Iowa Polls Suggest Race Is Newt’s to Lose
For months we have had plenty of polling on Barack Obama’s approval score, the generic ballot for Congress, Congress’ approval score, the race for the GOP nomination, and match-ups of Barack Obama versus an unnamed or named Republican. We are now less than a month from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on January 3, and new Iowa polls are appearing nearly every day. The polls are bringing good news for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has surged into the lead in Iowa and nationally at an opportune time.
Six separate Iowa polls have been released in the last week, and Gingrich holds a lead of from 9 to 15 points over either Congressman Ron Paul or former Governor Mitt Romney in each of them. Gingrich polls in the high 20s to low 30s, while Paul and Romney are in the high teens. The other candidates poll in the single digits: Governor Rick Perry, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and former Senator Rick Santorum are all in the high single digits, and former Governor John Huntsman is near zero.
Nationally, Gingrich holds a similar size lead over his two closest competitors.
This week, pollsters started excluding Herman Cain from their surveys, after Cain suspended his campaign on Saturday, and Gingrich appears to have benefited, jumping a few points in most surveys as compared to polls taken the week before when Cain was sill offered as a choice to voters.
The GOP race has had a turbulent last few months with rapid rises and then drop-offs in support levels for Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and then Herman Cain, before Gingrich’s recent rise to the top. Romney has stayed pretty much in place, first trailing Perry, then Cain, and now Gingrich. Gingrich, however, is a different challenge for Romney than were the other short-term leaders in the race. Rick Perry dropped off after a series of very weak debate performances. Herman Cain’s candidacy collapsed in part due to charges of sexual harassment and adultery, but also for his halting performance in speaking about foreign policy issues. Gingrich, on the other hand, has risen due to his strong debate performances and his ability to communicate a command of the issues. But more than that, Gingrich has, to this point, avoided attacking his GOP challengers, and focused his campaign on attacking Barack Obama and the national news media, the two biggest targets for conservative voters. Pretty much every standoff between the candidates in the debates has tarnished both of the combatants (Romney and Perry, Santorum and Perry, Bachmann and Perry). Gingrich, by refusing to dish it out to the other candidates, has not had a glove laid on him in retribution.
Now, however, with a solid lead, and only a few weeks till the first votes that count for the nomination, Gingrich is getting the same treatment reserved earlier for Perry and Romney. Ron Paul has hit Gingrich the hardest, with a new TV ad playing in Iowa following an earlier and longer Internet ad.
Paul, who marches under the libertarian banner, is targeting Gingrich as the quintessential Washington insider, who has profited personally from the relationships he developed while in Congress, and for championing causes that are anathema to the conservative base. Expect some of the other candidates to run similar ads with Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi agreeing on the need to respond to climate change, and with conservative talk radio hosts blasting Gingrich for his support of individual mandates and for collecting fat fees for advising Freddie Mac.
In a state such as Iowa, where about half of GOP caucus attendees are evangelical Christians, it is odd, to say the least, to have a thrice-married candidate who has admitted to many years of adultery pulling out to a big lead over the ultimate family man, Mitt Romney. Of course, for some, perhaps many evangelicals, Romney may be their choice if he were the GOP candidate against Obama, but he is not the choice to get the nomination, because of his Mormon religion. More mainstream Christians Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry have more appeal to this sector of GOP voters, but because all three are in the race, none of the three is so far showing any ability to contend with Gingrich, Romney, and Paul.
Who are those Iowa Republicans who think Newt can beat Obama? Did any of them see the Ron Paul ad, or read Mark Steyn, or Ann Coulter’s latest column? Are they Obama’s People from Acorn and SEIU?
Last time, we got a candidate whom most Republicans didn’t like. How did that happen? If Gingrich gets the nomination, Obama won’t have to lie. Obama will lie, because Obama is a lie, and he is a consummate liar. But he wouldn’t have to lie, to beat Newt. All he has to do is buy Ron Paul’s Ad, and play it the month before the election. And bring back the echo chamber and halo.
If you look at what friends and historians say about the great presidents of the twentieth century — like FDR and Reagan — what you hear over and over are variations on the observation that they had first-rate temperaments and third-rate minds. People who know Gingrich say that he has a first-rate mind and a third-rate temperament. Is this a winning combination? History suggests it isn’t.
Personally, I’m still a Michele Bachmann fan, but if Newt gets the nomination, I’ll support him any way I can. Anything, ANYTHING, is better than a second Obama term in the White House. I simply don’t think the country could survive it. I also think every Republican knows that. Now we just have to convince the rest of the country.
When Winston Churchill was reinstated as the First Lord of the Admiralty on the eve of World War II, a message was transmitted throughout the entire fleet of the Royal Navy. It stated, “Winston’s Back.” Perhaps if Newt becomes president, a message can be transmitted to the entire US Fleet saying, “Newt’s Back!” I kind of like that.
Romney would be as bad or worse than a second Obama term. They’re virtually identical in practical policies and Romney is both more politically competent and a Republican. It took Nixon to go to China; it took Clinton to get the Democrats to accept welfare reform. I think Romney would get the Republican Party to accept Obamacare with some tweaks.
So I disagree that “anything is better than Obama.” Romney would not only do most of what Obama wants, but be able to extinguish the opposition.
Agreed, Mike.
I don’t like Newt – AT ALL, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him in November, holding my nose.
He’s at least right on SOME things, and he’ll likely make good judicial appointments. In fact, he’ll likely make EXCELLENT judicial appointments.
If Romney is the nominee, I will write in Bachmann or Santorum or some other “principled but can’t win” person. I will NOT cast a vote for that FRAUD.
I will NOT stay home! There are other races than the White House!
This is not a two person race, so let’s all stop pretending like it is.
so true.
But to the establishment it is. The same one that gave us the two Bushes and McSame. Time for a Republican revolt I’d say.
At this point Newt has won the pregame show. We have not had the coin toss yet.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann even though things look pretty bleak right now.
I have read lots and lots about Newt’s debating skills and his grip on the issues, but I don’t think they’re the main factors of Newt’s rise to the top.
Newt is not a nice person.
Think about it, how many times has Newt responded to a question from a journalist with answers like “shut up” “that’s a stupid question” and the ever popular “I’m not going to fall for your Gotcha question”. Nobody has ever thought of Gingrich as the diplomatic type. That’s what has made him popular.
If I had to describe the mood of the average GOP votger this year it would be very very VERY angry. Since Obama’s election we have seen the rise of the Tea Party. Republicans have never taken to the streets before. Sure the left has been out protesting and occupying too, but that’s what the left has always done. During the Bush years the left was out in the streets protesting the wars.
Conservatives resorting to public protest shows just how angry the right is right now. If people are angry they don’t want to be passive about it and nobody has ever accused Newt Gingrich of being passive. Newt is the perfect match for how Republicans are feeling right now. Once the voters had flirted with other candidates, they came to Newt because they want a fight.
Consider George W. Bush in 2000. Remember his phrases “Compassionate Conservatism” and “I am a uniter, not a divider.”? If anybody tried that tactic this time they would be flirting with Huntsman’s numbers. Conservatives aren’t interested in compassion or uniting, that’s why they support Newt.
Romney is toast in this sort of contest.
“Conservatives aren’t interested in compassion or uniting, that’s why they support Newt.”
Because conservatives know the democrats perceive them as enemies, not fellow Americans with an opposing view. If McCain would have won in 08′ I would have given him 10 minutes after being inaugurated before doing his “reaching across the aisle” schtick. Guys like that are not going to face the issues.
“Romney is toast in this sort of contest.”
When Romney’s statements and postions are taken into perspective, he is, appropriately, identified as a democrat anywhere outside of the strip between Boston – DC. It seems the boys running the GOP country club, and those in some media circles, want Mitt and the rest be damned.
Spot on. We want a candidate with wit and toughness. We want a pugilist who likes to fight in close, always angling for a jaw-crushing upper cut. While the GOP elite is out there looking for a suitable dancing partner for Barack, we in the rank & file are about to boil over in frustration with it all.
Do you think that Independent voters want to vote for a partisan pugilist as President, when they themselves don’t want to be registered with either party?
Obama won in 2008 because he realized that’s not what the voters wanted. He successfully *concealed* his partisanship, and the Dem base helped him do that by not criticizing him for it.
Gingrich is reveling in being a pugilist, and his party’s base is cheering him on for it.
That didn’t work well for Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972.
Tough rhetoric (always with a smile) worked great for Reagan, in both landslides. As for 1964, that race was determined by the assassination of JFK — an event that deeply bruised the American psyche. Johnson was elected out of loyalty to Kennedy.
But hey, if you prefer the timid McCain school of electioneering, go ahead, vote Huntsman.
Bingo.
I think even the mushy middle is tired of mealy-mouthed politicians.
And don’t forget Nixon’s Axiom: Run to the right to get the nomination, run to the center to win the election.
You can bet Newt hasn’t forgotten that.
I think there is more to this than just the angry mood the Pubbie electoate is right now with regard to Gingrich. His history of balancing the budget & bringing on welfare reform is significant. Also, consider the reasons behind the notion you cite of this not being a time for “compassionate conservatism” or unity with the Democrats for that matter: The country has been swept waaaaaay to far leftward for most people by the Obama administration. We are at a point that is far too beyond the level of compromise or conciliation. The Dems, who have been thoroughly taken over by the far left, need to be defeated. Period. Talking repeal of Obamacare & many superfluous, overreaching federal gov’t programs need to be either gutted or eliminated altogether. Someone like Gingrich can make it all happen.
The last thing we need is a diplomatic President. “Diplomat”, in many cases, means “needle-d1@k”. Diplomats argue over which caviar to have on the buffet table during their many breaks from the business at hand, or argue over the shape of the table they sit at, while soldiers and peasants die in “police actions”.
We need a blunt, plain-speaking President, not some cucumber-sandwich, country-club diletante like Romney.
I am beginning to see a certain arrogence in Newt. He has already started to ‘change his position’ on certain things and yet on others he equivicates his answers with such such stuff as ‘if we look back to 1887 we will see…’. He did sound like ‘he got it’ but the more I hear him the more ‘Repub Machinist’ he sounds. There is still time to get the others who ARE conservative back in this race. I’m still trying to think of Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum being given this much coverage beyond ‘too stupid to be electable’.
No body has to vote for Newt yet. Bachmann will reinsert herself in Iowa on Jan 3.
It’s bad when you dream about Newt and have a Newt v. Newt debate in your head.
And wake up and realize they’re both the same guy.
Yes, his past is not perfect, but also yes he may rise to magnificent form once elected to office. Any single one of the republican candidates, all susceptible to our nitpicking and criticism, is capable of that,
I wish this Republican field would stop attacking one another, the internecine warfare.
And keep their eyes on the larger point, removing this destructive cabal from Washington DC.
Gingrich cannot, and will not, win the White House.
Because voters who aren’t Republicans won’t vote for him.
And without non-Republican voters, no GOP candidate can win on GOP votes alone.
You’re pretty darn sure about that.
I’m not pretty darn sure about anything, except the profound necessity that Obama lose if America, as we know it, is to survive.
70% of the country doesn’t have a clue who Gingrich is. 95% of non-conservatives don’t have a clue.
Yes, the make believe media will attempt to define him. But the man speaks well and clearly, and he looks like a cuddly grandpa. He doesn’t shout or twist his face into an angry mask. He clearly knows a lot and clearly has alternatives to the current disastrous course that he can explain with a few easy-to-understand sentences.
Independents who remember him in detail from the 90′s and aren’t currently scared to death of Obama will refuse to vote for him. That should be about a million people.
Strike “Gingrich” insert “Hussein” — yep that works.
perry is toast…EXCEPT for those who believe in him and his message. so many pundits over the years have counted him out “gone, doesn’t have a chance”. i encourage you to take another deeper look. don’t listen to the pied piper paulites who just make up stuff. read about this man’s convictions and his true conservatism. he will be in the hunt, i promise you!
He promised to make John Bolton our next Secretary of State, that ought to warm the cockles of everyone here at PJ.
“Because conservatives know the democrats perceive them as enemies, not fellow Americans with an opposing view.”
And thats exactly the way that conservatives perceive democrats.
Go ahead repugnicons. Give us Newt or Romney. Assure 4 more for Obama. Morons.
So if Newt or Romney are the nominee for for the Republican then will you not vote at all, or worse than that you would actually vote for Obama?
Those aren’t the only two choices, but pulling the lever for Newt Romney won’t be one of them.
Of course Hoosiertoo will vote for Obama. Look at the name. Probably lives up in NW Indiana and considers himself part of Chicago.
Life long – since high school anyway – libertarian currently living in the Lafayette area. If I ran for Governor it would on a platform to bulldoze NW Indiana and West Lafayette into Illinois and build a fence on the border. And I detest Chicago. And libtard (Moderate? Whatever.) Repugnicons.
Obama is going to save America by extending the payroll tax cut YAY! But the Senate wont take it up and rob Obama of a campaign issue YAY! Now that is statesmanship. Happy days are here again YAY!
Evidently the GOP base doesn’t care what anyone else thinks of them and their candidates–or else they wouldn’t nominate Gingrich, a hard-core partisan with a marital history that will frighten away female voters who aren’t loyal Republicans.
But you can’t win elections that way.
Because there just aren’t enough Republicans to win elections all by themselves.
I wish the bases of *both* parties would realize that politics isn’t just about them.
Newt’s knowledge of history and grasp of big ideas overwhelm his marital history.
Good lord, a sitting president who lied under Oath is now regarded, in many quarters around the world, as a seer and statesman.
And the most cheated on woman in the world was Barack’s biggest contender to be President of the United States.
Has anyone actually talked to a woman who is put off by Newt because of his marital history rather than his politics?
He’s a grandfather for gosh sakes. At least they know he’s straight rather than a man who never encountered a female until he presto got married out of the blue one day.
Ah the sweet reason of the mushy middle.
“My balls are always bouncing
To the left and to the right……”
Such roomy pants is why, the mushy middle has the smallest balls of all.
And have you ever noticed, the middle thinks it is all about them? Well they vote that way too. No values. I admire Hugo Obama more than them.
It’s not conservative versus liberal, ASIF they are equally valid thought systems in the field of ideas.
It’s Americans versus Cowards. (hat tip Ann Coulter)
Or, as I say, sane versus insane.
(over and out)
Or, the armed versus the un-armed.
Nominating Romney will destroy the GOP and he would lose to obama (and all his dirty tricks).
Then you have a society that will not take bullcrap. You think OWS is annoying, wait till actual citizens refuse to abide by government regulations, the EPA, refuse the pay taxes, pay back their bills in protest. It would shut down the country. What would obama do? Start arresting tens of millions of people?
“What would obama do?”
Well an associate of Obama’s already answered that years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
Uhh, no…… conservative(small government, minimally regulated markets, absolute private property) vrs liberal/progressive/marxist (Government over all, government owns all)…
Nope not equally valid……. and history proves it.
Draft Paul Ryan.
Run a full ticket…Ryan/Rubio.
If Ann Coulter, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn are sounding the alarm…the brand damage is severe and cannot…must not..be ignored.
The Sisyphean Hill called a primary by Republicans has proven one thing. We sent out the “B” team.
This election is too important, the consequences too dire…to keep just plowing forward mindlessly toward oblivion.
Romney has not…and cannot…inspire a strong enough base of support to win the primary. Gingrich is a science projecteer…turning in scale models of tinkerings for submission, bouncing and flitting from notion to notion…stopping only to pat himself on the back.
Our last best hope…should not be left to chance, whim and passing fancy. Neither of these guys is the guy. Nobody on stage is the guy.
Ryan or Mitch Daniels would win in a landslide. Daniels won’t take his wife through the smear machine gauntlet. That leaves Ryan.
We have no other rational choice. Draft Ryan/Rubio. It’s much to lose if we do not. Everything.
IMO, it’s too late now for anyone else to jump into the race on our side (Hillary is a notable exception for the Dems) because of the time it takes to get organized & familiarized with enough of the electorate in order to get traction. I just don’t think Ryan, Daniels or Rubio for that matter, are well known enough. Jeb Bush might have a bit of a chance, but many will balk at him because of his name.
We are simply going to have to accept the fact that we are stuck with all who are out there now. I will happily support any of them. Obama has got to go. If he is reelected next year, hopefully it will be along with a Pub Senate. And then there had better damned well be hell to pay with the repeal of Obamacare & impeachment proceedings soon thereafter.
We don’t have a perfect candidate. The idea that there is some Paul Ryan out there is a myth. If Ryan somehow jumped in the race we would quickly realize he isn’t very socially conservative, has no executive governance experience, etc., etc. I’m not picking on him. All of the possibilities have their flaws.
So it boils down to what your goals are.
I argue that the dominant goal is electability. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, the announced candidates and all of the others that people dream about are so much better than Obama that parsing their policy differences is equivalent to debating angels dancing on the head of a pin. In any ordinary election, that wouldn’t be true. This time, the enormity of the gap between any of them an Obama dwarfs the differences among themselves and between the candidates and our own perfect worlds.
So forget whether Newt sat down with Pelosi. No rational person thinks he will push for Cap and Tax. Forget Romneycare. No rational person thinks he will reverse himself and try to salvage Obamacare. Those sorts of paranoid policy concerns are simply not things that are going to happen.
Then, you have to quickly realize that the candidate will be Newt or Mitt. Perry has a very slim chance. The others, barring a miracle, are out of contention.
So logic leads you to ask whether Newt or Mitt is the more electable. That’s what all of your brain power should be dedicated to, because they are quite different people and candidates.
Romney is the cautious, low risk candidate who is most likely to win if the trajectory we are on continues. If the economy continues to erode, if there are no major domestic or international incidents for the marxists to exploit, if there are no October surprises, if there are no debate traps.
What do you think the odds are of that happening?
Here is what you have to wrap your brain around with Gingrich. Can he convince independents that he isn’t the Grinch who stole Christmas. Because that is how he is going to be portrayed. I have to admit, I’m prejudiced about this, because I like just about everything that comes out of his mouth. But it seems to me, that in addition to the words, he is coming across as a mature elder statesman who is genuinely concerned about the country, and as someone who is very smart and very experienced and someone who has some serious alternatives to the Obama Cabal. I know his haters scoff at that assessment, but I’m not filtering what he says through a 20 year-old prism; I’m just watching how he holds himself and what he says NOW…which is what I believe the non-involved voters will do when they make their decisions, in what they also are likely to view as a very important election.
Many on our side still smart from the disastrously inept campaign McLame ran back in ’08. Newt is coming on as a fighter who is going to get into Obama’s face; this is very appealing right now with the current political atmosphere where the country has been swept way too far to the left. There’s no time for “compassionate conservatism” or efforts to reach across the proverbial aisle to these extremist leftists. They need to be defeated, not compromised with as long as they keep trying to forge such unreasonable policies onto the American people.
The people who are dreaming of Ryan/Rubio should remember that the next president will still have to deal with them to get an agenda passed. Just because they aren’t heading our ticket does not mean they won’t have influence. My question is who from our side will be best able to work with them and build congressional momentum.
Remember when Regan soared in the polls, shortly after the debate against Carter?
“Well, there you go again”
Confrontational? Carter was on the offensive over Reagan’s record on Medicare. Newt will take the ball and run over Obama if Obama so much as implies that Newt is less than a moral stand-up guy. This is why I still say that if Gingrich is the candidate, no such debate will take place. Gingrich will eat Wonderboy’s lunch, puke it up and then make him eat it.
When a conservative (me) is repeatedly insulted by a bully (Obama) and told to “eat my peas” and that I’m “lazy” and a million other snarky remarks that make him feel powerful, I eventually get fed up and rather than beat the guy up personally, I will have to be satisfied with “Presidential Smackdown” with someone like Gingrich climbing up on the ladder and landing on Obama with a splat. All figurative, of course but Newt is the guy to take it to little wee-wee’d up Barry the wet diaper boy. I hope there is a debate with those two but I think the MSM would do everything and anything they can to avoid it because they know that Gingrich will clean his clock.
The fact that the establishment republican pricks don’t like him makes me like him all the more. Just because a guy is “not a nice guy” in the political arena doesn’t mean he isn’t compassionate, aware and caring.
yes and yes.
McLame was nice. It didn’t work. They don’t know what nice is and they don’t care. They are too busy trying to character assassinate whoever it is that stands in their way, since they know they can’t physically assassinate them, their first choice.
Romney is a good man and a much much better candidate than the far right who typically post on PJM give him credit for being. But he’s nice.
Gingrich ain’t nice, even though he looks like a cuddly grandpa. You can bet your last dollar that they prefer Mitt to Newt, because the know Newt will say the truth, out loud, to their faces and to the country. And if there is one thing they can’t face in the light, it’s the truth.
Oh yes they DO! They know what it is, and they love it when they can browbeat US into being “nice”!
We’re stupid when we fall for it.
I look at the attacks on Newt from the Establishment Republicans, and I wonder how much of a Washington Insider he could be, when they are so afraid he is going to gore their ox. We need major changes in Washington, changes that are going to upset the Establishment Republican’s apple carts. They don’t want that to happen, that’s why they support Romney, and are bad mouthing the Reformer Newt.
Since, I feel the economy and Government spending are the major issues, I am going to support the only candidate that has balanced the federal budget before, that’s the experience we need.
Boys and girls, sit down with Aunt Rachel and she’ll tell you why Newt is the only viable candidate for the job of President.
Background:
We have a president, B. Hussein Obama, who, if there was a nuclear attack on America, would be given the briefcase called the football, and use it to sit on rather than use it for the purpose it was designed because B. Hussein doesn’t have the balls to conceive of a nuclear retaliatory strike on a terrorist or a fellow communist country.
Why for the Newt surge? Newt has balls. Within the pot belly and deep set eyes, Newt has the courage to fight, to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Romney would fiddle in the face of an attack until Rome, New York burned along with every other big city in America.
We are now fish in a barrel with Obama President. Anybody with nuclear stike capabilities knows Odumbo hasn’t got the guts to fight.
Oh,he has the gall to take three jet planes on a Hawaiian vacation, but real cajones are non-existent as honesty. B. Hussein is part terrorist sympathizer, part Jew hater and part Communist like his parents. It’s a bad combination, especially if you want too see a resurgence of the America we once knew and loved.
“B. Hussein is part terrorist sympathizer, part Jew hater and part Communist like his parents.”
That says it as well as it has been said.
Interesting point Rachel. As someone old enough to remember when all-out nuclear war was a possibility I can see where you’re coming from. But I do have to wonder who would launch nukes at the USA right now.
Russia won’t do it. Putin would rather nuke the breakaway states of the former USSR
China wouldn’t do it. They own the US national debt. Bombing the USA would be bad for their economy.
Iran doesn’t have a nuke…yet. If they did they would be foolish to use it. Iran only spends $16 billion a year on defence. They would lose to anyone they took on.
If they tried to bomb Israel, there wouldn’t be an Iran anymore.
India and Pakistan are likely to use nukes. I’m worried about those two. But they would use them on each other.
North Korea sort of has a nuke. They couldn’t hit the broadside of Japan with it.
So, of the current nuclear powers about the only nation likely to launch against the USA is France.
I’m not saying nuclear war is impossible. I’m just saying the vision of all out nuclear war that we lived with from the 1950s till the 90s is no more.
Or perhaps you think Newt is likely to be the first to fire the missiles. If I had to guess, Newt would fire them at New York. That’s one way to shut up the New York Times.
It’s never too late for Gingrich to stick his foot in his mouth. ThE Democrats are gleeful over the opportunity to slime Gingrich and there’s plenty of slime.
It’s all old news that most everyone has already heard. If his baggage was a real issue, he would have never seen this incredible surge in the polls.
THAT is a good point.
I still don’t like him, but he HAS been thoroughly vetted.
We aren’t likely to see a Hermantor-style bimbo eruption with Newt.
I hear the arguments for sticking with the “B” team and do not dismiss them lightly.
Let’ start with some areas of agreement.
1) EVERY sane person who is not a raging leftist tool…believes and agrees that putting this land of ours in the hands of the leftists for another four years could do irreparable harm, is a danger that is not easily overstated and must not be taken so lightly that we recklessly pursue a path that enhances that possibility.
2) The current crop of candidates in the primaries are underwhelming large segments of those who are necessary to defeat the Marxist regime.
3)The leftist “empire” exercises a control on “information” that is vast in its capacity, vicious in its intent, and so rigged that ANY candidate running against a leftist has an immediate and significant disadvantage that must be overcome.
4)Excess baggage or brand damage only exacerbates an already hugely unfair and wholly unethical mass media/pop culture distortion and coverup effort.
5)Social conservatism isn’t what is moving the needle on the current candidates, if it was, the tracking numbers would be nearly upside down from what they are now. Santorum and Bachman would be leading, Mitt and Newt would be in low single digits.
6)Independents are ready to leave Obama in droves. It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got that swing.
7)Romney has run an uninspiring campaign. If this was football play calling, he would have three plays. Punt, end around reverse and take a knee.
8)Newt does not inspire much loyalty…everyone walks out on him eventually. In marriage, in politics, in his own campaign. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. This is a red flag of serious proportions. If you can get Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer all suggesting you are not a good call, MOST open minds would at least sit up an take notice.
Traveling down a disastrous path does NOT require that one “make the best of it”, in my opinion.
There is still plenty of time for a Ryan/Rubio ticket to saddle up and ride to the rescue. MUCH more inspiring than Mitt…MUCH less baggage than Newt.
Appeals to everyone who would even consider not voting for Obama. Bright, articulate, not reckless, can win debates and a much tougher target for smears, slander, and flip-flopping.
We need to get the “B” team off the field. This is a game we cannot afford to lose.
It all makes perfect sense. In a fantasy world.
You got two choices. Romney and Gingrich. Pick your poison, who, btw, would be the best choice in almost any other year. As evidence I cite all the republican candidates in the last 80 years except Ike and Reagan. You never had one, no matter two, who were as prepared as these two, and since the marxists have only been putting the microscope on every other aspect of a candidate’s life in the last 2 or 3 runs, nobody can realistically say that Newt is worse than many of the other candidates from years prior to 2000. Moreover, these two are certainly more conservative than 90% of past candidates. They only are not conservative when you attempt to force them into the straight jacket of up-to-the-second conservative orthodoxy.
The problem I see is that people, i.e., Steyn, Coulter, CK, Geharty, et al are screwing the pooch by saying that two of the best candidates in decades are idiots and / or perverts. Beyond dumb, and shockingly arrogant.
We must separate facts, from fantasy, I believe.
To stick our hands over our ears and shut our eyes is not facing reality.
I outlined what I believe should be base camp agreement, foundational points that we should start from…and then work our way to the best conclusion.
Saying the “science is settled” seems to have too familiar a ring to it.
And while I do value being “prepared” for the position, that quickly becomes a secondary matter if one is not elected to the position.
Obama is truly the only candidate at the top of the ticket that has been wholly without adequate preparation, completely unfit by resume’ to run.
Since Daniels’ wife cannot be put through the gauntlet…the MOST electable ticket would be Ryan/Rubio. Why in heavens name we would look at the base camp facts and avert our gaze is beyond me. We deserve better. Clearly, the primary polling patterns suggest heavily that we are asking for better.
And, clear thinking, rational, sound, solid people from OUR side of the fence have said this is the “B” team. That is quite a bit of pushback against this “settled” matter..and the forcefed fait accompli.
Perhaps the fantasy is…that we believe we can throw anything out on the field and the Marxists and their propaganda machine are going to swoon, roll over and concede the most important election in our lifetimes to less than our best.
A foolish, needless, reckless risk. It is NOT about the Republican Party and it surely is NOT about any one candidate or even two. It’s about US. This land of ours. I may have to stand alone resisting the inevitable…but stand I will…alone or not…against throwing away the chance to save us from what awaits if we squander this chance to save ourselves.
cf, you are dreaming. Ryan isn’t running and won’t be drafted. Come back to earth. It doesn’t help to postulate something that is nearly impossible. The team needs your analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the two guys who are now the only two with a chance.
But at least you aren’t defecating on one or both of them. Thank you for that.
Just an observation.
Over and over again I see so called “conservatives”, some on this site who jump from one GOP bandwagon to another because…they want to end up on the right team. I see them as unprincipled conservative wanna-bees.
First Romney, then Perry, then Cain, now Newt. Are big government, globalists, who side with liberal schemes, some how now the best conservative candidate because they suddenly act like a conservative, despite their prior positions and track records? Give me a break. Same old story.
Then the pundits then say, well they are the only ones that can win. I’m tired of that crap as well. The day that I start listening and following the advice of the Karl Rove’s or O Reilly’s of the world will be a cold one for sure – not going to happen.
There are more conservative candidates running that this country desperately needs to fight off the liberal agenda. They can’t win some say. I say, grow a pair and show some integrity.
Northern Light,
You’re probably right about everything you say, but like someone who has a stroke who’s always been healthy and never anticipated anything like that happening a la Dick Clark, where your whole life changes in the time it takes a little blood to leak from a lesion in the brain, I’m not as sure as you that a nuclear attack won’t happen.
For decades, wasn’t one of the U.S.’s biggest fear that a Russian high up big shot would go crazy and get a nuclear shot off?
The obvious conundrum; we can’t retaliate because of some nut’s action.
Regardless, you now have my retaliatory response as Carvel ice cream soft as it is.
As to your last paragraph,
“Or perhaps you think Newt is likely to be the first to fire the missiles. If I had to guess, Newt would fire them at New York. That’s one way to shut up the New York Times,”
my question is this?
Why does so much of the writing here consist of prose that just lays there, like ink spilled on paper?
Yours was one of the most nicely constructed thirty-seven or so words of wit I’ve read here in many a moon. Next time, my friend, Mr. Simon, adds an editor on PJM, I’d love him to consider someone with your writing skills even though bringing you over to some of my more radical points of view is like me trying to bench press 300 pounds.
My best sir,
Rach
cfbleachers,
One of the things that makes me a crazy Rachel is that Ryan and Rubio don’t want to run. I get the feeling they don’t think their political timing is right. Which is a shortsighted thing to think when the country needs them like we needed George Washington in his time.
I start to doubt Ryan and Rubio. Are they more concerned about their careers or the country? Is this more a game to them?
I liked Alan West. I liked Dr. Hanson. And was told by both via email they weren’t interested in running.
I’m a totally frustrated girl, and your latest piece put your finger on why; you hit my last nerve. The future of this nation is at stake. If I don’t cry over anything else today, I’ll cry over this. And it’s about as far from spilled milk as you can get.
Sincerely,
Rachel
Rachel, I went through this with bobbcat in depth at VDH’s latest essay.
So, I won’t repeat it all here, but I will say this:
Marco Rubio is a perfect second man on the ticket. I don’t think he is ready to lead at the top, so I will give him a pass. There is nothing he can do other than accept the second slot, in my opinion.
That leaves Ryan.
I believe Paul Ryan looked honestly at his current abilities and came to the conclusion (unless there are things I simply cannot know or factor in…as with any other candidate, until they come out, nobody knows…I don’t suspect any here), that it was not his time. Someone more seasoned would be a better fit.
As the primary season has unfolded, it has become more and more and more obvious and evident, that the Republicans have sent out a weak field. The Ryan/Rubio ticket is the right call…but, the traditional protocol presents a stumbling block to making such a drastic and courageous sea change.
There must be a groundswell of such power and magnitude as to basically “will” the course correction…in the face of an onslaught of naysayers and “plow forward and make the best of it” …those who will settle for “the least worst choice”…and grin and bear the results, be what they may.
I DO NOT believe that Paul Ryan would turn his back on his countrymen rising up and drafting him into service. I believe Marco Rubio would accept the second spot on the ticket.
And…I believe…we need to throw our best team out on the field…and not risk everything…just because “that’s the way it is…and our fate is sealed”.
However that may be accomplished, by whatever legal means it can come to fruition…I believe that is what we, the people…need to do. For our sake.
Bachmann could win Iowa and the Soros vs Rove media would ignore it.
Sorry boys and gyrls, it is too late for Mitt. About 4 years to late.
The GOP has let the Donks pick their candidate since Bush I. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the (D)’s have not selected a (R) that is conservative. Can’t blame them really. Who doesn’t want a ‘heads I win, Tails you lose’ election? Ross tipped the (D)’s off to the easy way to win the White House. Take conservatives out of play. Clinton was elected the first time because Ross took away the conservative vote. He got his second term because Dole was farther left then Clinton.
Bush II was elected because of all the funny stuff in the Clinton White House. Not just the blue dress but the lunch bags full of cash, crony’s by the bus load coming in from Arkansas and the occasional Campaign fund raising scam. That smeared off on Algore, who deserved it. Bush, who may not have invented crony capitalism but sure worked to perfect it, won a second term because no one wanted a new POTUS in the middle of a war. Especially a wussy like that Swift Boat dude.
“The future of this nation is at stake.”
Ms. Peepers, when ever someone tells me the sky is falling, I put a hand on my wallet and think of an excuse to leave. The USA has survived MUCH worse then Berry what’s his face. The Country is to big and power split up between too many centers for any one man to put the future in jeopardy. Misery yes, jeopardy no.
Baring a Short Victorious War, Berry is toast. Unlike 08, there are mountains of videos of him telling Americans about his Marxist agenda. There are larger mountains of results of the Marxist agenda that can be ‘viewed with alarm’.
It’s possible that his approval rating gets below 30 this spring. At that point an empty cereal box would beat him. Remember, thinks to the Birthers, he starts 107 EV’s in the hole;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965
That is 10 sates were teh won will not be on the ballot. 20% of the states. By July it could be 16 states, or more then 25%.
Maybe the wax paper bag out of that box of cereal.
Yeah, that’s what they said about Harry Reid last year.
Uh, no. Ross took away the mindless idiot vote.
I don’t know who started this rumor that Newt would fight tougher than Romney against Obama. Romney has been hitting Obama practically every day for months. Yet another misconception repeated a 1000 times becomes conventional wisdom.
Listen people! If the republicans nominate a can of tuna YOU BETTER VOTE FOR IT!!! Or this country is done!
I agree.
But Mitt Romney is a can of cyanide.
Anybody BUT Mitt!
I propose a committee I believe needs to meet face to face. I have my ideas but I’d like to hear what you think.
I won’t name names. But whoever’s interested in face to face meetings of the commenters, let me know. There’s an untapped power here that can be used to help a nation in crisis. The U.S. It’s us. This is the smartest, most motivated group for good in America. I’d like to be a part of it.
Rachel
The Complex Catholicity of Newt Gingrich
As outlined in “It’s Gingrich Time!” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629), the Obamian attack machine, led in Congress by its High Priestess of Vacuity and Obama idolatress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has begun to mobilize against Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The carefully-designed Democrat deconstruction of the latest front-runner in the Republican sweepstakes for the nomination had Pelosi hinting at a ton of allegedly unethical dirt she was prepared to dump on Gingrich, a threatened dumping that made no mention of her own alleged ethical breaches nor of the slew of Obama administration unethical and questionably legal machinations.
Rep. Pelosi withdrew the threat the same day she made it.
As I concluded in “It’s Gringich Time!” “The worst is yet to come in the Destroy Gingrich Campaign.” This will be a long and dirty political year and one of the most reprehensible Dem tactics is already becoming apparent: Tar Newt as a religious hypocrite, a newly-baptized papist fanatic, or both.
The ploy’s success is totally dependent on how well Democrats can get away with smearing Gingrich without smearing his new religion and his new wife lest they be seen as trampling on the First Amendment and the feminine gender. They usually have to be sly about it as in the case of the NewYork Times shortly after his 2009 conversion to Catholicism.
In “Gingrich Gets (a New) Religion,” the Times commented, “But even before his conversion, Mr. Gingrich was branded a hypocrite in the blogosphere after he wrote in a recent Twitter post that President Obama had ‘anti-Catholic values’ ” after he criticized the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame.
Do note: The blogosphere, not the Times, called Gingrich a hypocrite. Still, the lambasting had begun and mostly relates to his marriages.
In “Newt Gingrich’s Religion,” Salon.com is less subtle, delineating the differences between the religion Newt had left and the one he had adopted, pointing out the basic tenets of the Baptist faith and that, ”With Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, he has, in effect, publicly renounced them.”
Salon not only snidely attacks Gingrich but takes digs at his wife, citing why Newt converted and casting aspersions on Callista Bisek with snide references to her immorality: “The first reason he mentions is the fact that his current wife, Callista, is a devout Catholic.”
Then Salon goes for the real dirt: ”Not so devout, however, that she minded carrying on an affair with the married Speaker of the House. The affair lasted for at least five years while Gingrich was married to his second wife.”
As we all know, ultra-moral liberals take great umbrage at such things, especially when liberals are not involved.
Sounding more envious than chagrined, Salon also threw in another shocker: “Not that it really matters, but Gingrich is 23 years older than Callista. When their affair began, she was in her late 20’s, Gingrich in his 50’s.”
If it didn’t matter, why mention it–other than to paint Mrs. Gingrich as a bimbo and her husband as an aging, hypocritical roue’?
Bill Clinton married once, Ronald Reagan twice, Newt Gingrich thrice.
By all indications, Clinton’s marriage has been something other than one made in heaven, Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman ended amicably and his second to Nancy Davis was the stuff of marital legend. Gingrich’s first two weddings have been mischaracterized by the media as something akin to marriages by Jack the Ripper to his victims.
Newt’s third marriage, which has lasted eleven years, is the one that most sticks in the MSM craw.
Gingrich lately seems more than a bit happy, content, and at peace with himself and his philosophy, none of which sits well with the mainstreamers who distrust him because his father was career military and because they’re still peeved over 1994.
The stickiest issue is that Ms. Bisek is a Roman Catholic and now so is Newt and we all know how sinister those Catholics are, right? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9752.)