Saturday’s GOP Debate: It’s Going to Get Nasty
Newt Gingrich has huge leads nationally and in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. He’s creeping up on Romney in New Hampshire. There is only one more debate featuring all the candidates left before the January 3 caucus in Iowa, a mere three weeks away. This means that Saturday is do-or-die for every other candidate. They must all bring down Gingrich, and they won’t do it gently.
Look at Gingrich’s poll numbers to get an idea of the task ahead for his rivals. The RealClearPolitics poll averages show him ahead by about 12 points nationally, 12 points in Iowa, 21 points in South Carolina, and the latest poll out of Florida has him 13 points ahead of Romney. In New Hampshire, Romney is ahead by an average of 12 points, but the momentum from a Gingrich victory in Iowa could make it close.
That means his rivals need Gingrich to suffer a double-digit reduction in support over three weeks, especially those that are dependent upon performing well in Iowa. This will be hard, but not impossible. Polls show that about 55% of likely voters in Iowa and South Carolina, 48% in New Hampshire, and 53% in Florida are willing to change their minds. This suggests that tonight’s debate is going to be very rough on Gingrich.
Gingrich says he won’t be an “attack dog” against the others and this is a wise strategy. He got this far by minimizing his scuffles with rivals. The criticisms of Romney are already well-known and bringing them up won’t do any good. His main weakness — and Romney’s biggest strength — is electability. If Gingrich mounts a swift and persuasive defense against the charges brought against him tonight, primary voters will become more confident that he can take on Obama. It will also arm Republicans with rebuttals to the future attacks he will face if he is the nominee. His goal tonight is to appear like a winning general election candidate.
Mitt Romney is going on the offensive against Gingrich. He is describing him as a Washington “insider,” hoping to leverage anti-establishment sentiment in his favor. Romney will criticize him on immigration and his leadership as speaker of the House to depict him as an ineffective and unstable leader. Romney will make the case that Gingrich is a visionary, but is unprepared to implement that vision. He’ll also emphasize his strong family relationships in order to bring attention to Gingrich’s personal baggage.
Romney’s campaign is going after Gingrich personally, but it is questionable whether Romney will do that on stage and risk it backfiring on him. In a conference call this week, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu and former Missouri Senator James Talent harshly criticized Gingrich. They called him “irrational,” inconsistent, and self-absorbed. It will be hard for Romney to artfully do this himself tonight, so he may continue to rely on surrogates. If his campaign can make voters feel like Gingrich is pompous and condescending, Romney may be able to turn Gingrich’s intelligence into a liability.
Ron Paul has put out the most vicious attack ad on Gingrich. Its message is that Gingrich is basically corrupt and it hits him for supporting an individual health care mandate. In recent days, Paul has called him a “counterfeit conservative” and says he must “expose” him. This language indicates that this will be his most confrontational debate yet and for the first time, he’ll have most of his rivals backing him up
Michele Bachmann has been the harshest towards Gingrich in person. She has gone so far as to call him (and Romney) a “frugal socialist” and accuse him of being a “poster child for crony capitalism.” Her main criticism of him on policy has been his, in her words, “long history of supporting amnesty.” She also says he’s gotten rich off of “influence-peddling” and questions his credentials as a conservative.
At the same time, she’s been changing her style to be more like Gingrich. During her speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Wednesday, she adopted his promise to authorize the movement of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem immediately after the inauguration. She’s also become more of a policy wonk, throwing out details, facts, and statistics to show her depth of knowledge. She is willing to go toe-to-toe with Gingrich and she can fight. Ask Tim Pawlenty.
Rick Santorum is more hesitant to go after his long-time friend, but is the only candidate specifically calling out Gingrich on his personal history and for having an oversized ego. In interviews where he is asked about Gingrich’s baggage, Santorum has no problem saying, “Character is definitely an issue.” He says that leaders must exercise humility and that voters must consider how a candidate handles success.
On policy, he’s focused on Gingrich’s views on illegal immigration and criticizes him for putting social issues in “the back of the bus” as speaker. Santorum, unlike the others, may be able to wait to swing because he and Gingrich are the only two scheduled participants in the December 27 Newsmax debate with Donald Trump as the moderator. If the event is not canceled, that will be Santorum’s time to draw a sharp contrast.
Rick Perry says he’ll stay above the fray and that he’s counting on Romney and Gingrich to knock each other out. His main objective tonight is to compete with Gingrich over the evangelical vote. He is the candidate that has come the closest to bringing up Gingrich’s three marriages. “I didn’t make an oath just to my wife. I made an oath to God when I married my wife,” Perry recently said. He may make that point again tonight, even though it could come off as too low of a blow.
Jon Huntsman has chosen to campaign in New Hampshire instead of take part in tonight’s debate in Iowa. It is puzzling why a candidate longing for media attention would forfeit the exposure. However, he will have an opportunity to contrast himself with Gingrich on Monday when the two have a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate.
Gingrich will have the biggest target on his back tonight that any candidate has had so far.
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.)
Actually, what we know about Roman Catholics is that, liberal or conservative, they support open borders and amnesty for illegal “Catholic” aliens. Note, even Rick Santorum who is conservative on almost every issue receives a grade of F from NumbersUSA on illegal immigration. And, we already know Gingrich’s path to citizenship for illegal “Catholic” aliens. There, I said it (the unspeakable).
I’ve had a real problem with the Catholic church circumventing United States law by hiding & giving sanctuary to known illegals.
I guess the rationale is that the spiritual mission overwhelms the secular law.
Which is BS.
Would you care to mention the incident where this actually happened? Or is this more of you “Whore of Babylon” nonsense.
Appreciate the rundown on what to expect from Obama-media attempts to destroy Newt.
I hardly take these media seriously at all, but especially when they’re preaching or opining on the topic of morality or what constitutes moral behavior, given the unbelievable double standards when it comes to ignoring or dismissing egregious personal behaviors of their guys on the Left.
And given the media failure (avoidance, even) to vet the individual who has shown himself to be the most incompetent and destructive president in US history.
Slimeing successive republican candidates seems to be the collective mission of the so called mainstream media these days.
Any notion of a free and unadulterated press as the guardian of liberty has been turned into a joke.
There are two major debates, not one, before the Iowa caucuses. Tonight’s on ABC and December 15th on Fox.
Correct. And Jon Huntsman was NOT invited to either because he failed the national polling criteria.
Not like Huntsman has even set foot in Iowa…
Let’s not forget to whom the ‘rough ride’ needs to be given.
The only person, it will help to bring down the #1 guy, is the #2 guy. So for everybody else than Romney, it would be a waste of energy to attack Gingrich.
Unless you are number 1 or 2 in the polls, you should focus on boosting yourself, not diminish the others.
Attacking other candidates is like exchanging chess pieces. You bring down your opponents strength. But you also diminishes your own strength to some degree. So you should only do it in a careful manner that makes sense to your position in the field.
I really worry about a President Romney. This is what Mitt Romney said in part to Dan Gilgoff (U.S. News & World Report) who asked Romney if his repeated references to “jihad” in a speech at the Heritage Foundation characterized Islam in sinister terms:
“….If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.
“There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term…. It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.”
Gingrich gets it. Bachmann gets it. So does Santorum. Romney is way out in left field on the global jihad. I have been contemplating voting for Bachmann in our state primary but I don’t want to help Romney. I worry Romney will NOT do the right thing domestically or internationally. I fear he will (like Bush and Obama) pressure Israel to establish a Muslim-enemy state which “by no means is a branch of Islam.” I worry that a President Romney will continue this pattern of reaching out to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups. I might vote for Gingrich. We’ll see.
I’m getting a little sick and tired of all these Democrats gloating over these Republican primary battles, saying that it will “damage” all of the potential Republican candidates. The primary battles between Clinton and Obama were some of the worst I’ve ever seen, yet Obama somehow managed to still become president (which tells you how much the American people listen to what is said during primary battles during a general election). As one of Hillary’s ads once said, I think Obama must have had a lot of those “3 AM telephone calls” and we can now all see how he answered them, with a busy signal. So fear not, Republicans. All of this will be forgotten after the primaries. Then the real fun can begin slamming Obama on a daily basis.
I fail to see how anything is bad for Newt at this point. He has shown to be completely in control of the facts/he knows everything. It’s his invisible shield. He is above the fray. As long as he stays above the fray, no one can touch him and they come off looking like idiots for discussing anything except the deteriorating state of the country. Newt well knows that’s what scares Americans now, not whether he had an affair…how many years ago was it?
BTW, would anyone like to talk about the former girlfriends of the current president? No, I didn’t think so.
Isn’t that boyfriends?
Why yes it is.
Because there aren’t any girlfriends.
Iowa and New Hampshire no longer matter. The south will determine who the candidate will be and that will be Newt., or else the Republican party is finished. This silly game of making Iowa important has caused this stupid ethanol waste of food corn bribery that the Congress foisted on the American people needs to stop.
Unlike the others, Newt ha been developing his own list for years. Romney works off the Bush list. Analysis never mentions lists, but they ae key. I have followed Newt for several years and get an u[date email every week.
I sure wish some of you kneejerk Romney haters would read one of his books. He’s a nice man and effective leader.
Your Romney flips on each and every issue, is a polytheist, an endorser of polygamy, a denier of Scripture and an endorser of Islam; as well as a pathological liar. Honey, if he’s your kind of guy, you need to be in therapy.
I find it totally amazing that the RNC does not want candidates bashing Obama but see nothing wrong with candidates attacking each other. Makes you wonder who’s side the RNC is on. The MSM scrutinizes every word spoken by these candidates while at the same time allowing Obama to make gaffe after gaffe. This is going to be a very dirty campaign year.
It’s called the primary season.
If these folks can’t handle attacks from each other, how in the heck do you think they’ll handle attacks from the opposition, which includes the dinosaur media?
It’s like spring training. You face off against your own team before you face off against the other teams.
Me, I’m watching to see how these folks handle themselves when they’re hit, and hit hard. So far a lot of those lifted as the “latest greatest conservative icon” have fumbled. Bachmann, Perry, Cain… and if you go read my blog (currently kinda languishing cause of the holidays), you’ll see I supported two of those three, so don’t even try accusing me of being something I’m not. I’ve got a long paper trail and I know it.
Good comment. Although, I’m not sure Bachman fumbled. Her numbers went down after El Fatbo said that she almost jumped the shark for repeating anecdotal evidence about vaccines causing autism. El Fatbo knows nothing about exercise, diet or naturopathic medecine. Unfortunately, he is the most listened to radio talk show host in the country in spite of his Newtonian girth. Just for reference vaccines sometimes (frequently?) contain mercury which causes autism. Also, the day El Fatbo broadsided Bachman, Ann Coulter said that getting a vaccine for cervical cancer was like having your appendix removed because someday you might get appendicitis!
Sir, I assume by ” El Fatbo” you mean the wonderful highly successful Rush Limpballs?
“El Fatbo” is no longer so fat. As for Bachmann, she has only herself to blame for uttering such an ignorant statement regarding this vaccine. I doubt Rush’s commentary had much impact at all, as her commentary was well-covered in the news outlets.
Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines does not cause autism. Look up the studies – as well as the expose on the original claim.
Bingo! The RNC is, in fact, on Obamas side, just as they were in 2008. The plan is to roll over for the Demonrat candidate, as commanded by the same guys who order the Fed around and make the real decisions about world economics.
They want a candidate who will purposely, acting under orders, blow the election. McCain. a total jerk, and his dimwitted alaskan housewife pal did just as directed and gave Oscumbag a resounding victory.He will probably win again due to our incredibly amoral electorate, but is assured of victory if the RNC picks the GOPher candidate, because they will deliberately choose a sure loser. I like Bachmann, but she is a little to my left.
Democrats seem not to care one whit about personal character issues in their politicians. John Edwards, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, the entire Kennedy family, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, ….you have a post office wall waiting for mug shots if these were Republicans. Murder, rape, prostitution, bribery, manslaughter, bribery, fraud, graft, corruption, treason, sedition, …these folks don’t even lose Democratic favorability AFTER they are caught…much less before.
Had a Republican done a fraction of what these folks have done, it would STILL be front page news.
So, character is really solely a Republican issue. The propaganda machine will make any character issue for a Democrat disappear…in fact, will turn it on its head and make it look as if it was a cheap, Republican dirty trick.
On the other hand, if a Republican jaywalks, the propaganda machine will make it look like a hanging offense.
Newt has character baggage. Romney does not. If we are down to these two…we can shout all we want about how it’s unfair, untrue, un-American, unjust…but, we can’t undo it.
And it WILL make a difference with swing voters. Newt is a damaged brand. And, it is only going to get worse.
I do not like being forced into this binary position. Newt will go after Obama and Mitt will nibble around the edges. Newt will make forceful points, Mitt will play it safe.
I am down to who is most likely to be able to pull in more votes for Congress and the Senate as we sweep all three Houses and turn around the horrific damage done by the Marxists and their Fabian leader.
That would be Romney, in my opinion. NOT a choice I would make…and I would much rather we dumped the “B” team and got my real choices in the game.
Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Walsh, ….an array of our best commentators from all corners of the non-leftist spectrum are not in Newt’s corner. IF…..all that leaves is Romney…and this is a binary option, then one has to make that call.
Blech.
Just think though, CFB. Once the primary season is underway & the Pub nominee is “signed, sealed & delivered,” these conservative pundits will stop chewing on Gingrich & will focus on Obama. Super Tuesday in March cannot get here soon enough to suit me, so all these people can start on Obama in earnest.
bobbcat…the propaganda machine will not let the words go away.
Gingrich is taking shots from all sides…those words are going to follow him.
He was already brand damaged. To suggest that he is erratic and flighty as a leader, disorganized…runs in complete chaos…will echo EVERY day into the ears of the swing voters…and the quotes will be from his own side.
The issues of character, chaos and chameleonism will haunt him…and further brand damage him. It won’t go away, bobbcat.
It will only get louder.
Sure the rhetoric will get louder, but Newt is the only Republican who will stand and fight. And he will give as much as he gets, in fact he will give more. A ticket of Gingrich and Palin would really be something for the Democrats to fear, Newt to campaign and Sarah to take names.
The important phrase is “non-Leftist spectrum”. The Left in the US is a group of people united by a shared goal — destroying the existing American society. They attack on a hundred fronts at the same time (EPA, ACLU, NEA, AARP, etc.). Only actual Rightists oppose them on all fronts. Otherwise, Libertarians fight incursions on free-markets; religious believers/values voters oppose the attempts to legalize evil; various special interests fight the infringements on their particular turfs. The problem is that Leftists have one goal, while non-Leftists are defending only their particular sector of the ramparts. Defeat isn’t inevitable; but defeat is guaranteed if the defense isn’t focussed on destroying Leftism, rather than winning each individual battle. The Left can lose battles, but as long as Leftism’s infrastructure continues, they can always re-fight them. Look at HillaryCare. Defeated in 94 — passed in ’09 as ObamaCare. Lesson: we have to fight for elimination — root and branch, not surrender or victory. Think Carthage.
Could be that one sector on the right may be softening it’s focus as it displays its support for Newt; yes, talking the religious right here:
Four years ago, Mike Huckabee was able to ride evangelical support to victory in the Iowa caucus. But today, Newt Gingrich — converted Catholic, thrice-married, admitted adulterer — is way out in front among Iowa evangelicals, pretty much matching his support with Republicans as a whole. And there doesn’t look to be anything Rick Perry can do about it.
More here: http://prospect.org/article/continued-decline-religious-right
Evidence is out there that points to the notion that more people are getting it: Obama has got to go. Period.
Yes! Agree! I would vote for that possum who keeps eating my tomato plants before I voted for, excuse the expression, Obama.
Romney will knock himself out if he is too agressive about Gingrich. He better be real careful to stick to policy, and Newt is likely to twist Mitt in knots on policy.
Newt has innoculated himself with Republicans by playing nice. And since he is ahead in the polls, it means that people like or at least accept him. They won’t like any attacks they perceive as unfair. Besides, Gingrich is a master at deflection. His strategy is working, and it gets even better when the attackers become strident.
And why would the also rans be any more aggressive than Mittt? They will harm themselves even more if they come across as too rabid. About all they can do is bring up Newt’s sins agains conservatism, all of which he explains effortlessly. Nobody thinks he is more conservative than attack dog Bachman anyway, who is polling at about 1% for a very good reason. And nobody thinks he is liberal either, other than Mark Levin Drones, who endlessly repeat their master’s contempt for anything that isn’t a quote from the Levin bible.
Well, obviously there’s a reason Mark Levin is listened to by millions of people, and you aren’t.
Ya might think on the “why” for a little while.
I’d be willing to bet though that in a contest between Gingrich & Obama, most Levin listeners will support the former over the latter.
I won’t support Gingrich. I’ll vote for the orange juice can.
bobbcat
This is coming from OUR side of the fence. Where there’s smoke….there’s a leftist willing to fan the flames waiting in the wings.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/09/romney-campaign-rips-newts-management-style-in-new-press-hit/
Did you note how the author ended his piece? “Advantage Newt.”
Right now the Republican electorate is literally starved for someone who will think “outside the box” & fight the good fight. Newt’s history of being a part of the passing of welfare reform & balancing the budget is huge & will resonate very well with this electorate that is so disgusted with what the Obama administration is doing, it’s not funny.
I stand by my assertion that once all the dust is settled in the case of a Newt-versus-Obama contest, all eyes will be on Obama with just the leftists out there doing all the spittle-laden shouting about Gingrich’s proverbial this & that, NOT those on our side.
Like I said before, Alex Jones and Mike Savage have huge audiences as well.
Mark Levin is right about a lot of things (I probably agree with him about 98% of the time), but he undoes it all by insisting on all or nothing.
The conservative pundits who are denigrating Romney or Newt (there are actually more slamming Newt) are making very bad mistakes. It’s possible to express an opinion without making your readers or listeners believe that the person being criticized is totally unacceptable.
Since they always end up saying “but I’ll support him if he is nominated” after raking Mitt or Gingrich over the coals and getting their brainless listeners all agitated about their victim, it’s obvious they are doing it simply for the ratings. Clearly, that is just fine with you CW, but it isn’t with me.
And you can see the impact on PJM and other conservative sites. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of conservatives who declare they won’t vote for Romney or Newt under any circumstances. Since a dominant way people form their opinions now is by listening to the talkers and pundits, it’s a sure thing that the only reason they hate one or the other is because they are following their chosen leader. Levin is one of the most influential of all because he is abosutely rigid in his beliefs and that appeals to brainless people, who often crave clear direction from people who act in an authorotative manner, like Levin. He was an important reason that Harry Reid was re-elected and, even though he would never admit it, his carelessly over-the-top comments about Romney could have an impact on the 2012 election as well, since Romney hass at least a 40% chance to be the nominee. But Levin doesn’t care, because he is absolutely rigid in his belief system, and he enjoys his high ratings.
“But Levin doesn’t care, because he is absolutely rigid in his belief system, and he enjoys his high ratings.”
This can probably be said of all of them. I do appreciate Limbaugh’s refusal though to endorse any of the candidates. I think he would likely agree with the notion that keeping it all in the perspective that Obama is the ultimate target is the most reasonable. Surely he will support whomever the Pubs nominate. Wouldn’t be surprised if Levin et al ultimately support the nominee as well despite whatever ratings-gathering rantings they carry out on the air. Listeners are well-advised to bear this in mind.
I think Rush has his preference, but he isn’t as obvious as Levin and he doesn’t knock the candidates he disagrees with as much. Plus he usually makes it pretty clear that beating Obama taks precedence over everything. And Rush is a lot less of a one-trick poney than Levin is. The range of things he talks about is a lot more than doctrinaire conservatism.
Hannity has provided a good service this season by interviewing all the candidates and letting them tout their wares. It’s pretty clear he is for Newt at this point, but earlier, it was very hard to tell his preferences.
The only other radio talker I hear, other than guest hosts, is Laura and she has always been more establishment-oriented than the others anyway. She was the first one I heard begin to say the obvious, which was that the Cain campaign was a joke from the beginning.
I think Levin tries to be objective, but he just doesn’t have it in him. In normal times, it doesn’t bug me, but when he begins to have a negative impact on the electorate, it gets under my skin because it is so destructive.
And does your own anti-Levin, or at least anti-Levin-listener rhetoric not also fall into the “all or nothing” category?
Complain not about the mote in my eye until you deal with the plank in thine own.
But, hey, if you wanna keep turning off his listeners–and I haven’t listened to Levin since he went on his Christine O’Donnell kick, just for the record–go right ahead. I doubt they’re gonna take the opinions of someone who denigrates them seriously, but if you wanna try it, well, it’s a free country.
As you know, CW, I have a wide range of opinions that falls outside of the conventional conservative framework. The only drummer I march to is my own, so no, I’m hardly an all or nothing type of person, unlike Levin, the rigid ideologue who can’t bear to listen to a counter-opinion for more than 3 seconds.
And I have no plans to stop knocking Levin until he stops screaming that Romney is unacceptable. It will probably wake a few of his drones up and get them to begin thinking for themselves.
I agree with your point that Gingrich fights even better when the attacks intensify – Nancy can attest to that.
As far as Romney’s ability to fight? He’s almost as thin-skinned and glass-jawed as Obama. Man, if he can’t take Bret Baier of all people without having a hissy fit, who -can- he take on??
I hope Gingrich stays positive. There is a humorous cartoon titled “Mitt Helps Obama” at http://drawfortruth.com/2011/12/09/obama-romney/ that sums things up well.
Noteworthy piece that provides some background info on what’s behind Newt’s meteoric rise from the ashes, as it were: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/11/inside-newt-s-stunning-comeback.html
We don’t need a nice guy, we need an angry badger.
This is trench warfare.
I tried to like Romney in the last cycle, and I’m trying to like him in this cycle.
His AGW allegiance and failure to grasp that Islamism can very easily be seen as integral to/springing from Islam put me off my feed.
Both seem like distractions to Romney, positions he has taken for the sake of taking a position when getting a question, not because he has really looked at either one in any depth.
His main position seems to be a fixation on becoming President of the United States, and he reminds me too much of the current guy that way.
According to the piece I have linked above, Newt’s wife Callista has played a major role in prompting him to run & stay in the race. This took me by surprise; a “trophy wife” she is apparently not. Most interesting.
She also has a great reading voice. I just bought A Nation Like No Other at Audible.com read by Newt and Callista Gingrich. She has the kind of voice that draws the ear to what she is saying. That is a rare gift that would make her an interesting First Lady.
Doesn’t matter. Gingrich is the flavor of the month. Nothing more nothing less, and Romney will never be more than 2nd ‘best.’ Ron Paul will never win, neither will Huntsman, Santorum, or Bachmann. I am entering the voting both in Texas two times next year (primary & general) and both times will cast my vote for Rick Perry. This country will be great again, now just gotta get that man elected president! America will be doomed w/out him.
How confident are you about that flavor of the month stuff? Cause I got a big one that says you’re wrong. Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Fox News is just now reporting:
“Gingrich’s campaign, while standing by the statement, afterward clarified that the former House speaker still supports the establishment of a Palestinian state…..Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” Hammond said in a statement….”
In other words, Gingrich caved under pressure.
What do you suggest be done with the Palestinians? Nobody, & I do mean NOBODY over there in the miserable ME wants to deal with them, but somebody MUST at some point in time.
Read “The Israel Omen” to find out what happens to your country when your president does to Israel what Gingrich envisions.
Read “The Israel Omen” to find out what happens to the USA when American presidents do something like this.
Looks to be a worthwhile read that I will doubtless find very enlightening. The issue of the Palestinians & what is to be done about them still remains however…..
bobbcat, I am curious. I would like an honest answer from you. There are lots of peoples around the globe — within the region even — who are demanding independence; peoples who are demanding an independent state or states. In the region, the Kurds come to mind. Yet no one cares a whit about these differing people’s demands. Not even the criminal United Nations which set up a separate refugee bureaucracy for these evil peoples who began calling themselves Palestinians after the 1967 Six Day War. Why is it? You’ve asked this question twice, which leads me to think that you, like Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush before him, are obsessed with the “Palestinians” demands for their own jihad state. Why is it? Can you please explain why you and your leaders are obsessed with the demands of these evil peoples who call themselves Palestinians?
See rance’s answer below, as I am with him. But alas, I am not in charge here. If left up to me, I’d be happy to see Israel just wipe them all off the map. But again, I am not in charge.
I really don’t think there will ever be peace in the ME until the Islamists are defeated. Meantime though, they are saddled with the dilemma of the Palestinians who are basically rejects.
Leave that to the “Palestinians” and their Muslim “friends.” We should remain a strong ally of Israel and allow them to do whatever they deem necessary.
No, he did not cave. If you heard his entire original remarks, he qualified them at the time.
Forget the rhetoric, forget the pundits, forget the networks.
Don’t play the game!
Keep illuminating the target.
Solyndra
Fast and Furious
Obamacare
Brightstar
GM
TARP
I hope so. The GOP has explaining to do about their primary system allowing the far right to control the initial primaries and their lack of guts concerning the issues being forced upon American citizens.
Over sized ego, blah, blah, blah!!! I guess the rest of them on the stage who want to be president are just humble aw shucks ma’am types. God forbid your intelligent and open your mouth. Anyone who has studied the issues for as many years as Gingrich and is as smart as he is is bound to ruffle the feathers of the less informed and might I add not as smart. I know he’ll hold his own but I hope in the process he takes out a couple of them, that is if the audience is smart enough to know he did it, which his poll numbers seem to bear out.
Okay, smart guy, do you know the difference between your and you’re?
Oh, puh-leez. You’re exposing yourself as a nitpicker with your hairsplitting (yeah, yeah, mixed metaphor – blah blah blah)…
Oh, puh-leez. If he wants to be a smart guy he needs to learn basic grammar. Otherwise, he should not try to say that the audience is not smart enough to know what a “genius” Newt is.
Dude, I was making a joke and you didn’t even catch it (‘-You’re- a bit sensitive, and -your- sensitivity may be getting in the way of -your- sense of humor’….. get it this time?)
Actually the grammatically correct word is ‘snark’ – as in ‘I wuz snarkin on you about -your- fixation on grammar, and -you’re- not catching it’
So, the left and MSM (pardon the redundancy) have been able to narrow the Republican field down to Rino Romney, and Newt the insider and global warming advocate. Note how they have backed off the attacks they leveled at the more palatable candidates? They figure that Obama can beat either, and either winning is a neat consolation prize.