↓
 
Home » Open thread for South Carolina primary

Open thread for South Carolina primary

The New Neo Posted on by

Getting ready ahead of time for those results.

Fasten your seat belts, folks.

Comments

Open thread for South Carolina primary — 84 Comments

  1. It has been raining fairly hard in SC all day which could have some effect on the turnout and outcome.

  4. Like everyone else I have my opinion about who I want to see as the eventual nominee, but the internal debate between ‘conservatives’ has become tiresome. I look forward to seeing the nominee sharpen the knives and take on BHO.

  5. Yeah, definitely. So tiresome and yet, like some angry hungry baby, I ask for the tit again and again.

    How is your daughter doing, Parker? I hope her treatment is going well.

  6. Am I crazy? I’m watching the results come in on Fox and they’ve proojected Gingrich as the winner — they’re CALLING him the winner. But at same time, withonly 1% reporting, Romney is 38% and Gingrich was at 33%. Just changed in last minute to 34%.

    What am I missing?

  7. goldby621: it probably has to do with where those precincts are from. If they’re from an area that should be more of a Romney stronghold than they’re showing in the actual votes, then the idea is that he’s not doing as well there as he needs to and will lose.

    That’s my guess, anyway.

  8. I am glad Romney lost. He deserves to lose his air of invincibility. The guy comes across as a quintessential NE RINO. If he changes course and embraces the tea party movement and distances himself from the Republican establishment, I will take him seriously. Being popular in NH is nothing to brag about. Maybe he could get the complacent moderate Scott Brown’s endorsement too.

  9. Steve:

    Romney had the Tea Party support in SC with Gov. Nikki Haley … I wonder how she is feeling tonight. Likely a one-term Gov.

    ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER:
    VOTE NEWT !!!

  10. Romney is attempting to own the mantle of free-market capitalism. It is a smart strategy. There are significant issues his business record he has not clarified or justified. He will need to own the debt and bankruptcies as well as the jobs and dividends.

    I recognize it is not the prevailing sentiment here, but I think the rich guy capitalist image will not be a strength in the general election. Wasn’t there a Reagan quote about not voting for the guy who fired you?

  12. Romney has a great resume but MITT IS NOT A FIGHTER. After 6 years running for POTUS the great manager never thought that his tax return(s) may become an issue … and he still refuses to address the issue correctly.

    Assuming he becomes the nominee, Mitt will be eaten in three bites by monster O. Romney lost to Kennedy, Mitt lost to McCain, Romney lost to Newt and I have to beleive that he is going to beat monster O ????? This is really an insult to my intelligence.
    The sooner Mitt quits the race the better for the RENAISSANCE of this great Country.

    ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER:
    VOTE NEWT !!!

  13. Things are getting interesting. I must admit I’d been of the belief that Romney would be the most reliable of the GOP candidates to beat Obama, including for many of the reasons given by Neo. I still feel that way, and there is still most of the primary season to go.

    But as I wrote here , if its Gingrich, I can get behind him too.

    I’d been encouraging rational thinking here in my prior posts, and a willingness to back candidates, even if imperfect, who can remove Obama from office and end the danger that a second Obama administration would cause. I’ll put my vote where my mouth is. If its Gingrich, he’s got my vote. Obama has to go.

  16. Well, did Santorum and Gingrich say one word tonight with which you all do not 100% agree?

    Ed B: The cordiality is encouraging indeed. The candidates are publicly recognizing they are competitors, not enemies. I hope the circular firing squad is realigning to direct its volleys in the same direction, against gellieba’s MONSTER in the White House.

  17. Steve: it’s funny, but I don’t see Romney himself as having an air of invincibility. I think the perception of his air of invincibility is actually the air of certain pundits who arouse people’s ire by saying his nomination is inevitable.

    People don’t like being told who they must vote for. A lot of people perceive the media as telling them to take this medicine cause it’s good for them, whether they like it or not. But I have never perceived Romney himself as thinking he’s inevitable as the nominee. He hasn’t been coasting either; he’s been working hard.

  18. I meant the cordiality of Newt first, Rick second. Having just seen his speech, Mitt was less than cordial though not without some justification. That highlights the past weaknesses of his thinking: the failure to anticipate attacks on his vulnerabilities and creation of the defenses against them. Costly strategic errors.

    I have a sense that Mitt finds his sand running through his fingers.

    Am I getting a hint of the conception of a new party, the American Party?

  19. Neo is right about Romney working hard to gain the nomination. And he’s also, at least in all I’ve read and seen, been doing it by trying to appeal to voters’ better natures, which, unfortunately, cannot be said of Gingrich. Of course, this doesn’t appeal to those who seem to long for rhetorical bloodshed. Weird.

  21. neo-neocon Says:
    January 21st, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Steve: it’s funny, but I don’t see Romney himself as having an air of invincibility. I think the perception of his air of invincibility is actually the air of certain pundits who arouse people’s ire by saying his nomination is inevitable.

    People don’t like being told who they must vote for. A lot of people perceive the media as telling them to take this medicine cause it’s good for them, whether they like it or not.

    Precisely, and that perception goes a long way towards explaining why Gingrich has been on the ascendant lately. Although he was predicted to do well in the South.

  22. You go to an election with the candidates you have. Newt is a fighter, but not a happy warrior. And he may make the mistake of trying to preside over only the red states, as Obama has only been president of the blue states.

    If Newt is the nominee (and we’re a ways off from there. If Mitt wins Florida, it’s a toss up. If Newt wins….might be over), I certainly will support him. But his flaws are so great. I see his upside, I do. It’s like an 8- balanced budget, cutting entitlements, tough on foreign policy while actually supporting our few remaining griends, etc. But his downside? Divisive, angry, petulant, arrogant, grandiose. All bad traits with perhaps only a slight sense of humor to blunt them. So upside 8, downside 8. Romney? Upside 5, Downside 5. He’s a bloop single candidate, but that makes him safer to a lot of people.

  23. I loved this comment on Instapundit:

    A female reader writes that Gingrich may not have been so hurt by ex-wife Marianne’s TV interview:

    Hate to say this and don’t use my name, but I watched the interview and thought “You bitch, he cheated on his first wife with you. What the heck did you expect?”

    Glenn Reynolds suggests that this may have something to do with why Gingrich did so well among married women. Thoughts, Neo?

  24. Curtis,

    Thanks for asking about my daughter. She had her second chemo last Wednesday. The nausea on the second day after was minor and today she has a healthy appetite. I’m in Chicago with her and my son in law right now, and tonight I cooked a stew of squash, tomatoes, onions, aleppo pepper, cilantro, lime juice, and ground buffalo along with a side dish of sauteed kale & mushrooms which she consumed with gusto. The main side effect is an achy feeling in her bones that is unpleasant but does not require pain medication. She is sleeping well and her spirits are good. Outside the window her neighborhood is tranquil and covered with snow, and very quiet. So all in all we are feeling good about the process.

    Again, thanks for asking.

  25. To quote that political predictor, Jim Nicholas, in Neo-neocon, “Calling all Newt supporters”, January 11, 2012.

    “I think Gingrich was wronged in the Iowa phase of the campaign. However, his response is not well-planned revenge; it is a rage that is even more destructive to himself than it is to Romney. . . . He . . . is destroying his own chances . . . . I find it quite sad.”

    Hmmmm!

    Well, on to new predictions.

  27. People don’t like being told who they must vote for. A lot of people perceive the media as telling them to take this medicine cause it’s good for them, whether they like it or not.

    This.

  28. Tesh, just hold on there with your ‘It’s the South. Romney’s a Mormon. He was never going to do well there.’
    We’re all bigots in the South?
    What the heck. You probably work for Newsweek, and your boss made you say it.

  29. Daniel in Brookline: Glenn Reynolds suggests that the Fox poll says that Gingrich got the votes of a majority of married women.

    I went to Fox and that’s incorrect. Apparently he got 40% of married women’s votes. That’s approximately the percentage of votes he won overall (actually, it’s slightly less, but only slightly).

    I think what it means is that South Carolina—which, as I’ve been pointing out for days, has almost always polled extremely strong for Gingrich, with the exception of about 12 days in January—likes Newt Gingrich. Men like him, women like him but somewhat less than men, evangelicals like him. They do not hold his infidelity against him; they feel he has more important fish to fry.

    I don’t think there’s any special reaction from married women vs. unmarried women as a result of that interview with Gingrich’s ex. I think the interview was a non-event.

    Here, by the way, are some interesting stats from the exit polls about women. Gingrich beat Romney among male voters 42% to 26%, while Gingrich beat Romney among women voters by a significantly smaller margin, 38% to 29%. You may notice also that Gingrich drew somewhat more men than women, whereas Romney drew somewhat more women than men.

  30. Don Carlos, nope, I’ve just spent enough time in the South to have a feel for the people. Religious bigotry is alive and well. The South isn’t entirely comprised of bigots, no, but there are enough to color elections. I’m not even upset about it, that’s just the way it is. People vote by tribe, whether it’s race, religion or “preference”.

  31. Still, Gingrich destroyed Romney in both categories. GOP voters want a candidate who can take the fight to Obama, and overcome the barriers that the MSM will place in their way. Newt has proven he can do that. Romney hasn’t.

    GOP voters are simple folk. They want Obama gone, Obamacare repealed and the budget balanced. On the second point, Romney has a problem, because Obamacare is the bastard off spring of Romneycare. On the third point, Gingrich has a plus, because he did balance the budget, working under a Democrat President.

    I felt an “as the Bishop said to the actress” moment coming on there, but I resisted.

  32. I’m fortunate to have married the perfect man. He’s a total mensch. Other married women should be so lucky as I’ve been.

    However, my wonderful husband is much too nice to be President. I want a President who will tell the Saudis to go f— themselves, as Newt has already done. If we voters let Newt know that we expect constitutional government and a very strong national defense and border control, then maybe Newt will follow our wishes. I want a street fighter for President.

    Mitt has always presented himself as a mushy nice guy. I don’t want a candidate like that. I want a candidate who will kick commie sociopath Obama to the curb, and then stomp on him.

    That’s my “married woman” opinion.

  33. Pat Dooley: you’ve described a lot of GOP voters quite well. That’s why Gingrich could win the GOP nomination against Romney. It’s also why he could lose to Obama in the general—because GOP voters don’t decide the general.

    One thing I must say is that this has been an interesting primary season. And those who were angry because they thought it would be over practically before it had begun must be rather happy. It’s a fairly safe prediction that a lot more states will get to play a role here than originally expected.

  34. What Married Women said; I was very unhappy the National GOP was shoving Romney down our throats, I held my nose in ’08, wasn’t going to hold it again. Newt’s not perfect, I’m not either but the future of our granchildren is now at stake. the generational theft of morgaging our future has to end, BHO has to go, and I enjoy Newt’s smackdown of the girlie men in these debates. I now look forward to the political discourse he’s brought into the field.

  35. Tesh and Don Carlos: I don’t think Tesh was making this up, just stating a fact that was backed up by data in the exit polls. If you go to the link and scroll down a bit, you’ll find a very interesting question, “How important is it that a candidate shares your religious beliefs?” Gingrich got 48% of the voters who had responded “a great deal” and 46% of those who responded “somewhat” (Romney’s percentage among each group was 10% and 27%, respectively). Among those who had responded “not much” or “not at all,” Gingrich got 36% and 29% respectively, while Romney got 39% and 39%. So, Romney beat Gingrich among voters who didn’t care if a candidate shared their religion, and Gingrich beat Romney among voters who did care. This really does support the fact that Romney’s religion hurt him in South Carolina. In that state, the percentage of voters who care that a candidate shares their religion (those first two categories) is 59%.

  37. All this talk about coming out fighting reminds me of “Give ‘Em Hell Zell” Miller’s barn-burning speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSQ5BX6YXg

    I know he’s a Democrat, but he’s also a Marine; and like the man said, his country comes before his party.

  38. Neo-neocon: I’m going to report the reactions of my second wife – yeah, been there, done that – to Newt’s win. Thrilled. She never imagined that Newt could do that for her, but she sees this election as a fight for the soul of America, and Newt is the GOP candidate willing to fight that battle.

    The left fights dirty; the right can only respond by fighting smarter. Gingrich is doing that. Romney isn’t.

    I’d rather be supporting a nice guy with no ex-wives, a great record in business, and a consistent record. But Romney fails on the third count. He has a well deserved record for flip-flopping depending on his electorate. Plus, I don’t see passion. I watched C-Span coverage of a Gingrich campaign event and I saw passion.

    Gingrich also flip-flops. We have friends connected to his campaign and we said, how do you explain his couch appearance with Nancy Pelosi, and they said, oops, and rolled their eyes. But, unlike Romney, Newt says that was the dumbest thing he ever did.

    Ask Mitt about Romneycare, and he defends it. If he would admit it was a mistake, and should be replaced by market-based solutions, he’d improve his chances. The fact that he doesn’t really hurts him.

    My favored GOP candidate didn’t run, but she wants this primary process to continue. I can see why. It is exposing how fragile Romney would be in an election against someone campaigning against Wall Street.

    We live in interesting times. I just read Spengler’s “How Civilizations Die”. This election is really about whether we choose to live or die as a culture. The America of our founders’ dreams was lost a century ago. Can we, at least, make progress back there?

  39. Parker, that is great news and it warms my heart just like that good stew. Squash and tomatoes in a soup is umm umm good.

  40. Pat Dooley’s “actress said to the bishop” made me pause and think of Newt’s across the aisle twin: Bill Clinton. The guy never gave up and won.

    How much damage did President Clinton do? Culturally, a lot. And he did set the stage for the current housing collapse.

    Could Gingrich’es proclivities surface and create great harm? I’m getting an Alexander Haig feeling, but is that really fair to Gingrich? He is, after all, first and foremost, a politician whose thought process is usually directed towards support. So, I think it doubtful that he would go rogue and create disaster.

    Still, if he won he will inherit Obama’s rule and will he be able to do a George Washington and declare he is not king?

  41. Romney lost to Kennedy, Romney could not be reelected for a 2d term as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney lost to McCain, Romney lost to Santorum, Romney lost to Gingrich.

    Electability? Inevitability?

    ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER:

    VOTE NEWTON LEROY GINGRICH !!!

  42. “Newt Gingrich scored a sweeping victory in the South Carolina Primary Saturday, riding two strong debate performances to upset former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
    A week ago, Romney led polls by double digits, but found his lead collapsing under questions about his tax returns. Exit polls indicated Republican voters were most concerned about “electability” – and believed that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is best to accomplish that”.

    ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER:
    VOTE NEWT !!!

  43. Does anybody know the details on Newt’s ethics violations in the House? I find it strange that little has leaked out. If Newt wins this thing, the sealed records will suddenly appear in the NYT.

  44. Parker,

    Although I’m a regular here, I somehow missed the info about your daughter. As a 3x survivor myself, such news from anyone hits too close to home. I will keep good thoughts and prayers for her. As they say across the pond keep a stiff upper lip.

  45. My take is that Newt’s surge in SC is based on throwing the conservative base a lot of rhetorical red meat — mainly in the form of outbursts against the media. GOP voters are really angry with over the state of the country under Obama’s reign and Newt is using every attack on him as an opportunity to tap into that rage.

    I think an analogy can be made to the Democrat race in 2004. Like Newt in 2012, Howard Dean went from Nowheresville to frontrunner by tapping into his party’s populist outrage, while more restrained, traditional candidates like Kerry (Romney?) and Edwards (Santorum?) could only stand by and watch.

    Eventually, however, rank and file seemed to get over the novelty of being worked up into a frenzy and started to focus more on whether their firebrand frontrunner was really fit for leadership. Gov. Dean burned out and rest, as they say, is history.

    Of course, for the dems in 2004, this all happened before Iowa, so the timetable is off.

    The question is whether Newt can avoid the fate of Howard Dean. I’m going to go out on a limb and say no. I just think being the frontrunner is going to fuel his ego and sense of invincibility in a way that will cause him to become more imperious and grandiose in his prescriptions for the country. The GOP base wants red meat, but I don’t think they’ll have much stomach for the pompous musings of a philosopher prince.

  47. Conrad,

    I think your concerns are well founded, but I think that Newt is smarter than that. I agree that he is giving the base some red meat. The real question is “can he pivot to a different perspective in a national election?”

    There is no question that Newt’s ego is huge, but the real question is how focused is he on his goal? That focus, working in service of the ego, will allow him to realize that his approach must be tempered. In another neoneocon thread I cited Byron York’s article:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/why-gingrich-won-why-romney-lost/328266

    I think it poses an alternative interpretation to the perception you list above. Frankly, as an observer, it’s going to be fascinating to watch exactly what way this plays out.

  48. Neo: I don’t buy the religion thesis. “Sharing religious values” is pretty damn vague. I do not think that a “Yes” answer indicates sectarianism, Catholic v. Presbyterian v. Methodist v. Jew v. Mormon.

    Charles Murray’s WSJ essay, to which I posted a link yesterday, indicates that the non-religious have gone from 29% to 40% in the Upper Middle Class over the past 40 years, but in the Working Class (no more than a high school diploma) from 38% to 59% nationally. Most of the non-religious still have a belief in God, but that does not extrapolate to being anti-Mormon as Tesh would have us think.

    Your cited poll results indicate an association, not inherent anti-Mormonism. The more religious in SC prefer a Crusader over a Manager. That’s not anti-Mormon, it’s anti-Mitt.

  50. Don,

    The religion of the left is leftism. It’s a belief without facts to prove their thesis.

    Given that the religion of the left is leftism the candidate on the left could be muslim, mormon, anything really… it doesn’t matter as long as he/she wants to take (seize) the oil company profits (this is what Obama suggested many times in his campaign of 2008. After that his middle name didn’t matter.

  51. As had been pointed out in many other places, Mitt has been running for President , building an organization, and storing up campaign funds for several years now and, yet, he still can’t close the deal.

    And Mitt has, inexplicably, failed to craft defenses against the attacks on his time at Bain and his non-release of his income taxes that you would think that any competent campaigner would know and anticipate were inevitably coming, with today’s new attack about a government defrauding medical services company, whose board Mitt sat on during the time the defrauding was being done.

    Despite the MSM’s continual surprise about all of the “unexpected” bad news, that they have been trying mightily to massage into somehow becoming some species of good news, and the elusive “light at the end of the tunnel,” the economy is in a shambles, basically flat and going nowhere, there are 40 million and losing in on 50 million on food stamps, the overall unemployment rate is probably really around 17%, and in some inner cities and among violence—prone teenagers somewhere between 25% and 50%, millions of people have been foreclosed on, and millions more are “underwater” and are about to be, we have approaching a $17 trillion dollar debt, a reported 40% of each federal dollar now spent is borrowed–mostly from our enemy China–and Obama just asked for more than a $trillion more to spend.

    “Plundering our future to pay for the present,” the Fed/Treasury has done something like quintuple our money supply, in the past such massive money printing usually leading to enormously destructive “hyperinflation” (see Weimar Germany and, more recently, Zimbabwe and Argentina) , many States are broke and their credit ratings have been and are being downgraded, in a cascade of increasingly bad economic news.

    President Obama has said “he can’t wait,” and that he will do by executive fiat and regulation what he can’t get a recalcitrant, “do nothing” Congress to agree to, cooperation and an agreement process that the Constitution requires him to adhere to and, in anticipation of a contentious upcoming Presidential election that they don’t intend to lose, Obama & Co. seem to be assembling their very own “fascisti,” their own band of thugs–including ACORN, SEIU, Union goons, the Occupy movement –among others.

    The DOJ’s lawless and illegal “Fast and Furious “ operation (just one of apparently 10 such operations uncovered so far) has resulted in the deaths–so far as we currently are aware of–of 300 Mexican citizens and two of our Border Patrol agents, we are told that the DOJ’s own internal Inspector General’s “investigation” of this operation is proceeding (and that is why DOJ cannot release certain email and telephone logs and other documents that have been requested by Congress) and, just this week, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona said through his lawyer that he will be taking the 5th about his role in that Operation when he is called to testify before Congress in the next week or so.

    Russia asks us/basically demands that we give them the key technical specifications of our ABM system–such as it is–and Obama agrees to do so.

    We have withdrawn from Iraq and the violence there has predictably escalated, with Afghanistan next.

    Iran gets closer each day to a nuclear weapon, but–mustn’t get unpleasant and hasty– and talking and negotiations will stop them, says our State Department and Obama & Co.. Iran threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz, shoots down one of our drones, and when Obama doesn’t take steps to destroy it or to force its return, but “asks” for it back–very politely I am sure, with perhaps a bow or two thrown in for good measure– he is contemptuously told the he will be given back a 1/80th scale reproduction–a toy.

    As well, it was recently reported that Iran is hurriedly building launching facilities for IRBMs–that can reach some parts of the U.S.–in Argentina. Meanwhile, Obama wants to drastically cut military spending (to pay for his social programs) and our defenses.

    The “Arab Spring” that Obama & Co. largely instigated, so heavily invested in, and supported has resulted in a massive advance in power and control for the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East , and just this week they won 75% of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament ; the Arab Spring has become our “Arab Nightmare.”

    In the U.S., attempted (and sometimes successful) Muslim terrorist attacks–although disguised, discounted and/or explained away by our MSM and our “authorities” as things like–just the acts of “despondent,” “down on their luck,” “out of work,” “foreclosed on” youngsters–see, for instance, the reportage on the Times Square Car bomber, who told the court that he was a “Jihadist” and a “soldier of Allah,” or as what has DHS ruled was a case of “workplace violence” by another self-proclaimed “solder of Allah,” Major Nidal Hasan’s Jihadi terrorist attack at Ft. Hood–the largest such terrorist attack against our soldiers on U.S. soil in our history– killing 13 and leaving another 30 fellow soldiers shot, and many seriously injured–and such attacks are apparently escalating in number and seriousness. Then, there is the fact that the legitimacy of Shari’a law is starting to be accepted by some of our courts, and Muslim “honor” killings–although also ignored, disguised, or explained away by our MSM– continue to spread and increase here in the U.S., etc. etc.

    And what does bland Mitt, with his painful, insincere smile offer? A bland little “bank officer” in a pin stripped suit–a nice guy, a family guy, mind you–but a guy who is not about to acknowledge all of the “bad” and “disturbing’ things above, much less wade into the bloody melee with an iron pipe or a knife, and fight for us and fight his way through.

    No, that person is wily, rumpled, old, battered and rough around the edges, but very knowledgeable and experienced, exceptionally clear-eyed, and deadly-determined Newt Gingrich; a “warrior,” “baggage” and all.

  52. I would love to hear a debate between Obama and Newt. This will look like a sequel of “Predator against Alien”.

  53. Tesh, responding to your 12:40 comment:

    I used to think the same thing having grown up in VA.

    I don’t think so anymore seeing the south have state after state vote for Obama and not because he is black because the south is READY to give someone black equal opportunity and it’s been that way for awhile.

    I thought Obama couldn’t win those states because of his heritage being from a muslim father and the cocaine and the middle name of Hussein.

    I know now that it is a certain amount of stupidity and this goes for EVERY STATE in the union.

    Every state.

    Ohio just overturned John Kasich’s laws that would save that state with a proposition.

    There is laziness and negligence by voters so often.

    We have a core of people who do research and “care” and there is so many (like my girlfriend) who after 20 minutes of Fox News wants me to turn it to Entertainment Tonight. She asks for compromise. She can’t stand politics she says.

    I tell her then maybe you should stop voting. Because you voted for somebody based on no information based on feeling.

    She admits that is true. And she at least is sorry for her vote but won’t make the hard steps to not do that again.

    This is CA. This is SC. This is OH. This is everywhere. This is what we are fighting against.

    I CANNOT foresee ANY CHANCE of my girlfriend voting for Newt ever. She sees looks. Most people see this as a popularity contest.

  56. Wolla,

    Your post makes my point about the “core”. We all know all of that!

    Those who are here day in and day out know about this stuff and we could add to your list like Solyndra and Zelaya and Netanyahu and the Keystone pipeline and his meddling in the college professor and cop mele leading to his beer summit, etc.

    The debate boils down to this for me.

    If Lynn Forester de Rothschild and my girlfriend would give Mitt a chance and never give Newt a chance then we have to weigh that as an issue.

    Will this be an election where 50 million voters give 25 million votes for Obama and 25 million and one for Romney?

    Will this be an election where 60 million voters will give 35 million votes for Obama and 25 million votes for Gingrich.

    Why do I say this? Because Newt has extremely high negatives. He also has his high positives.

    I don’t think that Romney has high negatives (maybe I’m wrong).

    Romney just doesn’t inspire much.

    And let’s not forget about Santorum.

    The man’s plan has a ZERO % tax for manufacturers.

  57. One possible explanation for Newt’s remarkable rebound that I have not seen mentioned in the comments above is Palin’s endorsement. Maybe she is still the kingmaker.

  58. Baklava:
    Yes, if only the people who don’t care about politics would simply refrain from voting, that would solve many of our problems.

    But no. They “feel” (not think) that it is their civic duty to vote, so they dutifully vote for the best-looking candidate, or the one that makes them feel good about themselves.

    Wolla:
    Great comment, as usual.

  59. Beverly:
    January 22nd, 2012 at 1:40 am
    All this talk about coming out fighting reminds me of “Give ‘Em Hell Zell” Miller’s barn-burning speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention

    Thanks Bev’.

    …one of my favourite political speeches.

    I remember being stunned at the time: a Democrat! like I remember Democrats (I too was a Democrat for decades).

    I also remember jumping up and cheering …numerous times …during his speech. Cheering. Through tears of pure joy. Me. Go figure.

    I’m such a stone cold political romantic.

    In one of my political fantasy league matchups, I go with a[n admittedly unlikely] Palin/Miller matchup on a new national Tea Party ticket.

    Oh yeah. Former GOP with former Democrat.

    …winning in a populist landside.

    …to the utter disbelief and stunning rebuke to the financial and political elites of both parties.

    “The people” winning …in a new – and true – American Revolution. At the ballot box.

    That’s what we need most right now: fire ALL the lackies of both parties who have abused the Constitution and the electorate and the ideals of the Founders of our great Republic.

    Palin/Miller 2012

  60. rickl,

    but we have to play in that game.

    This is why I was looking at Cain first, Bachmann second, Santorum third and Romney forth.

    In my list – nowhere is Newt.

    Any one of these people would be hella better than Barrack Hussein Obama.

    I just do not think Newt can win the general.

  63. Here’s a salient point.

    I watched both the FoxNews and CNN SC debates.

    I liked the things that Newt said.

    But why am I not affected by Newt love?

    It’s a dose reality and perspective.

    Please hear us Newt supporters – it won’t happen in the general. Newt may win several states.

    I’m not trying to call the primary. The longer the primary the better I suppose. More Newt zingers. More Newteducation going on around here. Let that happen.

  64. People are really setting themselves up for disappointment if they are supporting Newt because of his ability to out-debate BHO.

    Debates are all about expectations. If Gingrich goes into the debate after months of hype over how he’s going to take Obama apart, then it will be very hard for him to meet those expectations. He’ll rough up Obama, but then the media will pronounce Obama the winner simply for having come through the debate alive.

  68. Excellent point Conrad, but counterpoint is Obama’s huge vulnerability due to all the passes he has been given.

    What is it that people remember about Trump?

    I believe it is that he got Obama to release his “birth certificate.” Trump won that exchange.

    The cold hard light of day needs to reveal the secrecies of our most secret President ever. This is the reason why the Left wants Romney.

    But even more than that, ilt is Newt’s articulation of the anti-Western, anti-American, post modern ideology of Obama.

    These primaries are the best mock up and prove up for the real showdown. Couldn’t have happened any better for Newt. The sting is taken away and the defense, tried and trued in reality, can be set forth in much the same way as Obama defends his birth certificate: Oh, that’s already been decided, don’t ya know.

    And then, imagine Newt deconstructing Obama’s perfect little nuclear family fairy tale ala Jack Cashill.

    Imagine Newt turning the subject to Rashid Khalidi. William Ayers. ACORN.

  69. Oh yeah, and then think of that thin skin of Obama and that pouty little glare he gave Ryan and his disrespect that he showed to McCain and Netanyahu.

  70. Don Carlos: you read the article incorrectly. Take another look. The question was not about “shared religious values. ” The question was, “How important is it that a candidate shares your religious beliefs?”

    That’s not quite as strong as if the question were, “shares your religion.” But it’s stronger than “values,” and it’s very very close to “religion.”

    I never mentioned anti-Mormonism, by the way. One can consider it important that a candidate share one’s religious beliefs without hating people of another religion or being against them. But I think you are fooling yourself if you pretend that religion wasn’t a fairly important factor in SC (these people have said as much).

  71. I repeat this post from Neoneocon’s “The Primaries and the Candidates” thread because it is germain to the discussion of a potential Newt/Obama debate.

    If Newt wins the nomination, I think we will all be very surprised at an Obama/Gingrich debate. Many conservatives will sit down with their popcorn and just wait for the bloodletting to begin. Several months ago I said exactly the same thing.

    I suggest that this will not happen.

    Newt is not stupid, and as Byron York points out Newt’s campaigning has been marked by speed and flexibility. I think Newt, like Gary Kasparov, is thinking numerous moves ahead of his opponent (potentially Obama). I think these debates are going to serve to set Obama up and if an Obama/Gingrich debate does materialize, I think Newt’s apporach will be totally unexpected and thus Obama will be left indefensible. I think that he will still “take Obama apart,” but not in the manner most of us expect.

    Newt is giving Republicans red meat; I expect him to pivot to some degree to win a national audience, especially one that already expects him to come off as cranky and vindictive. This is no way to be seen as the winner of a debate and would play right into the Rick Lazio/Hillary Clinton debacle in New York. I think that Newt is smart enough to not walk into that trap.

    Curtis, your mention of all of Obama’s “passes he has been given” and Rashid Khalidi and Wm Ayres are exactly the type of thing I’m referring to. I’d bet that Obama’s people see this as old news and are totally unprepared for Newt to raise (unanswered) issues from the 2008 campaign. This is just one of the tacks that could be used against Obama and IMO Romney has proven that he can’t do that. Romney, like classic Repubs before him lets the left set the terms of the battle; Newt, by contrast, has shown an ability to force them to play on HIS turf, and as Scott Pelley and John King have demosntrated, they are totally unprepared to do this. I suspect that Obama will fall into the same category.

  72. T wrote, “I’d bet that Obama’s people see this as old news and are totally unprepared for Newt to raise (unanswered) issues from the 2008 campaign.”

    How does one provide this education during a debate. A one liner does not educate somebody on these issues. You can’t do the Bill Clinton laundry list on Obama with effect.

    Bill Clinton used to be able to tick off a list of issues against his opponent (none of them being true) and it stuck to his faithful believers because the press helped make people believe that stuff over the years. People believed the “R” candidate was anti-education, anti-environment, etc etc.

    I’m a detail yet big picture guy. I see from a high level and I can swoop down and see how things operate where the rubber meats the road. This is why I excel in my IT job btw. I can bring it to the manager level and get in and iron out the details.

    Where your argument falls apart is how in the world Newt is supposed to educate people on many of these issues.

    What Newt can do is pick one or two or three and educate people during the debate about those issues.

    And what Newt said better not be able to be fact checked in ANY WAY by any organization as incorrect. It has to be truthful, accurate and eviscerate Obama but he has to stick to a few issues.

    This leaves out things like Netanyahu, Solyndra, Fast and Furious because it is extremely hard to put 100% involvement on Obama himself even though he had roles.

  73. It leaves out Zelaya, leaves out the details of the GM case, even Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

    He has to bring it on the Obamacare issues and the attitude of Democrats on housing which led us into this mess and he has to be on target with respect to supply and demand and economics 101.

    The more he goes into the weeds about employing kids at schools – I tell ya – we all agree with him that the youth need to work – but we will LOSE.

  74. I note a new wave of negative comments, predictably following–like waves endlessly crashing against the shore–after the earlier wave of negative comments about Newt, and his candidacy, and his electability of a few days ago, negative comments from the Left, from the MSM, including FOX news commentators like Brit Hume (earlier it was Krauthammer) , and from the Republican establishment as well, all about what a horror and disaster Newt would be if he became and as the Republican nominee, and how he could never have even a hope of winning the Presidency but would, instead and inevitably, bring the Republican ticket–including the “down ticket races” for House and Senate seats- crashing down in flames to defeat.

    But, as I see it, for many, their “horror” and dismay is not primarily about the effects of this feared, projected and inevitable defeat on the Republic or even on the Republican Party, so much as it is about what a President Gingrich and his sweeping policies, and the necessary massive, deep, and radical changes they would require, would affect their very comfortable and cozy ways of doing things, their personal careers, and their reserved seats on the Washington/inside the beltway gravy train, and their current positions on and access to the seats of power.

    Look at a lot of Congressional Republicans and you can see that things are going very well for them, and that they are livin’ large–lots of tailor made, pin-striped suits, expensive haircuts and jewelry, and double chins there, not to the mention the fancy parties, accolades and deference, lots of good food, and attractive and worshipful staff surrounding them and, when they retire, the prospect of a great pension, and–if they form and maintain the right connections and play their cards right–privileged seats on all sorts of boards of directors, and greatly increased income–and this “go along to get along” crew doesn’t want to “get confrontational” and to relinquish this exceptionally great “gig,” or those retirement prospects , as I suspect working their asses off to implement and fighting for Gingrich’s radical counter-revolution–our own Conservative Republican “Transformation”–would inevitably require them to do.

    If Newt gets elected,the bouncers–the voters– are also going to be tossing a lot of these chow hounds out of the restaurant and the bar, or a lot of them are going to have to slink away on their own, and prematurely retire to “spend more time with their families,” and a lot of them don’t like that prospect.

  76. Wolla Dalbo: I don’t know about those guys; certainly they have vested interests that could be threatened, and protecting them could be part of their motivation. But since I—and lots of other people around the blogosphere, most of them quite ordinary people and not Washington elites or media elites—say similar things, I think one cannot assume that some or even many of those pundits don’t actually mean what they say.

    I assure you I do not base my opinions of Newt on anything they say, either. I base them on my own research and perceptions of Gingrich’s character, personality, viewpoints, and history, as well as my talks with friends and acquaintances of mine.

    And I have nothing personal to lose by Newt’s victory. Nor do the myriad commenters around the blogosphere who agree with me.

    I’m not big on journalists per se, as any reader of this blog probably knows. And Journolist and that sort of thing fed the idea of conspiracy among them. But there’s some honor even among thieves.

    Also, I don’t see how a Gingrich presidency would significantly negatively alter the lives of journalists and columnists such as Krauthammer, or Brit Hume. They seemed to prosper during the days of Gingrich’s leadership in Congress. How would this be any different?

  78. Wolla Dalbo,

    I completely agree. One of the parallels that has been brought up in comparison to Newt was Howard Dean’s famous “I have a scream” in Iowa 4 years ago.

    I offer that the two are not the same. I watched Dean live at the time and, for the life of me, I could not figure out why the media (including Fox News)was making such a big deal out of this (for the record I am no fan of Howard Dean).

    In fact, IMO Dean imploded as a result of the media reaction. I suggest that things are different today. Yes, the media still reacts and tries to force an issue—they’ve proclaimed Newt “dead” twice now—but now, for the first time we’re seeing voters say the equivalent of “go soak yer head” to the punditocracy.

    All of this anguish about Newt being a millstone to drag down the Republican cause is, IMO as you succinctly state, anguish caused by the fact that establishment Republicans believe “he ain’t one of us!”

  79. Neoneocon,

    I don’t think the establishment says what they do in any cursory fashion. I agree with you that they DO, indeed, believe what they say. I think more to Wolla Dalbo’s point is the fact that they speak from an unrecognized (by them) very narrow perspective.

    Take Mitt’s most recent final attacks against Newt. He brought up his censure by the house. This is old news; if Mitt has no other weapon than a 15 year old hammer to use against Newt, just how is he going to withstand the onslaught by Obama? There is no recognition of that by Mitt supproting pundits. Furthermore, this “congratulatory” cake that Mitt’s staff sent in rememberence of his 15 year censure—Mitt’s coampaing may be well organized, but if it’s organized by high school sophomores we should be very afraid.

    1) is this the best that Mitt can do and 2) where is the establishment Republican punditocracy calling Mitt to task? I am not anti-Romney and have said I will supprot him if he is the nominee (ABO), but I’m beginning to see some serious chinks in the armor and for Mitt that could be deadly. Why? Because Mitt relies on his armor to protect him, when that breaks he falls apart (the tax return questions). Newt on the other hand, seems to rely more on the passion of the battle and will continue to fight even though told he is mortally wounded. Both may lose in the long run (I don’t think either will in this cycle) but if I’m part of a mission from which I probably will not return, I’ll cast my lot with the passionate fighter rather than the man in the citadel any day of the week.

  80. Baklava wrote,

    “How does one provide this education during a debate.”

    One weaves it into a narrative which is to the left’s disadvantage. This is exactly what the left tried to do with Newt’s adultery and marriages. He cut that off at the knees by his conversion to Catholocism and his ability to admit that he has caused people personal pain in the past. Now, it’s possible that this nothing more than strategic electoral planning and that Newt doesn’t mean a word of it, but by the time we know that for sure, the election will be over and done.

    Compare Obama. All of his laser-like (non) focus on jobs and the so-called permitorium on Gulf drilling (and the resultant lost jobs) could have been swept aside by okaying the Keystone pipeline and an admission that Obama has seen the error of his ways. But he won’t–he can’t.

    IMO the difference between Obama’s narcissism and Newt’s, is that Obama’s narcissism is founded on his being “correct” and so he becomes inflexible, Newt’s narcissism seems to be founded on being “smarter”, i.e., being the better warrior-tactician. Newt will admit to being wrong if it’s to his advantage to do so, Obama will not. “I know, you don’t and I won, so stop bothering me!” It’s always YOUR fault if you don’t understand his brilliance (Valerie Jarrett, anyone?).

    In short, Newt beats the left at their own game. Mitt isn’t clever enough, nor does he have the “brass” to do that (Santorum or Paul either).

  82. I too have nothing to lose if Newt wins. America wins.

    The ISSUE is that Newt is highly unlikely to win and I don’t listen to the pundits. I make my own observations.

    I don’t care if Bill Kristol, Krauthammer, or the Pope himself says somebody is unelectable.

    I’m looking at the facts as I see it and I’m asking Newt supporters to see it.

    Imagine it this way. If you looked like Newt and looked in the mirror everyday. You should KNOW you shouldn’t run for president.

    It’s just that way people. The man has ugly inside and outside and his positive is his mouth and brain during debates and I’m positive he would run the country better than almost anybody — except for the owner of Home Depot and/or Herman Cain. 🙂

  83. T,

    I agree with Hugh’s article. He wrote:

    Newt’s greatest contribution to the race has been to demonstrate that the style of political argument that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan debuted in the last couple of years actually is not a luxury but a necessity to win hearts and minds in the GOP.Newt’s greatest contribution to the race has been to demonstrate that the style of political argument that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan debuted in the last couple of years actually is not a luxury but a necessity to win hearts and minds in the GOP.

    I’ve said the same things about Romney. He needs to educate, connect, relate to people, instigate some passion…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑