Romney vs. Gingrich
They seem to be the frontrunners right now. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that they may be the ones to ultimately duke it out for the nomination, and I very much agree with Krauthammer when he writes this:
My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).
Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?
But therein lies the rub. Who is that person, Newt or Mitt?
Krauthammer doesn’t directly answer the question (although it sounds like he leans to Romney), but he knows how to pose the dilemma:
Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience…
Newt is not likable, but Romney isn’t especially likable either, for completely different reasons. They both have flipflopped on issues, but (as Krauthammer points out) Gingrich is seen as having advanced a true conservative agenda years ago, whereas Romney is seen as “ideologically unreliable.”
Our own commenter “kolnai” has some observations of his own on the subject:
1) At this point in time, I’d put Romney’s chances against Obama at about 45%, and I’d put Newt’s about 40%.
2) We have (re-)learned from the Cain fiasco that voters can tolerate the devil they know, as opposed to finding out that an apparent saint has devilish qualities right now.
Romney has no skeletons, but his comportment and his sarcasm-laced insecurity are highly off-putting, and most people haven’t experienced that yet (the feeling of “not liking” him).
Gingrich has many skeletons that make him a known devil (people already know the feeling of “not liking” Newt), but if he continues to act mature and positive, sticking to policy and vision, he can activate the American urge to forgive the fallen ”“ for we do love ourselves some redemption narratives. And I think Newt is skilled enough to manage the building of such a narrative.
Which is to say, the negatives of Romney will tend to be fresh but the negatives of Gingrich will tend to be old news. People will thus be comparing Romney’s flaws and virtues “in real time,” as it were, while they’ll be comparing Gringrich’s past failings with his present virtues. It’s a trust question in both cases, but the modality of it is different for the two of them. (This is an aggregate statement of course ”“ many people will be learning about Newt for the first time, but everyone will be learning about Romney for the first time.)
3) Therefore, it is a risk to nominate either Romney or Gingrich (whereas the Romney pumpers don’t think it is risky to nominate Romney AT ALL ”“ they act like his victory was every bit as foretold as the birth of Christ). Both could fall apart given the “gut” dynamics of the American center. Both, I believe, are more likely to lose than to win. So my question has simply been, Who has more of what I’d like? Newt does, because at least he is willing to articulate a vision.
As for me, well, I don’t like either of them. I think I dislike Newt somewhat more, but that may be a remnant of my having been a Democrat during his heyday in the 90s. When I try to imagine the reaction of the bulk of independent voters to either candidate, I agree with kolnai that Romney will pull more of them. But do I think he can win? I just don’t know. I know that’s not a very satisfying answer, but it’s the truth. I continue to think that Obama will be a stronger candidate that many people believe.
Try not to laugh but Santorum, IMHO, is the best of the lot. Too bad he has gotten so little attention.
I disagree with Krauthammer about not recovering from Obama even if he does get in a second term. First he is not going to be a majority President, if he wins it will be due to a third party and massive vote fraud. Two, the Republicans should take both houses eliminating whatever merger chances he has to enact any legislation. Three, once the laws Obama has enacted take effect and the full reality of the harm these will do is realized by the dunces who voted for this guy the philosophy behind them will probably be repudiated.
Now if he does get a majority of the popular vote it will signify that the US as a shining city on a hill is over.
I really don’t care who beats Obama. What’s not to like in any Obamabeater? The Dems and Obama are, in effect, our own Muslim Brotherhood.
What concerns me is what each of us, as individuals, will do to save ourselves if Obama is re-elected. Hunkering down and learning to eat BS ain’t gonna cut it for me.
Looks like obama gets a second term!
go Obama!
thats short enough
opposition takes too long
and too hard a hill to climb with no power to even be heard…
Go Obama!!! No?
There is no way he wont win!
one side is loaded for bear, with extra lies
the other side has no ammunition
but knows that “ignorance is strength”
as the ministry told them…
Obama will win, as there is no way to disseminate the facts so that he and others will be accountable, or even have their images and regard tarnished.
A fait accompli sans reason
Cue up the music from Cabaret as everything old is new again, since everyone has Alzheimers and ADHD…
Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me
all that needs be done to fix that is to get the person to forget twice, then its once forever!!!
and all you need do to get that, is to forget the facts, erase them, dont acknowlege them, and make up some plaster for the holes.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
no… not unless you can control what they know and keep them in the dark by putting out the lights (Facts)…
if they are all in the dark, its easy to get them to panic and run off a cliff…
Speaking from my purple-state perspective, Obama will be a formidable candidate. Very few upscale liberals will ever admit they made a mistake, and, besides, the poor man has been opposed at every turn by racist Tea Partiers. Romney is an evil capitalist, and Gingrich was the nemesis of Bill Clinton. (Of course, they’ll never admit, either, that they should have nominated Hillary.)
Romney, being the moronic douch bag that he is, just announced Lisa Murkowski’s endorsement. hahahahahahahahahahahaha That will REALLY sway some Tea Party love in his direction!
Seems that kolnai’s argument rests on the assumption that the Republicans are going to lose next year, so, what the heck, let’s go with Newt. Well, I don’t share that assumption and I think giving the nod to Newt would be throwing away a darn good chance that the Republicans can actually win.
For me, the case against Newt rests primarily on optics. Yes, terribly shallow, but perhaps the key determining factor in a close race. A large part of Obama’s victory in 2008 was due to the comparison with McCain, whom the media were successful in portraying as old and worn-out.
So, picture this: photos of Newt and his wife (aka his former lover while he was still married to someone else) versus Obama and his lovely daughters. Or Romney, his wife, sons, and grandchildren versus Obama and family. At least with the latter, they’d be on a par.
No-brainer?
Hey, so sorry I never got back to you on the last reply you had to me about why I think Newt is more graceful under fire, but I actually think kolnai kind of hit my gut feeling on the head, especially with this line:
That’s actually closest to the best answer I could think of, but still misses it just a bit. So far in this primary process, Romney sidesteps and defends. Newt has on several occasions “owned up” to his mistakes (Pelosi, bench, “biggest mistake I made” type of stuff), but he also attacks, and in order to beat Obama, I really think that he will need to be attacked (in a totally political sense, I don’t advocate real attacks on PotUS…).
Another thing I will note. People keep talking about the independents and the center. Maybe I’m naive, but I kind of think based on the polls that our nominee doesn’t need to bring them into his tent. He has to not lose them. That’s a huge difference. People keep talking about cross appeal and bringing them to one side or the other, but my gut tells me that they’ve already fled from Obama in droves. No one seems to be happy with Obama for various reasons. It’s to the point that I hear people who lean Dem talking about voting for Romney, and the independents say that there’s not much chance they will vote for him. Personally, I think this is worth noting, and goes back to the defensive stance Romney is more likely to have, and how it won’t be graceful.
As I said, if he’s the nominee, I will vote for Romney, I will advocate on his behalf, and I may even campaign with him. However, because of his nature, it would I think be ugly if he spends 6 months or 4 months or whatever doing nothing but defending himself.
Newt has shown multiple times in the cycle that he’s not afraid to take it to Obama, but more importantly, that he’s willing to put the media in their place, and call them totally on lying or assuming.
In short, Newt has shown backbone in this cycle, and Mitt hasn’t really. Not to my eye.
Couple this with my belief that Newt is a better debater, and my feeling that he is far better equipped to accent the difference between the left and right, I feel it is more a function of him not pushing people away. Romney has more drawing in to do. He has to pull in the base and make them trust him, he has to draw the independents and make sure that Romneycare doesn’t drive them away (Obamacare isn’t popular, and no matter his defense of it, that was the model for Obamacare).
The other thing I hope… I HOPE that people will be accepting but wary of Newt. In short, I hope that by it being him, people will keep a weather eye on him and try to keep him in check. I have a feeling that because they are not passionate about Romney either way, other than a general feeling of distaste, once the election is over, and assuming Romney wins, people will be less vigilant. That’s something we can’t afford.
I don’t love Newt. I don’t love Romney (which puts me in with most people?). But I think the contrast Newt can and will project will help, and I don’t think that’s anything Romney can do. I hope I’m wrong, especially if he’s the nominee.
We all know Obama is going to spend $1bn on a smear campaign. And it’s going to get ugly. I’d rather have a nominee that is willing to call out falsities, and more importantly, cut through it, than one who will sit there and take punches for the 5 months leading up to the election.
I’ll also say in closing something I thought when the surge began… Newt isn’t the flavor of the week like the rest have been so far. His surge is real. And it’s based on what he’s been saying and his willingness to take it to the media and Obama’s policies.
In war, they say the best defense is a good offense (incidentally, this is why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of my feelings for being there, I understand the strategy).
I think it’s about 50/50 if Newt wins, and I honestly think if Romney wins, I’d give him 70/30 odds against. I just think Romney will look like a deer in headlights when faced with a $1bn smear campaign.
Whoever it is, it will be a rough campaign. And I don’t much, but I trust Gingrich more than Romney.
If Nell’s optics scenarios are enough to tip the scale, the country’s not worth saving.
The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals – or bestiality. …
Nell –
You could be right (I am definitely no prophet). I will add, however, that one point I was trying to make was that the derelict punditry has tricked us into thinking that Romney has no optics problems. The Jen Rubin’s and Jonathan Tobin’s of the world have done us a reprehensible disservice by pretending that their man is made of teflon. “Pretending” being the operative word. They create an impression of his invulnerability by simply not talking about him. It’s basically a rhetorical magic trick the dishonesty of which is breathtaking.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t support Romney; but please don’t buy into the Rubin-Tobin magic trick. Romney has terrible optics problems; it’s just that the distorting MSM-Axelrod lens hasn’t exposed them to the public yet. 1%-er. Layoff artist. Weird Mormon. Founding father of Obamacare. And so on. We haven’t even tasted it.
But beyond that, I want to stress how extraordinarily difficult it is to unseat incumbent Presidents. And this incumbent in particular does one thing amazingly well – destroy his opponents. He is utterly ruthless and has no compunction whatsoever. Remember: Romney is liked by Indies right now because he is synonymous with “Generic Republican.” He will not be that a few months into the campaign. Alinskyites know the Rules: “Personalize.”
It is for this reason that I basically agree with what nyght wrote. Meaning: I think the willingness and ability to fight, to go on offense, will be a crucial x-factor in the general election. If Romney cannot fight back and knock Obama off-balance, the chances of him getting destroyed by the connoisseurs of the art increase proportionately. The narrative is there to be seized, and I wonder if Romney can seize it.
In other words, to bet on Romney is to bet that laying low and playing it cool is the best strategy – to trust, that is, that the “narrative” of Obama, just like that of the sundry Not Romneys, will self-deconstruct and effectively implode on its own. It may be so – I cannot say for sure. But it’s not the way I see it, and it’s anything but a sure thing.
So, no, not a “no brainer,” but you have a good case. All I’d plead is that you not be overly sanguine about Romney.
P.S. – Don Carlos –
That’s a scary thought.
As others have pointed out, Gingrich has shown repeatedly that he’ll take on Obama without reservation. That alone, I think, will tip the scales considerably in his direction. The people Republican voters have liked lately — Cain, for example, or even Palin — have had that quality. This is no time for a Clintonian poll-driven candidate — which Romney is.
Having said that — if Romney is nominated, I’ll vote for Romney… and I have a feeling that a lot of Democrats will stay home.
There is the Churchill quote
“If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make favorable reference to the Devil on the floor of the House of Commons”
Don Carlos said, “If Nell’s optics scenarios are enough to tip the scale, the country’s not worth saving.”
I may be wrong because I’m exposed to the political shallowness of most of my neighbors, but optics is a big component of elections in this country. What we need is Romney’s optics, Santorum or Bachmann’s conservatism, and Newt’s brains. Not going to get such a dream candidate so we must decide what matters most to us during the primaries and then work very hard for whoever gets the nomination.
Polls show that Republican voters are more enthusiastic about voting in 2012. Just the opposite of what happened in 2008. That counts for a lot because the 2008 election may have been much closer had Republicans turned out in normal numbers. If the Republican candidate is optically equal to Obama, that can’t hurt either.
When I talk politics with my neighbors who claim to be independents, I am often amazed that the country hasn’t already gone down the tubes. In spite of that, I am not ready to give up the ship. I continue to believe that somehow, some way we are going to pull back from fiscal insanity and anti-business policies.
Two, the Republicans should take both houses eliminating whatever merger chances he has to enact any legislation.
He’ll rule executive order. When he couldn’t get certain of his agenda thru the Democrat Senate (or House prior to 2011), he used the EO power to make things happen.
You think the Republicans are going to go at him for that? I put that in the “slim to none, and slim just left town” category.
Newt over Romney, ok I get that. Romney has complained about unfair tough questions from Brett Baier @ Fox News. I see him withering under the constant barrage of 24×7 by how ever many months he’s the presumed nominee.
Doesn’t mean that Newt gives me warm fuzzy feelings. As George Will said, he doesn’t have enough wisdom. I think Prof. Newt reveals in the notion that he’s the smartest guy in the room.
Hmmm…of whom does that remind you?
Feelings/Optics —
Feelings —
Newt’s the guy with whom I share lunch in the company cafeteria. Maybe not my buddy after hours, but friendly enough for lunch and a good conversationalist.
Romney’s the guy in the fancy office upstairs whose secretary brings him lunch in said office, and who acts all kinds of friendly and smiles at me . . . until he’s ready to terminate me as a business decision.
Optics —
Gotta go with Nell (3:12 pm): No-brainer.
Strange. I watched the Romney interview with Baier live and came away stating that Romney did very well. Then I read Baier’s take on it, and the hallelujah chorus that followed, and I learn that he did terrible. Supposedly. What are you gonna believe? Well, I believe my own eyes, ears and judgement.
Krauthammer and his ilk are getting on my nerves. It is long past time to quit pining for individuals who CHOSE not to run. Frankly, in my opinion, Krauthammer, George Will, Peggy Noonan and the rest of the chattering conservatives will never be satisfied with anyone whose initials are not RR. That is the RR of their selective memories; a mythical giant. Not slamming Reagan. He was just what we needed following Carter. But, he was not all that they remember; and besides he will never run again..
Did you all hear about Donald Trump doing the 12/27 debate? Talk about bad optics. Will any serious voter take us seriously after this?
The Kraut hit this one out of the ballpark with his analysis, but, when you need a narrative to go along with the picture, somethings wrong with the picture, hence the Kraut article, hence the problem, hence the article, hence the problem . . . oops, kind of got caught up in a loop there.
There’s an old Simpson’s episode (TV animated series, what don’t they know?) where Marge paints Old rich man Burns completely naked. Upon first dropping of the veil, there were gasps and mutterings, but then Marge explained (the narrative) that beneath that cruel visage is a vulnerable body about to die, and after that, even Burns liked the painting.
Let’s hope the narrative works for at least one of them. And also that they don’t get naked.
Has anyone noticed the petulant side of Romney? When he gets badgered all the smooth vanishes. He flashed it during Perry’s weird attack about alien gardeners. There are more examples of such around the intertracks.
Gingrich has an ability to stay cooler longer. But we know he has something like normal human emotion (setting him apart from Mr. Obama).
But let me run with Mark Steyn’s criticism of Newt. Is he really as smart as everyone likes to echo? In the debates, he has shown good recall about various facts and various theories. But can he think quickly? Does he discern well when he doesn’t have a pre-debate prep session? Is he a genuine sharp, or walking encyclopedia? And the biggest question: Can he do math? Does he see that not only that the FedGov deficit is unsustainable, but that the kind of cuts righty Congresscritters are batting around are mere window dressing?
If there is any chance to get me to pull Newt’s lever (ahem), convince me that he will nominate a couple Supremes like Scalia and Roberts.
And, convince me that he ego will not lead to him using his “special set of laws for terrorists” to lock up dissenters and malcontents.
Good luck…
re naked
Interesting subconscious choice.
Both literally and metaphorically: a naked Romney is exactly what Romney needs to showcase.
If Romney went skinny dipping with a female Iowa Bible Study Group: I’m pretty sure the incident would push Romney through to the Repub nomination.
The republican nominee, whoever it is, must raise enough money to attack Obama daily on television, in the mail and online. The paid ads must drive the stories that the media has largely ignored such as Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers.
Most republicans even the toughest of the lot don’t have the killer instinct to show pictures of dead cops, then the dead cops children, then the SDS blown up bomb factory then the Ayers house where he introduced Obama to the political elite — which Gibbs categorically denied and Ayers has now admitted. There is so much that has never been really aired out concerning Obama. The republican party will have to put it all out there to have a chance against the dirty tricks and slime that’s coming.
This forces the media to cover the stories they just don’t want to see. And that most people really haven’t had a chance to pay attention to. Neo’s friends, by their presence here, will find this familiar, but the guys at the autoshop, probably not. It will not be a pretty sight. Anything else will elect Obama.
And yes, this is the election of no return. If Obamacare goes into effect along with the executive orders and the executive regulations being put out by the EPA and Energy Departments there will be no coming back. And without the need to worry about reelection, Obama will extend the executive order to levels only known to monarchs. There will not be enough private sector jobs left and almost everyone will be forced to turn to the government for basic necessities when they can no longer earn their own way.
I think if Romney was left to his own devices his competitiveness, so brilliantly displayed in business, would lead him to do what’s necessary. But his campaign is lost in consultant outerspace and will wind up like McCain’s campaign — blaming someone else. As a consultant, Mitt never steered a client wrong. Perhaps this explains his willingness to be so poorly directed.
Romney would likely be the better president, especially if more conservatives go into the house and senate. Gingrich will be the better candidate and will do all this and more, if Calista will allow it. But he fell for global warming . . .
So, I’m worried about the future.
Nakedness is the connection between young and old age. In the first instance, there is no awareness, in the second, there is no concern, and in both, clothes are more of a bother than a boon.
The elephant in the room is Romney’s religion. I suspect it is suppressing his poll numbers, and if he gets the nomination the MSM will be educating us about the finer and stranger points of Mormon theology.
“When I try to imagine the reaction of the bulk of independent voters to either candidate, I agree with kolnai that Romney will pull more of them.”
Over the last two weeks, we’ve been treated to Romney acting petulant after a tough but fair interview and then his releasing of an intellectually dishonest ad showing Obama stating that “if we talk about the economy, we lose.” When given the opportunity to set the record straight, the Romney campaign instead embraced the ad.
It would take a lot to cede the moral highground to Obama at this point and put off independents enough to lose the 2012 election. But if the above events are any indication, Romney may have a lot more trouble with independents than current group think suggests.
Well, that was just depressing.
“if he gets the nomination the MSM will be educating us about the finer and stranger points of Mormon theology”
…and since they are so accurate and trustworthy about other matters, naturally we can trust them on that as well.
Never mind about Romney’s petulance. CNN’s primetime news floozy just did a story touching on that point, but fawning over how “real” he is in person.
It makes me think everyone got played. The establishment will be served. Between the consummate GOP insider and the “effective” compromising of Romney, there is no threat to the political power structure.
Our elected overlords’ next choice would be Huntsman. They could backslap Perry away from anything significant. And there you have the top four as reported through the aforementioned news floozy.
Here’s the basic scene:
We’re repeating the 1960s.
Newt is McMurphy. Republicans are the still-thinking actors in the asylum. Most of them are there voluntarily.
Democrats? Well, they’re that guy who looks like a zombie drinking alcohol from the IV bag!
Outcome: Republicans get sacrificed so that Chief can rip out a sink and crash his way to freedom, which is basically unknown to him.
Message: Things not good for Republicans. Democrats too dumb to know. The only winner is Native Americans and they may not know what to do with it. Unless they happen to be Republican Native Americans, in which case . . . good for them.
Please people. People. Positions.
Naked I came
naked I leave.
I was not aware;
then, I did not care.
That is what life did to me.
Amazing to read the comments here. It doesn’t seem as if even one person has taken the time to go and watch the speeches that are on YouTube.
I have watched hours of speeches.
I support Newt.
He tells you his plans if elected. he spells it out. He has a website and it is spelled out there.
He says the American people will have to participate because the job is bigger than any elected officials can do by themselves.
Maybe we can do it. It not, the freedoms we take for granted will be lost to ever-encroaching federal government.
Your future is at stake. The economic viability of the culture your children and grandchildren will work in is at stake.
Go watch “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE.” Watch his talk to manufacturers at the Vermeer headquarters. Watch “The Future of American Education,” an interview conducted by Paul Gigot and Joel Klein at The College Board.
This is worth your time.
He says he is an agent of change. To decide if you can support him, it is important to understand what he means by that.
Neo-neocon, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. But you have to go and find out for yourself.
I did and I was very skeptical at first; it was the evolution of more than a year, and now I am for Newt 100%.
GW: I didn’t mean to imply that Romney would necessarily pull a lot of them. But I do think he’d pull more than Newt.
also, for whoever thinks Obama is stronger than people think, I just went to Doug Ross at director blue and saw this unemployment chart showing how fast we have pulled out of other post-WWII recessions.
Any administration with this record on the economy is toast.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/12/only-unemployment-chart-you-need-to-see.html
And IMO, Romney is milqutoast and cannot pull “independents” because there is no there there to Romney. Look at his eyes in the Bret Baier interview. Look at his posture, his demeanor, his body language. He doesn’t have a clue. He is no more prepared to be president than Obama was. He’s doing what he’s been coached to do. It’s more of the same.
Ask yourself how Reagan did it. He pulled the “Reagan Democrats.” Not by being silent and hoping everyone else would go away.
I’ve been yearning for a straight shooter. A leader who can come clean with the public on the dire situation with the debt/annual deficits. I want a leader who tells the painful truth. I want a Palin or a Cain or a Christie or even whacky Uncle Paul. But it appears it will come down to Newt or Romney. Not much hope for change if that is the case because neither can win against BHO and the running dog lackeys of the MSM.
No one had said it as clearly and succintly as Gingrich. The problem is, does he believe his own words?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhPpDCgDBew
As an adherent of the Eastern Roman Empire concept of Sacred Monarchy, I have no dog in this hunt.
However, being an old geezer with opinions and an attitude, I do have some comments.
The political field, both Demoncrats and Republicans, is almost unspeakable.
The choice on the left is a socialist who hates America.
The choices on the Republican side are: Romney – a slick used-car salesman, Gingrich – a serial adulterer, Cain – not gonna get it, Bachmann – a very nice woman who is slightly nuts, Perry – one of the really dumb cowboys in “Lonesome Dove,” Santorum – boooorrrring, Huntsman – you can’t be serious.
That leaves Ron Paul, who I would probably vote for if I voted simply for the entertainment value.
Out of 300 million people, this is the best we can vomit up? Plato and Aristotle were correct – popular rule is rule by the passions of the moment and vulgar standards.
There is a very long drop from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich. But, for now I have a warm place to go to the bathroom. So, in the immortal words of Alfred E. Newman, “What? Me worry?”
Meanwhile, at Ace of Spades, an interesting poll is showing Newt in the lead, but Perry just a point or two behind him.
I hope this means people are taking another look at Perry on policy + likeability grounds. Heart in the right place, and all that. The commenters in the thread are saying they’d really like to support Perry, but some are buffaloed by the constant refrain that it’s Gingrich or Romney who’s our fate.
Perry is a smart man. It comes through clearly when he’s being interviewed or interacting with crowds. No, he doesn’t like the debate scrum.
But being from Texas, or the South more generally, doesn’t mean we can’t count past ten with our shoes on, dahling.
Since I posted I have seen multiple references to Romney’s petulant interview with Baier. As I said, I watched that interview. My opinion differs significantly from that of the chattering pundits–including Baier, whom I usually like. (Revelation, Baier has has his knickers twisted for weeks because Romney would not appear–on demand– on his “Center Seat” segment.) I wonder how many other posters watched the interview, and how many base their comments on second or third hand information?
Romney was significantly less petulant or confrontational than Newt routinely is with the media. Folks love it when Newt does it, but Romney…?
The cheap shot about Romney as used car salesman really chaps me. First, my Dad sold used cars, and did so with class, dignity and honesty; so that negative stereotype doesn’t impress me at all. But, Romney didn’t “sell” anything. He is an accomplished business executive and political leader. Shame!
My problem with Newt is not that he is cynical and nasty. Of course he is. The question which should be asked is: “Is he cynical and nasty enough to realistically understand what is going on?”. May be, not. In the age of rampant wishfull thinking only misanthropic extremists can grasp reality. Everybody else are delusional.
The issue with Romney is that he once campaigned in a liberal state as a liberal politician.
The problem with Newt is that he consistently errs on the side of liberalism (Scozzafava, global warming, Freddie Mac) and then later either denies it ever happening, or attempts to weasel his way around the discussion.
Honestly, I’d rather have a president who once was more liberal and now is conservative, than a dishonest man who is only conservative when it behoves him. If the choice is between these two, I choose Romney.
hope change: I ranted about inadequate inquisitiveness in a Neo thread a day or two ago. I don’t have time to listen to full speeches, but I check the candidates websites. One of my personal axioms is “The news is not what’s happening, it is just what they’re telling you.” So I look for the framing and context of any alleged major gotcha or stumble.
I find most of the purported campaign-killing moments to be overblown. As Perry (among others) has pointed out, there’s nothing in the job of President that parallels a debate performance.
If we were to put these candidates to an IQ test, I expect they’re all above average. Cain’s rocket scientry would put him atop the math portions, while Newt’s mental encyclopedia wouldn’t help since IQ is not memorization. Perry flew jets, which requires math, but doesn’t require one be a genius. Dr. Paul is an M.D., and that suggests he has a mental encyclopedia of his own, but can’t show it off in debates. Bachmann, Huntsman and Romney have the education to suggest good scores on the language portions.
But does that matter so much? Do we need to elect Albert Speer, or George Washington?
Returning the country to the shape it was in when Bush left office would be an improvement, but is that something to aim for? Don’t we want a nation more like Bush promised in 2000 than the one he left us in 2008? We can get more than just a defeat of Obama. We can pick a candidate with some charisma and some coattails to improve margins in Congress and around the Statehouses.
Or
weyou can settle for Romney/Gingrich.could Newt become our generation’s Richard Nixon??
Nobody liked him either and he still won.
Newt as Nixon: The enduring triumph of cynicism.
@Beverly
I support Perry. I plan to vote for him. He is the proven effective executive which our nation needs: this would be a powerful campaign weapon against Pres. Obama. I am impressed with the way Rick Perry is growing, both as a candidate and as a debate participant. I appreciate your courage in publicly supporting him, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Betsy Newmark has a post titled “The self-grandiosity of Newt Gingrich”. She includes both the Krauthammer column and the Steyn bit I referred to in one of these threads.
Mmm hmm.
History confirms that self-grandiosity always had a strong appeal to lots of people desperate enough. Obama’s success is just the most recent example.
Newt is a straight shooter. The problem is we never know what he will aim at today. He was a firebrand fiscal conservative in the 80s, and institutional republican as speaker, and a money talks lobbyist for fannie mae and spokesman for global warming. He may tell you straight up what he’s going to do, but tomorrow he may tell you straight up that he’s doing something completely different.
The theme song for conservatives over the last 30 years is “Your Cheatin’ Heart.” If any of the republicans we elected had acted right and voted right we wouldn’t be in the mess. But no, like Newt, they pursued the fashionable over reality.
Not letting Romney off the hook — same deal with carbon trading, health care and abortion. I’m sure he believes what he is saying when he says it, but who knows when he’ll have another ephiphany on something like he did with abortion.
George Will’s Romney and Gingrich, from bad to worse is worth reading.
after Palin its anyone but Obama
So it’s down to Newt Romney or Mitt Gingrich, is it? Well, I could support either of them.