In 2007, when Democrat presidential candidates balked at appearing on Fox News, Roger Ailes replied, “The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda.” But even Mitt Romney can’t face Fox, as William A. Jacobson notes today:
As bad as the original interview was, Romney’s reaction simply confirms the perception that Romney will have trouble in a general election. If he can’t handle totally legitimate questions from Baier, and his team will not let him appear before the Center Seat panel, then how will he hold up when the media and Team Obama gang up on him?
In contrast, here’s Newt Gingrich authoritatively brushing aside a gotcha question by CBS’s Scott Pelley, a thoroughly reactionary establishment leftist, who when asked about providing balanced coverage of global warming and its skeptics replied, “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” Click here for the screen cap of Pelley’s unbelievably smug grin — moments before Newt defenestrates him:
In November of 2008, after the McCain campaign melted down over how unfair their media coverage was in late September, Kevin Williamson of National Review wrote:
Every time I hear a Republican candidate or office-holder talking about media bias in the fall, I assume that the election is over and the Republican has lost. It’s not that the complaints don’t have merit–do they ever–it’s just that the media-bias talk tends to come up right about the time things are going undeniably south for a campaign. So maybe it’s best to front-load the discussion for next time around. Candidates who are talking about media bias in October are losing elections.
As I replied on my blog back then:
And when they’re talking about it in late September, they’re really toast, as Robert Stacy McCain wrote in his October 3rd pre-postmortem:
I didn’t comment on it at the time, but I was shocked when Steve Schmidt lashed out at the New York Times on Sept. 22. Every word Schmidt said about the NYT being in the tank for Obama was true. But you don’t do that. Ever. Not in a campaign you have any hope of winning. It is one thing to criticize specific errors by specific reporters, but for a presidential campaign manager to call into question the fundamental integrity of a newspaper that more or less dictates news coverage at the three major broadcast networks? Uh uh. No way. Leave that work to surrogates. Then Wednesday, in an interview with the Associated Press, McCain himself got all hostile with the reporter. That is tantamount to an admission of defeat.
But one of McCain’s many weaknesses as a GOP candidate is that he counted on the media’s support–or at least was praising the media–and in particular, the New York Times as late as January of 2008 in the Republican debate in Florida. This left him absolutely unable to criticize the media in any form–which is why Schmidt’s meltdown in late September sounded so much like whining, even though, as Robert McCain wrote back then, “Every word Schmidt said about the NYT being in the tank for Obama was true.”
Hopefully the next GOP candidate will lay sufficient upfront groundwork so that his supporters (and not just the base) will know that the media attacks are coming–and that the GOP isn’t competing merely against another party, they’re also competing against the bulk of the legacy media, where most voters go to receive whatever scraps of information they’ll get to justify their voting decisions.
As I wrote back then, it wouldn’t hurt to remind people of the media’s excesses and kneejerk support for Obama in this election, as many will have forgotten it. Laying this groundwork early in the campaign would also allow the candidate to have lots of “See, I told you so” moments when the drive-by media hits start flying.
“Every time I hear a Republican candidate or office-holder talking about media bias in the fall, I assume that the election is over and the Republican has lost.”
What’s the problem? All McCain (and Dole, along with both Bushes and Karl Rove) was doing was pandering to the base. And we all know how the base loves it when its politicians and pundits feed off media “victimization….”
Me? I’m just waiting for someone running for the GOP nomination for President to rip off this media “victimization” bandage. That person, despite his/her personal/political foibles, will end up dominating conservative politics for a long time.
You want to see REAL media bias? Look at what is happening to Herman Cain right now.
This latest round of accusations is completely implausible. A man battling Stage 4 colon cancer will not carry on a “thirteen-year affair” with anyone, and that’s that. Not gonna happen. Back in the day, reputable news outlets would refrain from publishing groundless accusations that obviously conflicted with known facts. That was the difference between respectable journalism and sleazy supermarket tabloids – a difference that no longer exists.
Now THAT is media bias. And it’s very real. It’s to our shame that we have let a completely dishonest and lying MSM choose who is, or is not, eligible to be our candidates.
Also see: How David Axelrod and the Chicago Machine Smeared Herman Cain
You’re absolutely right. This attack on Herman Cain, among many things, is real evil.
Well said!
Mitt is the best Republicans have got because he won’t tick off women. He’s handsome, an Alpha male, and yes Republicans NEED that against Dreamboat/Media God Obama. Most Professional White women vote for who is the most hunkiest, and they HATE HATE HATE conservative women (Palin, Bachman). I wish it were not so, but it is.
Does anyone honestly think Newt will get any White female votes from independents or soft Democrats? Geez Louise, the guy is poison with White professional women. You might as well run Pat Robertson and call it a defeat.
Debating skills are nothing. Master Debaters Kerry and Gore lost to … tongue tied GWB. What matters is being able to get the broad middle … of White voters. Dems are the anti-White guy party: Blacks, Hispanics, rich elite Whites, and most of Professional White women. Reps are the White guy party: White men, blue collar White women, and SOME Professional White women.
Dems WIN when they keep most of the Professional White women. Reps WIN when they peel enough away to win. That’s the electoral math, that’s the path to victory, that is what matters. Nothing else.
If you want to beat Obama, you better get most of Professional White women. That means go moderate, go hunk, or go home. Simple as that. Newt is a blockhead square headed guy who cheated on multiple wives and most believe (and won’t believe different) threw his divorce papers on his cancer-ridden wife’s hospital bed. He is a born think-tanker, and Washington insider. And a VERY bad politician — he managed to lose his own caucus and get censured while Speaker of the House. That’s as dumb a self-goal as Politics has seen.
So, were Lincoln and Churchhill hunks or moderates?
I was in a waiting room a couple of days ago and had a conversation with a doctor’s wife who was waiting for a fried as I was waiting for the wife. After some tentative paries, it became clear we were kindred spirits regarding the most dangerous person on the planet, so we began gleefully (but quietly) bashing. It turned out she had been for Cain but had concluded he was a player. The one she likes now is Gingrich…because he can bash the boy king better than any of them.
The Churchill theory is that in times of emergency, the people throw away the playbook and go with a bulldog. I’m not sure many people agree with me that we’re in the middle of an emergency, but that could well be the prevailing feeling in November 2012. And there’s no question who the bulldog is between Newt and Mitt. Churchill was also a lousy, failed politician, until he wasn’t.
Neither Lincoln nor Churchill ran in the TV age, where looks dominate. They do now. Moreover, Lincoln did not even run during women’s suffrage.
I find it telling that no one can dispute the notion that White professional women hold the key to victory. Ed Driscoll’s point on how the media has portrayed those who follow politics only casually is crucial.
Newt can’t really close the sale on White professional women because they’ve seen him portrayed as to the right of Hitler, and moreover “stupid” and block-headed, square, and icky, for twenty years. John Stewart got laughs just mentioning Newt. That’s a bridge too far.
The choices are Obama, or Romney. Palin’s not running (wise, she’d get creamed, women HATE HATE HATE conservative women). Perry, Cain, all those guys flopped. Yes Mitt’s a Mormon (which probably plays in his favor now, he’s the singing/dancing square but nice and hunky guys on the South Park guys Broadway show). That’s reality. No I’m not in love with Mitt, but contra Ed’s proposal, I’d say the Candidate is not the man.
Rather the Candidate is the organization. Obama is not Obama. He’s Axelrod and Plouffe. Newt has … his wife (a piece of work, he had to pay $1 million to Tiffany’s just to get her on board with the campaign). And that’s it. Newt has no men on the ground, no advisers, no campaign people tried and tested and found competent.
Really, you want NEWT GINGRICH up against Plouffe and Axelrod and Soros and all the rest? THAT GUY? With nothing but his mouth which can sink him at any moment?
Heck I agree with Romney staying away from the Press. He’s always “nice” and forceful, and yes that’s phony but better than serving red meat for the pros at Obama Inc.
Make no mistake, Obama + 4 years = America finished. Period.
Nobody debates the notion because it is off the wall, and almost certainly wrong, simply for the reason that white professional women aren’t that big of a demographic. There are more white working class women, more white professional men, more white working class men, more retired Americans, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans, and perhaps more suburban women who don’t work or work part time. Why should the 5th or 6th largest demographic be the key to the puzzle?
And of course, your suggestion is insulting to women in that category, so why should they honor your insult by responding to it.
I usually find your posts interesting, even when I disagree with them, but this one just doesn’t make much sense.
And btw, I’m not convinced Newt is the guy. I prefer him, but am watching. If it’s not him, though, it will be Romney. My pet peeve of the moment is guys like you who seek to destroy one or the other. You aren’t alone by a long shot. The esteemed Mark Steyn spent Rush’s entire show yesterday sabotaging Newt in front of millions of listeners. Seems like insanity to me. What would be more rational is to simply point out the strenghts of the person you prefer. The problem, you see, is the level of one’s own certainty is irrelevant. You can be 1000% certain that Newt is Satan himself, and he still might get the nomination. Why do we want to go into the election with a guy that we have mortally wounded ourselves before the real election even starts?
I’m a woman and I will take brains over looks any day of the week. This election is not about likability it’s about getting something started for the millions of people that are underemployed and unemployed. Gingrich has done it before and I believe he can do it again. He’s would not be my choice if these were the best of days (I would like a staunch fiscal conservative) but he’s my choice for the mess we’re in right now. He is the only one talking that has a plan – and I’m including the current president.
Whiskey gets a lot of abuse on a lot of the sites on which he posts comments. Nearly every comment he posts deals with how much professional, educated white women loves them some sexy bad boy alpha males and “HATE, HATE, HATE” boring beta male white guys (well, that and heaping praise the “Scots-Irish,” Israel and Netanyahu). People make fun of Whiskey because he’s got a burr up his but about the shallow, status-seeking nature of today’s professional white women. They say that he must be a bitter beta male shlub who can’t get laid because white women probably HATE, HATE, HATE him. But it’s pretty hard to argue with him here.
In ‘Whiskey-speak,’ Barack Obama is the exciting, cool bad boy for whom upper middle class white women fall head over heels; Mitt Romney is the boring, but ever-steady, high-earning, high-status ‘mensch’ who white women eventually marry after they’ve
spent their 20s sleeping with a succession ofhad their fill of bad boys.Newt Gingrich is the weird looking, socially awkward uber-geek with the grating voice who upscale white women think is too “creepy” to even give the time of day. His best attempt at “gaming” the ladies is to try to impress them by proving that he’s the smartest guy (read: nerdiest) in the room. In other words, Newt is a non-starter with today’s white women.
BTW, apropos of Whiskey’s musings on about post-feminism, educated white professional women, Kay Hymowitz is debating her “Manning Up” thesis right now (and taking on callers after 12:00 ET) on the Milt Rosenberg show on WGN AM Chicago:
http://www.wgnradio.com/about/listen/
(a podcast of the entire show will be posted on Friday).
Whiskey suffers from what used to be called monomania. IOW, he has a one-track mind, and that track goes in a circle, making him a repetitive, thundering bore. And if there is one thing that women of every stripe abhor, it’s a bore.
You sure don’t know women! I think Newt is far more appealing because he does have soft squissy look that would make me feel good just hugging him. Mitt, is too nice looking. I’d always wonder if I looked as good as Mitt. With Newt, I’d just wonder. Men are so stupid. BTW I am hot.
White, professional women like credentials, and Gingrich has credentials. He just has to talk them up. He has a PhD in History. He has authored many books in different genres. He’s the ultimate policy wonk. Yes, he will get the votes of some white, professional women, especially those who want their bf’s and husbands to have a job again.
It’s not all about hunkiness. Women vote their pocketbooks, too. Like anyone else, you have to find their buttons. If you cannot press their main button, find a secondary one.
You are sooo right! But we don’t want to win. We just want to make sure that the guy that doesn’t have a checkered past, has not chased women and has raised a wonderful family, has more business experience than anyone left and we won’t vote for him!
I would be ticked too, not only at the media, but at the repubs who have done nothing but malign Romney. Especially on this site and on HA as well.
We deserve what we get. But unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with the results.
Listen to Paul’s ad. Not even near as bad as the dems will do to Newt.
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote for whomever comes through the primary. No questions asked.
And if you haters will sit home and let obama pick 1 or 2 more supremes then you’re not worth all the trouble I had to go to in order to come to this once great country.
Screw all that. Gingrich knows what he is talking about, and talks intelligently. He already knows the executive orders that he will pass in the first hours of his presidency to start fixing the wreckage left by Obababla.. He knows what to do, and how to get it done. And he is fearless.
I have to disagree, my wife votes on one issue, abortion. No matter that we don’t have children and don’t plan to, and she tells me if she got pregnant she would NOT have one, but she still votes to maintain her right and the right of women to have abortions, no matter that she is hard working and self employed and disagrees with liberal economics, no matter she is big defender of Israel and the current Prez has given Israel the back of his hand. Abortion is her issue. I do agree with your opinion about good looking conservative women like Palin, Bachman, my wife does not like them and will not even listen to them. I think on election day I’m gonna pull her spark plugs and flatten her tires before I leave for work. Every election we cancel each other’s vote.
Gingerich and Condoleeza Rice. Obamas worst nightmare.
Gingrich and Condoleeza Rice! Wow! Brains. Experience. Credentials. Brains! Make Obama and Biden look like a couple of mutts. Joe Biden, meet Condoleeza Rice – Piano Concerto in B minor. Even professional white women could dig that.
No, Menachem.
Condoleezza Rice is a dumb cluck ditz who sees Palestinian genocidal maniacs as heroic black civil rights Selma marchers and Rosa Parks-like bus riders, and Israel as nothing but a white redneck, racist, apartheid, Zionist “entity.” She’s poison.
Exactly. Instead of Rice, Allen West, Thomas Sowell or even Herman Cain would be good, considering what a VP does, but let’s see. It’s very important not to have anti semitism in the ticket.
Anytime you see a gorgeous woman happily married to a homely man and you ask “what does she see in him?”, you can bet that the answer is that she loves a man who displays a confident bearing and a spirit of successful and positive determination. My guess is that most women are coming to see Obama as a punk and are not unlikely to see Mitt as a handsome slickster who won’t do much more to correct the mess we’re in than the jerk he’s trying to replace. Newt has that attractive confident, articulate, intelligent and the “I don’t take no crap” bearing that bright women find attractive. As do men who have “gotta pair”.
There is a lot of truth to what you say. And, related to one of your points is a comment on another piece I read recently:
“I truly think a lot of the Gingrich boomlet is simply because conservatives think/hope/fantasize that Newt would “dismantle” Obama in debates and leave him “bleeding on the floor.” I believe this is unwise at best, and possibly a fatal miscalculation. They are forgetting the vital issue of optics (think back to Nixon, pale and sweating under the TV lights.) The public will see a slender, handsome, athletic “let’s go shoot some hoops” kind of guy with a flashing smile… standing next to a pudgy, pale, grumpy, “you kids get off my lawn” old dude whose smile looks more like a sinister smirk. And Newt’s schtick of testily berating the debate moderators, while reliably popular with conservatives, would not play well with a general election audience…
Everything you wrote is right on the money. Independent voters are the key, and though they may (or may not) be nice/good people, they tend to be low-information, shallow voters. But never underestimate the ability of the conservative “base” (especially of conservative geeks who post comments at conservative blogs) to completely overlook the big picture.
Obama pulls off the cool/athletic/youthful/smart act really well. Sure, he couldn’t do it without getting a little help from his friends (in the media). But the point is that he pulls it off. And for independent, low-information voters, that’s really all it takes. Gingrich comes off as a grumpy, pudgy, old curmudgeon who looks like a troll (of the ‘under the bridge’ variety, not the ‘internet troll’ variety) and sounds like Kermit the Frog. Good luck winning over those single soccer moms, Newt!
I am a young woman and I am really taking a second glance at Newt. Most women like men who have no fear; it’s really not about looks. Newt comes across as a protector, a winner, a problem solver. He’s comforting yet spunky.
Yes, Romney has the looks and no doubt he is a smart man but if I were a damsel in distress, I would feel much more at ease and secure with Newt by my side than Romney.
May the best man win, this gal likes them both.
Whiskey, I resent your thought that women are stupid! Do you actually think that having a “good Looking” President is more important than having the best candidate to beat Obama? How about the best person (pimples and all) to get our country back on track? Not counting the left wing women who will vote for Obama, no matter how destructive he is,I believe Conservative women will vote ABO 2012.
It seems to me there is an inconsistency here. Obama criticizes Congress and pundits say that’s smart because Congress has such low approval ratings. Gingrich criticizes the press and that’s considered not smart despite the press also having low approval numbers? Notice that at these debates the crowd cheers whenever Gingrich goes after the moderator – folks at home are probably doing the same (I know I am). Of course, Gingrich has to engage in these attacks artfully – so far he has.
Does the press have approval ratings? They have circulation and viewer counts, but I have never seen a Gallup or other poll that published ratings on the press for honesty, job approval, or factual content. Maybe you are onto something there.
Romney could win the election, but I would rather see Newt debate Obama for 3 hours with no commentator.
Here are some samples of polls on news media from large organizations.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/09/13/press-accuracy-rating-hits-two-decade-low/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/confidence-newspapers-news-remains-rarity.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx
Very interesting info.
I saw that Republicans view FoxNews mostly in a favorable light, but not CNN.
Democrats view CNN favorably for the most.
The interesting thing was that most of people (Dems and Reps alike) view unfavorably the NY Times (and also the WS Journal)
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann.
When Mitt Romney was leading the field and Donald Trump was flavor of the month Mitt was happy. He knew the Donald couldn’t beat him.
Later, Michele Bachmann was flavor of the month and Mitt was sure that he was home free. Sure Michele was the real conservative (she’s the real deal folks) in a conservative party, but Mitt also knew she wasn’t ready in 2012 and he’d out spend her and beat her (Bachmann 2016. I said it here first)
Of course the month ended and a new flavor emerged. But Mitt wasn’t worried about Rick Perry. Perry doesn’t have too much brain, but when he debates he seems to have even less than he actually has. Romney started measuring drapes for the White House
Perry fell like a stone and the new flavor was Herman Cain. If Mitt was a drinking man, the champagne would have been flowing. Sure Cain was entertaining and a lot smarter than Perry (so is my cat), but he had close to zero politcal experience. The Presidency is not an entry level job. Mitt would have cleaned Cain’s clock.
Now Mitt is in a sweat. The new flavor, and this was a shock, is Newt Gingrich. Mitt can’t prey on Newt’s lack of experience. Newt is not a mental midget. Newt has the connections to raise money and the momentum to attract the money folks. True, Mitt is better looking, but that’s about all.
I’ve been looking at the latest polls and Newt is killing Romney in Florida. He’s poised to take the lead in New Hampshire (losing to Gingrich in New Hampshire would just about be Mitt’s obit). He is ahead in Iowa even though he didn’t open an office there until today.
If Newt doesn’t self-destruct Mitt is toast. An adultery scandal? No way. Everyone knows about Newt’s infidelities already. Flip flopping? Sure Gingrich is a flip flopper, but Romney is a much blacker pot than Newt the kettle. Could Romney get much action from calling Gingrich a RINO? Once again, in a RINO contest Gingrich takes the silver to Romney’s solid gold medal.
Mitzy is an unhappy little baby today. Lashing out against Fox News (of all news networks) is just the beginning. Romney saw his sure win in 2008 destroyed by John McCain. A man who at one point was counted out because he had run out of money and his staff was jumping ship. Gingrich went through the same thing and now he’s poised to show Romney that poor Mitt will never have the chance to lose an election for President.
Frankly, I am not a Gingrich supporter. I don’t like him and I question his electability. But you can’t help but be glad to see the “annoited candidate” (Romney) go down in flames and look bad doing it.
Of course, I could be wrong. If Newt burns out or stumbles badly the only person left to be flavor of the month is Rick Santorum. I’d bet that Mitzy prays every night that somehow Santorum gains enough momentum to be flavor of the month for January. If that happens Romney is a shoe-in. As it stands right now though, Mitt is a bridesmaid again.
To all Ron Paul supporters. I respect your opinion and your dedication, but we all know who Ron Paul is and he’ll never have more than about 12% support.
Mitt has several stengths and two of the biggest ones are doggedness and risk mitigation.
Newt can come close on doggedness, but he doesn’t take the low risk approach to anything. That shows up in a lot of ways, from the affairs to the Pelosi sitdown to the never-ending flurry of ideas, good and bad, on every topic known to mankind.
Even with Mitt reeling, the odds are that Newt will be rolling the dice one day and the table will blow up. He’s his own worst enemy. Don’t look for Mitt to go all crazy and the faux pas with Fox will be the last time we see that mistake. Mitt learns stuff.
But I’m still for Newt because he is aiming in a direction that will fire up the Tea Party, not the Mark Levin drones on PJM who can’t think a thought that Mark hasn’t thought first, but the millions of newly self-aware conservatives who want somebody to take it to Little Lenin more than they have wanted anything for twenty years. They may wish Newt was a saint and a snowflake conservative, but when he opens up on little lennin, they won’t care, and they’ll flock to the polls 100%.
+1!
you men just do not have a clue..you think we vote “hunkiest”??? get a clue!
you think we vote “dreamy”? dream on…we know what these “men” stand for and what their values are..and we are not buying it.
So just what are you buying, Gracobabe? And who is “we”?
It is an established fact. They have done dissections of the voting patterns of the white-woman vote. (Minorities vote Democratic.)
I do not have the link anymore, so I will give you a listof Prez races, and you can see for yourself:
Reagan/Carter – Reagan
Reagan/Mondale – Reagan
Bush/Dukakis – Bush
Bush/Clinton – Clinton
Dole/Clinton – Clinton
Bush/Gore – Bush
Bush/Kerry – Bush
McCain/Obama – Obama
Every one of the winners captured the white-woman vote. (The Republicans always captured the white male vote.) White women have been determining the winner of the Presidency for a long time, and they basically go for the most attractive guy. We’ll see if Gingrich can be the exception that proves the rule.
I blame white women for giving us Obama. White men mostly voted for McCain. White women are the true swing vote. Let’s hope they do not vote hunk this time, because Romney is not going to be the nominee.
Don’t get me started on the approval demographics of Palin and Bachmann.
Frankly yes, based on all those NYT columns by women who dream of having encounters with Obama, and all the other columns in the press about how dreamy he was, and Sarah Silverman’s reaction to meeting him, and the exit polls showing Obama got 70-29 of the single female vote. Which matches Kennedy vs. Nixon.
I wish that were not so, because it is a huge disadvantage for Republicans who historically have paid little attention at peeling off enough White Professional women to win. Reagan, while not at his age “hunky” was an ex-movie star, a “Big Man” who dominated. As did Clinton — charisma and sex appeal (Monica Lewinksy is still not over him according to the Daily Mail). Gore lost because he was robotic and Kerry did because he was a Lurch-like boob socially. Obama is Mr. Cool, at least publicly.
If Gingrich doesn’t blow up, he is going to win because 1) he loves the United States, 2) he’s a disciplined and professional politician who’s going to ignore Romney, rendering him inconsequential, 3) he’s an alpha male who will stand up to America’s enemies, 4) he’s intelligent and articulate, 5) he’s socially moderate enough to gain independents, and 6) because, given the chance, he will eviscerate Obama in an argument. Oh, he’ll get Palin and Trump to support him. Everything is in readiness.
One and out, Barry. One and out.
“he’s socially moderate enough to gain independents”
That’s not how the media has portrayed him; and independents are very often low-information voters who buy the MSM’s spin. And the MSM’s spin for the last twenty years is that Newt Gingrich is the Anti-Christ. How he overcomes that is his ultimate test as a retail politician.
Look at Newt’s stance on illegal immigrants, Ed. He’s tough but reasonable, passionate but…sensible!
Saved me the typing on that point, Ed.
The independents are ready to jump on any horse…just not a three-legged horse.
Newt is a damaged brand. So is Palin.
That’s not a small hill to climb, it’s a mountain.
I’m not heart healthy enough to watch that risk played out on an unfair, rigged, slime-infested playing field.
I completely disagree with the conventional wisdom that you leave the co-conspirator media alone any longer. Hit ‘em hard and hit ‘em often. En masse.
EVERY non-leftist candidate should slam them at every turn. This dated philosophy that they should grin and bear it….while the leftist media engages in abject treason, distortion, fraud and slander…has had its day and run its course. No longer. Punch back twice as hard.
It is NOT enough to point at it and tsk-tsk any longer.
Ryan/Rubio is the winning ticket. We can’t afford to risk a loss this time.
Yeah, but the Media portrays all Republicans as anti-Christs, or scatterbrains, or lechers, or racists, or Christian troglodytes, or war pigs, or, you name it. Yes, we will see if Newt can rise above, just as we will see whether any of them can rise above the MSM smear.
yes, except that now it appears Newt also has to overcome quite a few exhalted members of the conservative press (would I be out of line to call them OMINO’s – open-minded in name only), like Mark Steyn, Jim Geharty, and to a lesser extent, Rush and Levin. Steyn and Geharty went nuclear on Newt yesterday. That’s right, they basically said that one of the two dead-certain candidates is unacceptable. Not the weaker choic of the two, UNACCEPTABLE period. It’s like an endorsement of Romney (which I wouldn’t have a problem with), by unloading a gatling gun on Gingrich. To be clear, it wasn’t dispassionate criticism, it was ultra-emotional 120-decibal personal destruction.
These are the RESPECTED members of the conservative press, who have told their millions of listeners and readers that Gingrich should not be supported under any circumstances.
Why?
Apparently because during Newt’s 40 year public career, while conservative norms have changed oh, four or five times at least, Newt has advocated positions that at this precise moment in time don’t align perfectely with Mr. Steyn’s and Mr. Geharty’s current pristine and complete view of perfect conservatism. And of course, the two esteemed pundits don’t even agree about much between themselves, and both have no doubt conveniently forgotten their own past postions that diverg from their own demanded orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, the most dangerous person on the planet since Mao died has his heels up on the desk, picking his teeth and loving every scene from the dance of the idiots.
Newt “disciplined”? not hardly. you must be too young to remember the different chapters of Newt’s slimy political life.in fact if you read George Will’s column this week he goes into detail about that.
I too would love to see Newt mop the floor with Obama during a debate. however, I’d rather beat Obama for the presidency, and unfortunately I don’t think Newt can do that.
Romney/Rubio 2012, unless–Gov. Christie, you haven’t changed your mind have you?
Newt Gingrich today: “I won”.
Debacle to follow when the steamer trunk is opened.
Newt will win the GOP nom. and be the next President of the USA.
Agreed. Newt will win.
I don’t remember this Schmidt guy or any of the details you speak of here, Ed. And I am sure you have all of this right. Re your statement that: “Candidates who are talking about media bias in October [on the eve of a November turn out] are losing elections” — I say, yep, you nailed that. The way to defeat Obama — who happens to be the most defeatable Democrat in Human History — is to attack. Attack. ATTACK. We Tea Partiers must focus our greatest energy on backing whichever presidential candidate can best do that, and beyond that, we must focus our efforts on putting as many conservatives as possible into office at the local, state, and federal levels. THAT WAY, whoever we elect president will be the most likely to LISTEN to us for a change.
I think that hoping for a bona-fide conservative taking the presidency this cycle was perhaps too fanciful. The essential thing is that we get our people (normal, right-of-center Americans) into every office that is up for grabs in 2012. The better we do at that, the better our chances will be of pushing the new Republican president towards our way of thinking.
The Media wants to obsess upon the presidency. Okay fine. What’s new? The Media can never see the forest for the trees. But we — Tea Party Americans — need to play this smart. What is most important in 2012 is making a legislative statement that no new chief executive will dare to mess with. We can do this. And the airhead MSM will never see it coming.
Rally ’round the flag, boys. This is no time to be sobbing about candidates who could’a. should’a, would’a been the next Ronald Wilson Reagan. I am so sick of that BS I could spit. We have an Executive, a Legislative, and a Judicial branch in our system of government. This ain’t about the next American Idol. Keep a firm grip, my friends — PLEASE! Do not give in to the Leftist narrative of strife and dissension within conservative American ranks. Do NOT play into their hands. Turnout is EVERYTHING if we want to save our great country. If you cannot turn out for your preferred candidate who lost, turn out for all the other critical offices that are at stake here.
And BTW, I wanted Palin, but Newt is fine by me. As is Mitt, or Michele, or either Rick. Any one of these candidates would be a colossal improvement over the a-hole we have in office now. Do NOT allow the MSM to trick you otherwise.
VOTE in 2012. That’s all we need to do.
– grace under pressure?
Full disclosure:
My sister was married to Mormon and when she later divorced him and they both remarried after the divorce, he committed suicide. The Mormon ‘religion’ is a cult. Sorry. It is and I can’t EVER see a cult member being president. That just freaks me out big time.
The convential wisdom (which is always in error) says that Newt has a lot of baggage and has flip-flopped even more than Mitt. But I’m thinking that in a nation with no-fault divorce in which half the population has been through D-court, in a nation in which several million babies have been aborted, in a nation in which bankruptcy is as common as the flu, in a nation in which internet porn is a multi-billion dollar industry….who doesn’t have baggage? This isn’t 1955. Father Knows Best, Leave it Beaver, and Perry Mason are long gone. Now we’ve got Lohan, Hilton, and the Kardashians. Will and Grace is old news, we’ve drifted so far. Baggage? I don’t think it is the factor that MSM and the political pundits like to think it is. America is the land of second chances. The land in which people can re-invent themselves. I know it well. I started out in Academia teaching poly-sci and ended up in the aerospace industry as a stealth technology consultant.
As for flip-flopping, I once owned a Camaro and a Daytona. I’ll never buy a GM or Chrysler product agian. When I was young I abandoned Christianity to become and existentialist socialist. I was learning French and wanted to join the Foreign Legion. Of course, I’d never had a job or a home or a family. Times change, and so do we all.
I think there is one over-riding issue that is simmering in the background that will sustain Newt’s surge. In the autumn of 2012 there will be a few presidential debates. The whole world will be watching. As the self-absorbed, incumbent president mounts the podium, he will know that the media, the moderators, the camera angles, the cultivated audience, and the lighting will be rigged in his favor. There is one person who can reverse the decline of America, one person who has only one shot at the smug pretender in chief. Now, I ask you…who do you want on that stage. Huntsman? Mittens? Santorum? I don’t think so.
I’ve watched the debates, and seen the overwhelming lack of mental acuity, except for one operator. Neither Guliani, nor Trump, nor Palin are running, so there’s only one candidate left who can’t be cowered by the Blitzers, Palleys, and Gregorey’s of this world. His name is Newt.
But of course there are those who will say (to coin a phrase), that debates don’t matter. Really? I was 12 when Nixon and JFK debated. I watched, enthralled. I had no skin in the game and I liked Ike. But, the world as I knew it changed that nite in 1960, hasn’t been the same since.
“Times change, and so do we all.”
BINGO
Nixon was finished. Reagan was a Hollywood actor. Dubya was the hick president of a baseball team. Bubba was a hick governor of a state that wasn’t known for anything.
Heck, conservatism itself has changed multiple times in the last few decades. All of the rock-solid, 100% confident conservative commenters at PJM somehow forget they were something quite different a few years ago, many times something radically different.
But every position Romney or Newt has taken in the last 40 years is measured against today’s most pristine orthodoxy.
Funny story. My Brother in Law discovered talk radio around the time of the 2008 election and he is a religious drone of Mark Levin. Seriously, it’s changed the guy’s life (mostly in good ways). If he’s talking about something today, I know for a fact that Levin was talking about it yesterday. And the BIL hates, just hates Romney. Because Romney is a RIIIIIINNNNNO. So I said to him the other day, “hey Mike, I know that Romney has changed a few positions over the years, but weren’t you a brainless doper libertarian in 2007? Have you considered holding yourself to to the standard you’ve set for Mitt?” I probably won’t have to listen to Mike rant for a few weeks.
Sorry…the post in composition vanished before my eyes. Lets try again.
I was following up on your comment about Levin and the RINO rants:
My friend was telling me there would be no difference between Obama and McCain because McCain was a RINO….I replied that I was sure if McCain had been elected in 2008 he would have…
Given his first policy speech from Cairo to the Muslim world.
Taken a global apology tour for America’s exceptionalism.
Bowed to every autocrat on the planet.
Appointed an overtly racially polarizing Attorney General
Undermined the stealth upgrade for the B-52
All but destroyed the Joint Strike Fighter program
Filed a suit against Arizona’s immigration law
Used the EPA to block every attempt at domestic energy production
Blocked Boeing’s move to South Carolina
Sent Churchill’s bust back to the UK.
Initiated the sale of guns to drug cartels to destroy the 2nd amendment
Passed McCain care and initiated death panels….
Well, we get the idea. The list could go on almost indefinitely.
There is no perfect candidate, and like it or not there are two viable parties. We frequently have to decide between the lesser of two evils. But these guys who rant about RINO’s and say there is no difference between them and the Democrats are a grave danger to defeating the current incumbent. The purity test is a sure way to initiate a circular firing squad.
I agree. But even if Comrad Obama does’t share a stage with Newt, the latter will cut him up from a distance. Newt’s comment that Obama. “can use his teleprompter” in a debate with him drew blood. Effective ridicule can be deadly, but it takes sensitivity and talent. Newt has it.
Mr. Malone, I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my 40+ years of voting – went Libertarian a couple of times until I realized I was wasting my vote.
“Master debaters Kerrey and Gore”
Are you kidding me? The only ones who think those mental midgets are master of anything are the sycophants on tv shows like The View, Today, Good Morning America, and everyone at MSNBC & CNN.
If you don’t think that there is an agenda in the media compare two recent events that have been covered in the media. The accusations against Herman Cain and those against John Edwards. The media pulled hamstrings to get unsubstantiated rumors against Cain on air while pretty much ignoring the Edwards fiasco. John Edwards even stands a good chance of going to jail for his little afair and all the major media knew of Edwards situation while the campaign was still taking place in ’08.
I’m a professional white woman, and I know that looks aren’t everything, but I also know that some women who are not up on current events will vote for looks. I also know that no candidate will be perfect, but I am sure any one of them will be better than Obummer. I like Newt, I like his confidence, and I really like his intelligence. I like his awareness of the Islamic threat, and the way he stands up for himself and America in a smart way. I will probably vote for him in the primaries. I’m asking my female co-workers to vote out Obama next year…every vote counts.
It was nice to see Gingrich eviscerate Scott Pelley. Pelley is the Ted Baxter of the American left. Utterly an empty vessel. No self respecting journalist could ever act like such a shill for the Democratic Party and the hard left without any effort to disguise his bias. Pelley is just that transparent and by corollary, just that ridiculous. I only wish Gingrich would have asked him if he was lying about the claim that the act to kill that Al Qaeda foot soldier was illegal or if he was simply ignorant of the law. Missed opportunity I suppose. I don’t know that Pelley actually believes or even understands the ‘questions’ he asks frankly. Most likely it’s just an implanted microphone he is able to listen to while he mouths the nostrums of the left while attempting to appear articulate. At a minimum, it’s good memorization I suppose. You can almost imagine Pelley finishing a point with a comment about where to turn his gaze as the microphone in his ear is repeated exactly as he’s directed to move. Honestly, he may actually be the the first American android journalist. Talk about your mind numbed robot.
the video clip you posted is NOT Newt “defenestrating” anyone. it’s the clip where he talks about it being ok to kill enemies of the US. a fine clip–but not the one advertised.
No, it fits perfectly — I was referring to the job Newt did on CBS anchortool Scott Pelley. See the second definition of the word at Merriam-Webster.
I don’t think it enlightening to speak of the women’s or white women’s vote as though it were the vote of a homogeneous bloc. Rather, why not speak of the married women’s or unmarried women’s vote. If I remember correctly, Republicans tend to gain the majority of married women’s vote, while Democrats gain the votes of unmarried women. Understandable, actually. The Democrats redistribute income via a variety of methods — transfer payments and affirmative action, for example. Married women know that the money redistributed is taken from their families and that affirmative action is at the expense of their husbands. Not everyone and everywhere, of course, but that’s the thrust of Democrat policy preferences.