount of money for history lessons.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If you don’t have any proof that he lobbied then what do you have? Nothing. His firm was paid that amount over the course of years. I do believe that companies pay that much for consulting because I’ve seen what the CBOT paid Anderson Consulting and it was a hell of a lot more than that.

If you want to let him off on that technicality than so be it. I don’t care whether Newt was a registered lobbyist or a mere influence peddler. He had no problems working within that entire corrupt apparatus and for that reason his reformist pitch rings hollow.

EddieC on January 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Then Mitt Romney was a corporate raider. You want to name call then let’s do that. You have no proof of wrong doing. Romney is a sleazy d-bag who is sling dirt because he has nothing else that would cause a conservative to vote for him.

This will backfire on Romney. One week until he loses Florida.

Bill C on January 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I don’t care if you dislike Newt, but why don’t you have the decency of just coming right out and saying so? You’re one of the most influential conservative blogs on the internet yet every post about Newt has a tinge of anti-Gingrich bias.

joshleguern on January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Holy Cow, would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

Trust me, the crew here has been far more fair to Newt than they have been to Ron Paul. And that’s fine. They have their biases and preferences; I have mine.

I just think it is a mark of low political character to whine about it.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Newt’s “poor performance”? Really? Biased much?

According to Intrade, Newt is pretty much where he was before the debate. The real loser last night was MSNBC for prohibiting audience participation.

mitchellvii on January 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Come on if any candidate makes a statement that hits the right cord, the people are going to react…..what are the hosts going to do about it? Silly argument.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

He’ll cave.

JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

lol….yeah I know. Jellyfish Gingrich. He lays in a blob with no spine waiting for someone to get close enough for him to sting. The media has been accommodating him. But as we saw last night, when faced with a real person in a format when that person can respond in kind, Neutron Newt collapses. That deer in the headlights look brought on by Romney’s truth telling went on for what seemed like an eternity.

csdeven on January 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

You honestly, honestly believe he was just an historian…even though he was basically hired to work under Freddie’s lobbying arm?

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You wanted him hired under the “accountant” arm? How about the “investment” arm? How about as the legislative bill writing arm? Just who, in this financial organization, would NEED information about the law, it’s changes, it’s history? Who lobbyed for Bain when Mitt was in charge? Please don’t tell me that Bain didn’t participate. I’m very, very sure it did.

Portia46 on January 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Romney is a formula-driven, numbers man. Thus he is is stilted and passionless when answering.

Romney’s ability to conceptualize and incorporate global geo-political cause and effect information into his answers is woefully lacking.

It is evident that he cannot answer questions that do not fit his memorized script.

These are not characteristics desirable in a President who must deal with Americas enemies who are agitating and fighting for dominance.

Sparky5253 on January 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

According to Intrade, Newt is pretty much where he was before the debate. The real loser last night was MSNBC for prohibiting audience participation.

mitchellvii on January 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Why do any of them need a cheering section? It’s a debate, not a game show.

changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Gingrich lost the debate?

Did we all watch the same debate?

portlandon on January 24, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5