The sentiment…
…I’ve seen on a lot of blogs is this: “If Newt is nominated, win or lose it’ll be a great show.”
Politics as a WWD match. There’s a lot of that going around.
Would Newt be the heavy? And would that appeal to anyone but conservatives eager to sit down with a beer and enjoy the fight?
Some say that, if nominated, Newt would be clever enough to change tactics and surprise Obama. Would we see a kinder, gentler Gingrich (again)? And would the American people buy it?
The claim reminds me of statements from the left (remember when they liked Obama?) that Obama’s so clever that he’s really playing 3-D chess. Beware the perception of the politician as great Jedi master. You might end up disappointed.
This may be only marginally related (if that), but I think it’s weirdly entertaining:
You could have used a “Stop the Insanity” video.
My current slogan is “Newt | Paul 2012 Why Not Go Nuts?”
Newt has shown us very plainly and clearly that in order to defeat Obama you must defeat the media. When you discredit them as Newt did in the debate they lose the ability to discredit you, which is their main function for Obama. Newt wiped out the Left’s irregular auxilliaries, who can conduct a war of atrocities with nary a peep from the terrified populace, half of whom regard the war criminals as paladins.
“Neo-neocon” …come for the politics, stay for the dance.
…which is what originally roped me in, at least LOL.
The GOP is not long for political relevancy if it nominates Gingrich — the gag reflex will send many, significantly many conservatives to saner, less gullible, precincts.
Having pressed upon conservatives the likes of the Bushes, McCain, and Romney — all of them Democrat Lite (therefore less savory than Democrat Regular) — Gingrich will be the straw that breaks the elephant’s back. If the money to the party doesn’t dry up it’ll only be because political corruption will have been ratcheted by the pinguid Mr. Gingrich — money being as important to him as women who are not his wife.
njcommuter: Did I miss the part where Newt defeated Obama? Because what I see is that talking back to the MSM and deflecting their “gotcha” points earns favor with a lot of conservative voters, especially ones in SC but probably around the country as well.
It remains to be seen how this would work in a general election against Obama. I’m not saying it would or wouldn’t (I really don’t know), but I fail to see how Newt has demonstrated anything about it so far.
Newt/Paul isn’t so nutty as it at first blush appears.
Why? It could very well stop the nascent third party run. It would bring in a lot of independent and even liberal votes (especially the anti-Israel ones). And St. Paul really wouldn’t be in charge but he would be more like a Biden taking the absurdity off Obama.
George Pal, you’re hyperbolic comment does have one redeeming point: that beautiful word: penguid. I propose that Gingrich adopt that whole image of Danny Devito as Penguin. What a performance. Remember when Christopher Walker feeds him the fish? How about when he tells Michelle Pfeiffer, “You little minx, you were giving me all the signs.”
The whole theme works: the rejection, the lack of pedigree, the boiling hatred, the genius, the look.
Newt better get to this one first and diffuse it.
Let’s see, after Newt gets elected, he could murder Paul like Hitler murdered Ernest Rohm.
Yep, that would do it.
Actually, the foil Newt needs is one with great personal integrity.
Now who does that bring to mind? Who was it that had the NYT so worried they hired country to snoop through her files?
Making war with people who buy ink by the barrel and TV time by the hour is a losing proposition. Calling someone an SOB and expecting them to agree is stupid. Newt’s attack on the media is fun to watch but likely to end badly.
Well, here is another fragmentation grenade tossed out by MSM, courtesy of Andrea Mitchelll, saying that Romney’s Mexican ancestors “crossed the border illegally” (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/22/andrea_mitchell_the_mexican_romneys_crossed_the_border_illegally.html)
The success/appeal of Newt is not predicated on him being a Jedi Master, or a brilliant chess player, or a great debater. Rather, it is that Newt gives effective voice to conservative principles and philosophies, and does so boldly, unapologetically and unashamedly.
Romney, again, has a moment of opportunity to do the same: Romney is releasing his tax returns. This is the PERFECT opportunity to speak to America about why the Capital Gains tax rate ought be low (imo, ought be zero), i.e. b/c taxes were already paid on those monies when they were originally earned. Romney could make this argument boldly, unapologetically; could tie other classic American principles into his argument. Conservatives would LOVE him for it. Romney is being presented with opportunity after opportunity, if only he has the understanding – of foundational conservative principles – to recognize the opportunities with which he is being presented.
I grant that Newt is always a risk to go off on some socialist flights of fancy. However, in this contest, Newt has elucidated classic conservative and American principles, and has done so in dymamic fashion. Romney has not. That is how Newt got back into the game. It was not about being a genius Jedi chess master. It was about communicating commitment to classic principles, and doing so unapologetically and unhesitantly.
BTW: “Come for the politics, stay for the dance” is hilarious brilliant. New blog slogan.
Ink by the barrel or shit by the ton. I suppose whoever has the most won.
Given my assessment that some kind of collapse is inevitable, I am inclined toward maximizing my entertainment value. I wouldn’t vote Gingrich merely for the spectacle, though.
Paul is not articulate enough to be the Vice Nut. I was thinking, though, that if Paul picked an articulate running mate early, it might help his campaign crack into the mainstream discussion. I have no suggestions for the person to fill that spot.
My fantasy Paul VP would have defense/military credentials, able to explain how America First is not all the doom everyone thinks it is. Given RP’s age, his VP should be administratively competent, palatable as a replacement.
Paul-Palin would be as much fun–in a different way–as Romney-Gingrich.
I am loving that Mitt has caved on releasing his tax returns. The man has no spine.
Maybe he can’t defend capitalism in detail because he doesn’t understand it. His training and experience is not in economics and political science. He is a business consultant who gets deep into one firm at a time. How all firms interrelate in aggregate to make an economy is a different discipline.
What is Romney’s political foundation? So far it seems to be “what’s good for business is good for America”. Is he a shallow version of Coolidge?
With the goaded release of Mitt’s tax returns, we will see what ends his wealth is serving.
Sadly, the second coming of George Washington has been cancelled for the duration.
WINNING IS ONE THING AND GOVERNING ANOTHER.
WE NEED TO BOTH DEFEAT OBAMA AND PUT AN ABLE EXECUTIVE IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
ONLY MITT CAN DO BOTH.
Romney will never beat Obama. Furthermore, Romney will have big trouble with hispanic voters.
ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER.
VOTE NEWTON LEROY GINGRICH !!!
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Latino-Gingrich-Endorse-Republican/2012/01/17/id/424419
gcotharn: actually, every now and then I’ve gotten emails from people who came for the dance and stayed for the politics :-).
gellieba and reliapundit: I’d appreciate it if you didn’t comment in all caps.
Wish i could skate like that. Looks awfully fun. 🙂
gcotharn: I never realized that attacking Bain was a classic conservative principle and/or philosophy. That was a turning point for me in realizing how very little reason there is to trust Gingrich, or that “new” Gingrich.
I don’t.
I agree with you, however, that Romney has a golden opportunity to defend the tax rate he pays. I’m surprised and disappointed he didn’t do so effectively in the last debate. I would like him to do so, and soon.
Anyone but that middle-of-the-road, dispassionate, disconnected, out-of-touch establishment-approved candidate. Anyone, but Romney who lost to Kennedy, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich. That great executive who after six years running for POTUS did not think that his ITR will become an issue …
Vote for the leader a new movement, vote Newt !
Mitt reminds me of my dad trying to play the recorder. My dad had discipline and practiced hard, yet after years of work he still couldn’t play a tune that sounded like music. So it is with Mitt and politics. He paints by the numbers, and does it well, including the dirty bits in the corners, but he can’t connect. He doesn’t have the touch, and his attack ads haven’t made friends of his opponents. I can’t say Newt deserves to win, but I think Mitt deserves to lose and there aren’t many alternatives at this point.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/coulter-with-newt-gingrich-you-throw-out-the-baby-and-keep-the-bath-water-video/
She’s right. They want an emotional purge- they want their anger fulfilled. Anger at where the nation has been going since the Democrats took over the Congress in 2006, and anger at the nonresponsiveness now to our dire situation. But…then what?
re allegation that Gingrich attacking Bain equated to Gingrich abandoning conservative principle
The Golden Rule is a classic conservative principle. Gingrich did not attack capitalism. Rather, Gingrich questioned whether or not Romney followed the Golden Rule.
There is merit to the argument that Gingrich and Perry were unfairly vague in their accusations. However, Gingrich and Perry eventually did get around to specific instances of allegation. Further: Romney, after unleashing his attack dogs on Gingrich and Perry in Iowa, certainly did not deserve scrupulously fair treatment by Gingrich and Perry. Tit for tat.
The above said: I’ve already granted that Gingrich does go off on ego-fueled socialist tangents. This is the type thinking which fuels those missteps by Gingrich: I, Newt Gingrich, am such a great thinker that I can fix ANYTHING! I can fix it! I. I. I. With my brilliant solutions! Classic leader who lets his ego run amuck.
I’d just note that if the voter wishes of South Carolina had been heeded nation wide in 08 we wouldn’t be in this marxist mess. Iowa and New Hampshire can’t make that claim, because they happened to have been terribly wrong.
I’d caution Newt’s supporters against assuming the rest of the country shares their growing enchantment with the guy. The idea that he’s single-handedly neutralizing the MSM ‘s influence or having some other transformational effect on the nation suggests the kind of dulusional thinking I associate with membership in a cult. From the polling date I’ve seen, Newt’s unfavorables remain incredibly high. The country as a whole simply doesn’t like the guy, for a number of very good reasons. It’s great for Newt that a segment of the GOP is rallying around him, but those supporters shouldn’t interpret their own newfound enthusiasm for him as signaling a sudden change of heart toward Gingrich by the country at large.
I just realized that Mitt will release his tax returns on Tuesday, the same day as the SOTU address. I sure hope he has something up his sleeve with this timing.
“ONLY A MONSTER CAN BEAT A MONSTER.
VOTE NEWTON LEROY GINGRICH !!!”
Oh, for Pete’s sake, get a grip before you spin right off the edge of the known universe into Romney Derangement Syndrome.
It seems the proMitts and the proNewts here are unable to reach across the narrow aisle and come to some productive understanding. That task is for the two candidates, which may yet occur in the fullness of time. Taking out the dreaded Hussein is the main thing.
I am keeping my powder dry. But I would like Mitt to be more than he seems capable of being.
Mitt just doesn’t seem to show any urgency in kicking democrat/marxist ass. Hey…Wake TFU Mitt! It’s like he gets his strategy from a focus group made up of bridge club democrats.
Wolla, That abc story is more reason to vote Santorum not Newt. 🙂
Mr Frank. You are right on.
It doesn’t make sense to attack Rush, Hugh, Hannity.
Nor does it make sense to attack ABCCBSNBCCNN if you are a presidential candidate.
What does make sense?
Explaining conservatism and capitalism. Letting people know that personal responsibility and making good choices opens doors and earns prosperity whereas in socialism and liberalism people are invited to make poor choices and be subsidized for doing so
Jennifer Rubin is not somebody I’ve respected lately but check out her column (anybody but Newt)
http://patterico.com/2012/01/22/the-girl-who-cried-newt/
The only thing ever needed to beat Obama was the guts to beat him, the will to win.
McCain never wanted to win. He let down the country in its hour of need. He preferred to run and be thought of as a good man. He was a good man until he ran that campaign. Now he is a pariah.
Romney has not yet shown he wants to win, that he is willing to do whatever it takes to confront Obama and embrace America.
he has maybe one more chance.
Newt has shown real guts so far. He’s already thrown away more frontal assaults on Obama than the others have tried.
Richard fernandez has a typically unique insight on it today, about the character Shane. No one had the guts to face Wilson until Shane.
The column is worth a read.
The Left’s favorite weapon is straight out of Alinsky. Demonize your enemy. It doesn’t matter whether an attack is true, false, or half-true; throw it out there and keep the meme alive long enough that the public accepts it. So, who were some of the targets?
Robert Bork. Result – Bork’s nomination to SCOTUS failed and Romney ally Sununu recommended Souter, who turned out to be liberal.
Clarence Thomas: The calls went out to find some woman who had worked with him to smear him with sexual harassment charges. Anita Hill answered the call and delivered well enough to destroy Thomas’s reputation. Harry Reid recently attacked Thomas’s decisions:
Reid: “Oh sure, that’s easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There–it’s like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.
Scalia’s is well reasoned. He doesn’t want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That’s what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he’s written other opinions that are not very good.
Since Thomas had already been thoroughly demonized, Reid felt comfortable making a racist attack on him. Thomas will have the last laugh; he is the Tea Party justice and he is dragging the court back to the constitution by his legal brilliance.
Tom De Lay was an effective House Majority leader. When he tried to fix the pro-Democrat gerrymandering of Texas districts, he was hit with a barrage of ethics complaints filed by Democrats. De Lay is still appealing a conviction on these bogus charges.
Sarah Palin was a popular and effective Governor in Alaska. She took on corruption in her own party and some of them ended up in jail. That did not endear her to the GOP establishment. She brought the oil companies to heel and negotiated a long stalled pipe-line project to bring Alaskan natural gas to the lower 48. McCain picked her as his VP candidate and she brought the house down at the GOP convention with her speech. McCain, the could deal with, but this woman from Alaska was seen as a threat to Obama, which she was. The Left fired so much crap at her, she looked like a termite mound in the Outback of Australia. The bogus ethics charges put her $500k in debt and showed no signs of letting up. She resigned. But so much of the crap stuck, even the NRO crowd still confuse her with Tina Fey.
Oh yeah, Old Ronny Raygun got the same treatment. Yep, that senile old fart was going to blow the world up when he pressed the wrong button.
My wife, like me, is recovering liberal. She always thought Rush Limbaugh was a right wing nut-case. One day, she was listening to radio, and heard this smart guy making a lot of sense. She was blown-away when she realized it was that monster, the dreaded Limbaugh. Now she reads his transcripts every day. Rush is demonized. Heck, they even tried to pin the Oklahoma City bombing on him.
And now to Newt. He has been thoroughly demonized. The left hated what he achieved as Speaker so he got the full treatment. Squishy GOP types (most of them are) bought into the demonizing and forced him to resign.
Newt has been calling out the MSM during the debates on their blatant bias. He’s winning by doing it.
He isn’t perfect, but he isn’t evil incarnate, either. He didn’t ask his first wife for a divorce in a hospital room while she was dying of cancer. She asked him for a divorce and it was discussed during a hospital visit while she was being treated for a benign tumor. She is still very much alive.
Pat,
I agree with you about everything you wrote. We all know EVERYTHING you wrote including the last paragraph.
I’m not buying into anything other than my own observations that Newt can’t win.
I knew John McCain wouldn’t win either.
But I do believe Santorum or Romney has a chance against Obama. Newt doesn’t and it doesn’t have anything to do with what a liberal told me.
And btw, Sarah Palin brought up John McCain’s percentages.
Anybody who believes John lost because of Sarah is flat wrong.
Pat Dooley @ 12:11 am . . .
Excellent post. We all need to remember that the MSM are our enemy. They lie all the time. If there’s one thing I’m ashamed of in my life, it’s that I was swayed by the MSM for most of my adult life.
To all of neoneocon’s readers . . .
It’s time for us to toughen up. No President will ever be good enough to lead our fabulous country (except maybe George Washington and Abraham Lincoln). Let’s make our decisions on the candidates who are actually running, not some ideal candidate.
The MSM are liars and poltroons. They are scum. We need to bring some logical thinking to the political process. What are our choices? Those are our choices.
(a ballet comparison)
Romney: been to the right schools, put in all the work, has all the technical skills,
Mechanically he’s all there, but not enough people are really convinced he can be the numero uno ballerina.
Newt: kind of hard to do a ballet comparison, because he’s not really refined for a ballet. Maybe a cowboy ballet. He’s the star of the show though, whatever it is.
Then again folks… I didn’t understand the women who found Bill Clinton attractive.
Maybe I’m abnormal.
gcotharn says, “Gingrich questioned whether or not Romney followed the Golden Rule.”
Which golden rule? Thou shall not covent? Nope, certainly wouldn’t be that one. So I assume you must be referring to “do unto others” and this then becomes irony to 10E3!
Romney (who has never been my preferred nominee) as far as I am aware, has not broken any laws. Nor has he broken his marriage vows. I know this is no big deal in our current culture but Newt’s infidelity troubles me on a personal level.
However, putting all that aside, what exactly has Romney done that Newt disapproves of other than make more money than Newt? Did Romney take ‘consulting fees’ from Fannie & Freddie? Did Romney leave the house after paying $300K as hush money to cover up ethics violations? Did Romney cheat on his wife or wives or perhaps barbecue a live kitten on a stick?
If Newt ends up the nominee I will vote for him, although I think he’s a sometimes brilliant and other times loose cannon; but I fail to understand what seems to me to be a moral superiority complex on the part of Newt supporters.
Final question: Would you want your 20 something daughter to be an intern in Newt’s Oval Office?
Good comment, Pat Dooley. And good link to the Genesis video. I hadn’t seen that one before, but I well remember the sentiment at the time. I believed it myself, and it wasn’t until many years later that I realized what a great man and great president Reagan was.
I do like the fact that Gingrich is taking on the media. They are the enemy, and we need a candidate who will stand up and say so. I blame them more than anyone for foisting Obama on us.
Baklava:
I’ve said before that McCain would have lost by 20 points if Palin hadn’t been on the ticket. She almost dragged his sorry ass across the finish line, and probably would have if not for the (perfectly timed) stock market crash.
Not really related to the topic at hand, but I saw this comment by “Buck O’Fama” at Belmont Club:
That pretty well encapsulates my frustration and anger with the Republican Party.
Heh
@Parker: Romneycare is the killer, he won’t disavow it, and he can’t at this late stage of the game without looking even more like a stranded fish.
Newt is 68 and a relatively recent convert to Catholicism. I don’t think old Newt poses the same threat to interns as randy young Newt (or Clinton or JFK). Preying on interns is a breach of trust. Newt fell for people he worked with, not interns.
rickl,
We are trying to jump off a 50 story building with a fat man named Newt tied to our ankle in the general.
We need to not let our frustrations make us vote illogically.
The good news is that in this country we can advance our family’s situations by making good decisions. Let us be personally responsible.
Don’t put your faith in one man.
Let’s try to advance our cause at the same time but it takes educating our neighbors and friends to get more Senators and Representatives.
The biggest thing we need the President to do is sign legislation and act as a leader in the world.
Or veto legislation – Bush didn’t veto.
And nominate good judges.
And not make idiotic moves like trying to fund Solyndra and stop the Keystone pipeline, etc.
Anyways, my daughter who is 15 has been offered a job in CA.
Now I have to do the research to find out if that is even legal and tell her it’s not legal if it isn’t.
Baklava Says:
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:56 am
Oh, I don’t have any illusions about Newt.
I like him better than Romney, but I don’t think either of them can beat Obama.
What SC primary clearly demonstrated is what kind of candidate is needed: not RINO, not financier, not a man with a heavy baggage, but bold, unapologetic, good fighter, with unambiguos conservative credentials and nation-wide name recognition. This is a winning formula, but nobody among present GOP field satisfies it. Some out-of the-box thinking is needed. The man who perfectly fit all these requirements actually exists. Somebody need to persuade GOP leadership to nominate John Bolton. It is not too late at this stage of the race. Bolton+Palin will be irresistable ticket.
To start the day:
“Newt surges to lead in Florida primary”.
Romney is going to release his “estimate” 2011 ITR.
Way to go Mitt …
Only a monster can beat a monster: Newt 2012
Gellieba,
You are starting to sound like a Paulbot with all that monster garbage. The commenters here have functioning memories and actually like to share their opinions and experiences. If we want bumper stickers, we’ll buy them.
“Gellieba,
You are starting to sound like a Paulbot with all that monster garbage. The commenters here have functioning memories and actually like to share their opinions and experiences. If we want bumper stickers, we’ll buy them.”
Seconded.
Promethea has it right. It’s the media stupid.
Too many seem to think we can save this country from a marxist onslaught while an overbearing corrupt media infested with marxist exist. Well we can’t. Because jobs represent destructive consumerism and enemies that fear us represents white man’s imperialism.
It’s called pissing in the wind.
What’s wrong with people who think this situation is an unchangeable given, and that a Mitt Romney who fears it has a snowballs chance in hell of putting America on any track that resembles the right one?
You could start attacking this corrupt media by making all cable and satelite stations a la carte, where no stations or networks are shoved down American throats by default.
Imagine what tv stations would be piped into American homes if they got to choose every single one of them and only paid for what they chose.
I’d personally have about 10 stations and none of the big 3 networks would be anywhere around.
SteveH,
But how would you do opposition research? I can’t follow US TV here, but I do like to be aware of what they are up to. On the other hand, decreasing their ad revenues is attractive.
To Conrad & Expat:
Let me know when ready to purchase our copyrighted bumper stickers.
Delivery: June 2012.
Thank you for your support.
“”But how would you do opposition research?””
expat
Just read the communist manifesto and you pretty much know what the opposition is doing. It’s not like they ever waver from playing a reflexive devil’s advocate when it comes to liberty and freedom of the individual.
But the beauty of a la carte is anyone of a mind to do opposition research can opt in on the channels they desire to see. Or you can just read blogs like this one for intelligent analysis of what the opposition is up to.
As usual, Mark Steyn nailed it:
“For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change”.
So, Mitt-sters:
Gingrich a “failed disgrace”
Latest Rasmussen FL poll: Newt 41%, Mitt 32%
…Mitt has previously allowed his PAC’s to savage Gingrich. And was thereby able to maintain a modicum of distance between himself and the ievitable dirt, and present an aloof, above-the-fray image (however disingenuous that might have been).
I’ve appreciated that (as a Newt’ leaner, now supporter).
…but with the preliminary news out of Florida perhaps (probably?) showing some serious Newt momentum, apparently there’s going to be an image adjustment?
Somewhere in the political calculation in which Mitt has tried – to date – to keep from [publicly] offending Newt supporters, has someone in his so-far inept campaign, made a bad decision on the hill they choose to die on?
Desperation? (If he loses FL like he lost SC, his campaign is probably decisively crippled, isn’t it? Maybe to the point of the brokered convention that we Palin supporters see as our last, best hope in 2012?)
What I mean: I’m an ABO voter, and that has meant I’m going to vote for Romney in the fall if he takes the prize. In essence, I’ll settle for second best (or more worst, depends upon you POV), when I enter the booth.
(And yes, I realize y’all differ about the “second best” bit. But I’m unimpressed with any arguments about probable electability, because I don’t worship at the Church of the Holy Polls …I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recall hopeless campaigns with catastrophically dismal pre-election polls predicting absolute failure, that were scratching their heads after the election, wondering where they miscalculated percentages, or something …you can’t pin your pre-election assurances on the predictive ability of pollsters: no one has a crystal ball. No one.)
That personal voting decision is quite different than my position in 2008: I would have voted for Hilary(!) had she won the Dem primary, but after Obama stole the election from her (oh yes, indeed he did), I was planning on sitting out voting the top of the ticket when McCain won (you have no idea how much I’d come to despise McCain over the decades prior to ’08) …until Gov. Palin was announced as his VP choice (and I can’t imagine another VP choice that would have mattered so much to me …I absolutely agree with the previous observation that she was worth 20 points to him, and almost dragged his sorry ass across the victory line in spite of himself).
So, to the final food-for-thought questions:
Do you think it’s smart politics for Mitt to possibly/probably(!) alienate a huge portion of the GOP base? A segment that isn’t brain dead, does vote, does pay attention, and doesn’t forget history?
SteveH,
The Communist Manifesto! Do I have to?
Last night there was a piece on TV here about a new release of Mein Kampf (with accompanying rebuttals). Of course there were those very uncomfortable with the idea. I asked my husband whether making the book required reading in schools might not turn the kids off neo-Nazi propaganda forever. The same could be asked about Marx.
You are right. I read 3 or 4 NYT articles per month for free. That’s enough. BTW, MoDo had a piece this weekend critical of the Obamas. Miracles can happen.
What brings up this media business for me is a recent experience of having to be around an elderly relative who watches network tv habitually. A quite eye opening experience i might add.
I pretty much shunned MSM about the time of 9/11. And now to sit in a room where it’s coming through at ear piercing volume is revealing to me just how insidious this medium has become. I’d rather be waterboarded.
We’re talking nothing short of mind programming at a level Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.
“Romney goes to the teleprompter”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jan/11/romney-goes-teleprompter/
Same thing here, with my extremely liberal in-laws in their 80s.
They listen to and get their information–and world-view– exclusively from MSNBC and the like, and any alternative information, or other interpretation of “reality” is met with instantaneous, almost apoplectic rejection.
I lean pro-Newt for the typical reasons, but I’d vote for Romney without complaint.
However…
For all the talk of why Reagan won, did anyone before the election really believe that he could win due to all the attacks? Like mentioned above, he was senile, etc. Not saying Newt can or would win, but it’s always just a guess. Maybe 20 years from now we’ll be talking about how you have to be a fighter to get elected.
One big complaint it that the 2 parties offer no real difference in the candidates (although we political junkies know there is a difference). But, if Newt wins, there will be a difference. We don’t really know why people don’t vote – there may be a significant enough number to make a difference this time around.
Parker @ 12:53 above wrote:
“Would you want your 20 something daughter to be an intern in Newt’s Oval Office?”
Man oh man! You don’t know my 20 something daughter!!
@ davisbr:
I’m not sure there’s much risk to Mitt in “alienating” Newt supporters. l mean, if indeed they’re hard-core Newt supporters already, then it would seem Romney has already alienated them somehow, by definition. I’m not sure what further damage it does for him to go negative on Newt in the process of trying to win the support of undecideds and Newt “leaners” who haven’t completely drunk the kool-aid.
Newt’s riding a wave of support he’s built up by lashing out at John King and Juan Williams. But a couple of zingers during a TV debate are not all it takes to demonstrate fitness for the office of POTUS. If you look at the totality of Newt’s record, you find: (a) he has a lot of un-conservative ideas and messages, (b) he has a truly lamentable record of personal ethics and morality; (c) he got run out of Congress by his own caucus a mere four years after becoming Speaker, which was his signature accomplishment in a 30+-year career in Washington.
I get that conservatives are desperate for a leader who they think will articulate their grievances against the liberal establishment, but Newt is not an AUTHENTIC voice for the conservative cause. He’s a disgraced veteran of the DC wealth-and-power circuit. He INVENTED earmarks. He lobbied. He got on the Freddie Mac payroll. He supported liberal causes (AGW) and supported liberal politicians (Dede Scoffalozza). He’s a believer in big-government solutions. He’s the classic example of a Washington elite who thinks all of our problems as a nation can be solved just as soon as he acquires sufficient power to put his “creative” and “innovative” solutions in place.
People keep saying they support Newt because he’s a “fighter” — but what is he fighting for? Obama is a fighter. For that matter, so was Stalin.
They say they Newt because he’s destroy Obama in a debate. Big deal! Lloyd Bentsen destroyed Dan Quayle in a debate. It didn’t matter. It won’t matter for Newt, either, because people don’t equate debate performance with performance in office (nor should they, obviously). And when “scoring” debates, the media grade performance relative to expectations. In this case, since Newt’s fans have already built up his supposed debate skills to legendary proportions, that means Obama wins as long as he doesn’t literally wet himself.
I don’t like to see GOP candidates go after each other, but nor do I want to see a loathesome fraud like Gingrich get the nomination because GOP voters didn’t have all the facts about “the most hated politician in the world.” So fire away, Mr. Romney, fire away!
So fire away, Mr. Romney, fire away!
Oh, he will, he will. And blow up the magazine of his own sinking ship. Mitt’s smart that way.
Newt wasn’t “run out of his Speakership” for any real ethical lapses–see the IRS documentation clearing him of any wrongdoing–but because he was trying to push a Conservative agenda that most of the Republican congressmen did not want to go along with.
Wolla Dalbo: Gingrich also does not get along with people at all. He apparently rubbed everyone the wrong way. But he resigned (after a failed challenge before the elections) after the 1998 elections because the party had done terribly (worst midterm elections in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the presidency) and he knew they’d challenge him again, probably successfully. He’d led his party from success to failure, in the electoral sense.
To what neo’ mentioned, I’d add in re: Newt’s ethics charges in the House (this bit is copied from a comment I made earlier today over at NRO):
I also made the case [at NRO] that I don’t think the Obama campaign is going to be effectively targeting either Newt’s ethics troubles or his Fannie Mae issues, because Obama has the same problems, and to a greater degree (i.e., we may actually see the attorney general of the US charged with crimes over Fast & Furious). YMMV. Of course.
The weapon, be it the hand or foot or mouth, a stick or a stone, a knife, a sword, a firearm, or an imaginary light sword; must stay alined with the center line of he or she who wields the weapon. All this swirling around is but a senseless opening for the trained and disciplined opponent. That is why tae kwon do, tai chi, and kung fu people are so quickly thrown to the ground when they face a real martial artist. They have no center line. And that is why in politics he who lacks focus and discipline loses.
Parker:
Where in the world did you get your ideas about martial arts? T’ai chi is all about the center line, and I would guess kung fu, which is closely allied with t’ai chi, is too. I don’t know what you think is a “real martial art,” but there are no “real martial artists” who could throw any of the t’ai chi masters to the ground, quickly or otherwise.
What does any of that have to do with politics, anyway? Are you saying the candidates must move to the center to win? Or focus on the center, i.e, the independents? Or be well-grounded? Or were you just carried away with your metaphor?