A blade or wheel attached to the beam of a plow that makes vertical cuts in the soil in advance of the plowshare.

That’s actually only a European “moldboard” plowshare, not a classical Mediterranean one. The soil in the north is much tougher, denser, and harder to cut, so the relatively simple one used for centuries in the Mediterranean would not work. The development of the moldboard plow was a key development (along with the horse collar) in modern civilization, esp, the European, as it enabled true, steady farming in the north, vastly increasing crop yields.

Although, thinking back to when the field was still large, Coulter came out for Romney. She was an early adopter. My guess is that she never felt Gingrich could win. To her others potentially electable, but less electable than Romney.

Without doing any googling, I don’t envision Coulter saying Perry was unelectable. Perry was somehow flawed on record or policy, and Romney would have still been a better choice.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289051/hour-newt-editors

Of course, as Rush states, the RINO establishment has already conceded the Presidency and only wants the House and Senate. They don’t care for America as much as their own positions.

The first three are mostly rhetoric but the last two make two good points and Ed Lasky, at least in my view, is a solid thinker. Sally’s point is that the base for Newt has the characteristics of a mob and he makes some good points.

For an even more devastating portrait of Gingrich, here’s Ed Lasky on December 7, 2012:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_message_from_dems_every_gop_primary_voter_should_hear.html

I’ve often used the argument that you don’t want the candidate your opponents want. Ed Lasky brings not just rhetoric but facts to the table that unions are supporting Gingrich by blasting Mitt.

I love the black eyes Gingrich has been giving the media. I love the way Gingrich articulates the crisis and the solution. Fred Thompson has recently said that is why he supports Gingrich. And the mob theory only supports the alternate idea that it is not the middle which elects a President but the amount of excitement and influence a campaign develops–just like Obama’s did in 2008.

The question is, Can Gingrich seize or command the electoral process in the general like he has done, at least partially, in the primary? If he can, then he can win because there’s more Obama hate out there than the inside the Beltway unions and other socialists think.

Regardless, I think her argument basically boils down to electability. Romney can probably beat Obama, and Newt probably can’t. She is urging us to keep our eyes on the ball here.

Yes, if Newt were to become the nominee it would be great to watch him skewer the media and Obama, particularly in the debates.

But many people (including Coulter, obviously) simply don’t like Newt, and he’s not going to become more likeable as he engages in the nastiness that will be required during the final campaign months. That matters. A lot.

There are two schools of thought on the current Romney/Gingrich death match. One is that, after months of conveniently timed OWS antics, GOP nominee Romney was inevitably going to be tarred with the heartless-Bain-rich-guy brush by the Obama campaign.

Since Newt is attacking Mitt with the same critique now, it gives Romney a chance to prepare his campaign for what’s surely to come from Obama if Mitt is the nominee.

The other school of thought, per Charles Krauthammer, is that the Gingrich/Romney cage match is a “GOP suicide march.”

I hope he’s wrong, but I fear Krauthammer is right.

SpasticToad He is NOT the most conservative of the two candidates. He’s just the most comfortable lying about it

Fail.

I, um, lived through Gingrich’s tenure. And I paid attention in those days. As did a lot of people, for some of whom this is their umpteenth presidential election (good gawd, there are people reading and talking on this blog who voted for JFK, and maybe even Ike …crap, my first vote came in the Nixon/McGovern election).

The Contract with America isn’t some musty meaningless relic from the hoary past: it represents a seminal moment in political – and cultural – history, that coincided with (and was arguably responsible for) the emergence of the Republicans to the majority status …after several generations of GOP status as second fiddle. It marked the public ascendency of conservatism itself.

And Gingrich was the author of the Contract with America. And Newt’ probably did as much to engineer the Republican takeover of the House in ’94, as Palin did in 2010 in wresting control of the House from the Democrats. The difference was that in 1994, the Republicans had been out of power for decades.

Those two things right there make him one of the most important people to and in the conservative movement since Reagan.

In 1994, Gingrich’s conservatism was inarguably on the level of Rush Limbaugh’s …and it is just laughable to even consider anyone trying to make the point that Limbaugh wasn’t as conservative as, say, Gov. Romney.

To suggest that the former governor of Massachusetts – a fine man, whom I will reluctantly vote for in the fall if he wins, but whose public record is at best of the “conservatism” level of, say, Bush 2 (i.e., weak, at best) …and in general whose policies while in office were more akin to the center Left – is the more conservative of the two men (based upon their past history), is completely risible, and displays an abysmal ignorance of both recent history and memorable fact.

Look, granted Newt has a lot of issues …so does Romney (though neither, perhaps, with so many as the current spin implies). Those “issues” are pulled from the political and public and personal histories of both men, and those historical facts simply aren’t conjectural at all. Most of us lived through those times, and we don’t have to read about them or look it up online to recall the facts or the truth. We remember both.

Whether whose “issues” have more weight of a negative nature is …well, that’s what the discussion, and the election is all about.

But whether Newt’s public record is more conservative than Romney’s …isn’t an issue at all. Gov. Romney can only wish that he had half of Newt’s conservative credentials and history.

As I’ve said before, that dog don’t hunt.

The Tea-Party base of true conservatives has been carrying around anger at this slanted playing field for almost a year (even longer for Palin fans).

Combine that anger with longstanding mistrust of “moderate” inside-the-beltway RINOs (note that there’s no such term as a “DINO”)… and this is what we get:

Republicans desperate for a vocal defender of conservatism are left with a deeply flawed candidate.

And the only alternative is Mormon Ken – whose mythical “electability” will vanish once the Dems light into him with their class warfare rhetoric and dirty tricks.

I’m hoping that a brokered convention will bring back conservative candidates that the media pushed off the table.