Florida: Why Gingrich Lost Big and What’s Next
For a supposedly smart guy, Newt Gingrich made a bonehead error in Florida that not only cost him that state but almost certainly any serious chance of the Republican nomination. And in so doing, he, almost idiotically, undercut the very thing that had made his candidacy successful in the first place.
After his solid victory in South Carolina, Gingrich did not continue the obvious strategy that got him there – running against Barack Obama by presenting himself to Republican voters as the great orator and thinker who could bring down the noxious incumbent, the man who rose above internecine intra-party squabbles for the greater good of his country.
Instead, he did the exact opposite. He spent the balance of his time in Florida running against Romney when he had already beaten the former governor in South Carolina. Talk about dumb. Newt let his personal antipathy overwhelm his good sense. He played defense about the picayune and the irrelevant when he should have played offense on the philosophical and substantial.
No wonder Gingrich’s poll numbers dropped and dropped. What the Republican electorate cares about is Obama and who can beat him. Newt took his eye off the ball, wasted time and demeaned himself attacking Romney — not the least of which was an extraordinarily vicious (not to mention untrue) accusation that Romney denied kosher food to Holocaust victims.
Just ten days ago I asked the question on this site: “Will Newt Gingrich Grow Up — And Win?” Unfortunately, we got the answer sooner than we expected.
Now I know Gingrich fans (and I was one, if you read the column referenced above) are going to say that Romney played dirty first, so Newt had to. Nonsense. If that’s what Gingrich thought, he was far less smart the we give him credit for. He might be a big thinker (at least for a politician), but he’s also a thin-skinned sucker. He should have taken a breath and stayed completely on the high road, keeping whatever “vision thing” he had focused on the big rodeo in November.
If I, with no more political experience than running for junior high school president, knew something so apparent, surely Newt did. But he was unable to follow through on it, unable to keep his cool.
I would agree, if there were any indication at all that Romney intended to attack Obama with half of the viciousness that he turned upon Gingrich. There is no such indication—nor is there any indication whatever that Romney would truly bend his efforts towards undoing the Obama damage. Indeed, Norm Coleman has just said that Obamacare “would not be repealed.”
Buzz, with respect. What are you talking about?
No indication that Romney will not attack Obama? Really? The indication that Romney will go scorched earth on Obama is that HE HAS GONE SCORCHED EARTH ON EVERYONE SO FAR. What makes you think he won’t do it to Obama?
No indication that Romney won’t roll-back Obamaism? Really? Romney has said that he will probably be a one-term President because he intends to roll back all of Obama’s damage. What makes you think he is lying?
Norm Coleman? The dude that lost to Al Franken? Really? Norm Coleman says Obamacare won’t be repealed, so thats the end of the story? Norm Freaking Coleman?
Now understand, I live in Florida and I voted for Newt. But your comments about Romney are laughable.
Norm Coleman is working with Romney, so his words carry some weight. Romney’s refusal to back off his defense of Romneycare, model for Obamacare, also carry some weight.
McCain clawed his way to the front of the Republican pack last time around, and then lay down and let Obama walk all over him. There is little reason to believe Romney would not/will not do the same. Romney manages to sound phony even when he’s telling the truth. He arouses as much passion as cold week-old mashed potatoes. You think that the Checked Shirt Man is going to marshall his legions of sleepwalkers and win out over President Gutsy Call? Ain’t happening. Romney is a wet fart who is next in line. I will vote for him, because I would vote for the Energizer Bunny (pink though he is) over Barack Obama. But I’ve seen the way Republican sleepwalk campaigns work before.
Although I will vote for anyone over Obama, I think you truly don’t get Romney. He’s an awkward politician because he basically isn’t a politician. However, he’s a fierce competitor- his life is a track record of a very ambitious, motivated, possibly ruthless individual. He’s not worth 250+ million dollars for nothing. He didn’t compete at Harvard with honors for nothing, not withstanding all the suck-ups there. Romney is the boy-scout ken doll who will scalp you while smiling- that’s one reason why he was so hated in 2008. How could such a “nice” guy be so ruthless? well, ask Gingrich now. Some accuse Romney of having no core, which I think is nonsense, and Limbaugh is convinced Romney will do a McCain and lay down and die for Obama, which is nonsense, also. He’s much, much more calculating, fierce, and competitive than people realize, even Obama. I think he will (if he wins the nomination) go after Obama tenaciously, ruthlessly, publically, and to his face. Politicians are used to being brown-nosing opportunists smiling for the public, while successful businessmen/investors can tell you to your face very bad, disappointing, or negative things. Obama doesn’t like public confrontations- he’s too wimpy. Romney won’t care- I promise you. He’ll tell Obama off to his face- just in a different style than Gingrich, definitely not as eloquent or as enjoyable, absolutely not standing-ovation worthy, but Romney will definitely and take it to Obama to his face.
Barnett: I completely agree with you. In his victory speech tonight, Romney was gracious to his competitors (notably missing in Gingrich’s speech) and then he pivoted and whacked Bammy good and solid for the next 15 minutes. He will torch Obama, particularly if Obama and co. do the lying crap we expect to see from them. Beyond that he has a great organization and he raises money like Midas. He may not win, but he will run one hell of a campaign.
To Black Bart, just below this entry: My reading of Romney is that he originally had a position, and then he changed it to what it is now (certainly the case in the abortion issue, probably on gay marriage). Since then he hasn’t changed. So maybe he’s a flipper, or if you prefer, a flopper, but there isn’t any “flip-flop”. John Kerry and Newt on the other hand, could show a beached bass a few moves on this front.
From your lips to God’s ears.
It’s not that Romney lies, exactly. It’s just that he changes his mind, a lot. And strangely enough this seems to occur at the most politically opportune times.
In reply to Jafco above: Wasn’t Romney anti-abortion when he arrived in Boston? Then when he ran for the Senate he changed his mind and became pro-abortion. Since running for the Republican nomination he changed again to anti-abortion. Flip-flop-flip. Is another flop in the cards? Stay tuned.
To Black Bart… actually, it IS that Romney lies – certainly his negative ads do. Which is why I respectfully – but completely – disagree with Mr. Simon.
Romney killed Newt with negative ads in Iowa. They WORK. Romney mistakenly coasted in South Carolina, but brought out the big guns again in Florida. Because they WORK. Newt’s 300 negative ads compared to Romney’s 14,000 negative ads. Anything said long and loudly enough is believable, no matter how untrue. “Tricky Mitt” will become a catch-phrase as time goes on, I fear.
We are taught that a person should always be on the offense, not the defense. But in this case – nonsense. Those ads are WORKING. That’s why Newt lost, not because he’s dumber than a high schooler. He said, in describing his lackluster debate performance, that he was shellshocked by the smears and I don’t blame him. These ads were coming from a fellow Republican, not Obama liberals.
Romney has been running for president a long time, with a huge organization, huge money, and the support of a huge chunk of the establishment.
When these ads are WORKING, the suggestion is for Newt to stay on the high road? Good luck with that.
As far as Romney’s chances in the general election? Good luck with that too. Obama has the White House podium, the race card, the entitlement carrot to buy votes, legions of fervent followers, the lapdog media, around a billion dollars… and on and on.
Romney will be crushed. Soundly crushed because soooo many of us barely have enough enthusiasm to pull the lever for him, let alone campaign and fight for him.
I DON’T believe the polls that show Romney doing okay against Obama. Because Obama hasn’t unleashed on Romney yet. In fact, even the MSM hasn’t unleashed on Romney. (remember Newsweek attacking Michele Bachmann? The skewering of Cain on unsubstantiated accusations? The ex-wife interview on Gingrich?)
Obama will run against the “country club, wall street, corporate Republican rich guy.” And when it comes to Bain Capital, Romney will be completely pulverized. Study up on Bain. It will probablhy cost us the election if Romney is the nominee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
Mitt is the creature of the corrupt GOP establishment. They would rather lose than run a conservative. One must not upset the apple cart nor chase the money changers from the temple. Soros would be okay with Romney. It’s far from over.
Just one little thing:
His track record.
Gingrich? Really? He is the answer to all our problems? He is the Republican version of Bill Clinton. He wasn’t dropped as Speaker because he was too conservative. He supported the health insurance mandate that is the centerpeice of Obamacare. He supports Nancy Pelosi’s quest to save the planet from the free market. Gingrich was ahead in the Florida polls until he started his hysterical personal attacks against Romney–criticizing him from the left. Actual Republican voters changed their mind and supported Romney. Do you think the “Republican establishment” used mind-altering gamma rays to get them to do that? Are you really going to pout and let Obama get reelected because Republican voters prefer Romney over Gingrich?
One by one, let’s look at what you said.
Many people would argue that the reason Newt left his position as Speaker was exact;u because he was too conservative for the comfort level of the liberal-leaning (for that time) Republican Congress. Oh, and by the way, that’s what happened to Winston Churchill after he essentially won the war for the English. His party leaned liberal afterward and booted him out because he was too conservative.
Newt supported the idea of a health insurance mandate. Well – Romney did too, enough to make it law. But that aside, you should read Rush Limbaugh’s comments about why the IDEA has tended to temporarily suck conservatives into it. It’s called personal responsibility.
Newt has said that sitting on the couch with Pelosi was very stupid. People keep forgetting the HUGE amount of time that Gingrich’s public life has spanned. There was actually a time when the only “credible” science pointed to climate warming. C’mon, even I believed it for a while.
He did attack Romney on Bain Capital. Bain Capital is actually Romney’s achilles heel through which Obama will completely crush him. It was NEVER an attack on capitalism, regardless of how many times you heard that said.
You should study up on Bain since it will cost us the election if Romney is the nominee. Here is an interview with a Venture Capitalist to get things started (link below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
Perhaps you should get your history straight. Winston Churchill did not lose the post war election because his party turned left; he was defeated by the left wing Labour party. Nor was he kicked out by his own “left leaning” party and in fact won the subsequent election and served as Prime Minister for 5 more years. These are simple facts which you won’t acknowledge because they don’t support your biased political thesis!
They both suck. But Mitt is the choice of the corrupt political aristocracy. Borrow, print, and spend to the end. And keep the peasants in their place.
I haven’t seen anybody saying that.
Not even his fans.
He’s just a lot less worse than Romney.
Gingrich has a history of what most would call acts of a conservative while in government. I am sure some of his votes were compromises as they would be anyomne who served six terms in the house. However there is no denying he helped engineer the GOP gaining the majority in the house for the first time in 40 years and that he is the only person in my lifetime to guide us to a balanced budget. This was done with a Democrat President. Who else reformed welfare at the federal level? When you compare and contrast Romneys governance to that of Gingrich. Romney looks more like Obama in white face than a conservative.
Norm Coleman represents Norm Coleman. Do you not recall, in one of the recent debates (SC maybe, or one before that) the moderator said to Romney that one of his surrogates had said something. Mitt said he completely disagreed with whatever it was, that was not his position. The moderator was almost shocked: “You disagree with one of your advisers?” “Yes” was the curt answer.
You say it as if this showed strength of character and independence on the part of the Mittens. To me, it smacks of the most obnoxiously craven say-anything opportunism. Tomato. Tom-ah-to.
Was that the debate where he claimed that he was unaware of the ad that attacked Gingrich on Spanish, where the played in endorsement at the end of the ad?
Or was it the debate where he denied any company of Bain’s ever taking medicare money (a flat out lie)?
Or was it the debate where he claimed that all of his investments were through a blind trust (another lie)?
Or was it the debate where he claimed that he did not know about his Swiss and Cayman bank accounts?
Or was it the debate where he claimed that he only supported Tsongas because there was no republican running at the time?
The only issue worth considering in the ’12 election is complete repeal of Romney/O’bama-Care. And, as anyone worthy of the “Conservative” label knows, Federal control of medical practice in any way is unConstitutional, you know that anyone who mentions repeal-and-replace is a Leftist agent-of-influence. If you believe that Romney will repeal Obama-Care in any meaningful way, you are stuck on stupid. The fact that Coleman lost to Franken doesn’t mean that he’s stupid — it means that he’s a RINO. Romney will no more carpet-bomb O’bama that McCain did. Senor Juan McCain was happy to run scorched-earth against other GOP-ers in the primary, but then after he got the nomination, he carpet-bombed a go-along-to-get-along conservative guy who mentioned O’bwana’s middle name in a speech intro. Romney will do the same, because, as a crypto-Leftie, his real enemies are always on the Right, never the left.
Rommney won’t even call Obama a socialist. He’s a wimp. We need Newt. I can’t stand his stammering during the debates.
is Simon a Romney supporter?
Mr. Simon may end up voting for Mittens, but he has the decency to be unhappy and not-at-all-pleased about it.
Try reading the article.
It may be early, but given the above — and what happened in Florida — it’s time, as we do in Hollywood, to say “It’s a wrap!” to the Republican nomination and get down to the big show. It’s more than the economy, stupid, this time. It’s our country.
I respectfully disagree … “wrapping” this now would simply teach the GOP Establishment that they can continue with their politics-as-usual. As flawed as Gingrich is, the Establishment’s attitude that they can ram “their guy” down our throats and continue to play their virtual-reality games on our dime is a FAR greater problem, that calls for interdiction.
And besides, Romney gets what, 50 delegates from this? Phuleeze. For once, let’s get past the horse race and demand some quality of governance, instead!
What planet are you people living on where you think that a former speaker of the House and Fannie Mae lobbyist is not “the establishment”?
Newt is working AGAINST the desires of the GOP Establishment for a smooth primary … which they want, because they think they can win by the same old smoke-and-mirrors of politics-as-usual.
They are more interested in preserving their positions and power, than they are in promoting the fundamental changes we need to make to get this nation back on track.
They refuse to challenge, at any level of vigor, what I see is the fundamental problem in this nation: the outsourcing of our responsibility, resources, and authority as individuals to them and their Democrat counterparts, under the assumption that they will solve our problems FOR us. In order to win, they will gloss over, ignore, or even promote policies that perpetuate this fallacy.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly shown indications that he will go right along with this … and frankly, I don’t have much hope that Newt, once in office, wouldn’t do the same, given his history … a history that led me to leave the GOP in 1998 and go independent.
What I am hoping for is to see BOTH of them, and the GOP Establishment, stymied … and another leader that values our future more than securing a “win” by politics-as-usual rise up in a brokered convention, tell America the unvarnished TRUTH, and lead us away from both the virtual reality of politics-as-usual, and the Progressive fallacies that has infected both parties to the point of becoming conventional wisdom.
They refuse to challenge, at any level of vigor, what I see is the fundamental problem in this nation: the outsourcing of our responsibility, resources, and authority as individuals to them and their Democrat counterparts, under the assumption that they will solve our problems FOR us
If you think that Newt Gingrich, of all people, is going to oppose this then you are badly mistaken. Gingrich was pushing the idea of the “individual mandate” just a few years ago. Newt Gingrich was sitting with Nancy Pelosi and calling for a cap-and-trade bill, taxing carbon dioxide, just three years ago. What on Earth makes you think that he is the man to lead a movement to return authority to individuals? He’s never even pretended to be such a thing.
What I am hoping for is to see BOTH of them, and the GOP Establishment, stymied … and another leader that values our future more than securing a “win” by politics-as-usual rise up in a brokered convention.
There is so much wrong with that. It’s extremely unlikely that we can arrive at a brokered convention, for various reasons. But even if we did have one, who brokers a brokered convention? I’ll tell you who – the exact same Republican National Committee (aka “the establishment”) which you’re supposedly so hostile to. And then what? The candidates people have actually voted for are discarded, and some figure the RNC likes (lets say Mitch Daniels) is selected instead. That’s not the path to victory in November, it’s the path to losing the House.
And if, by some fantastic miracle, we end up with President Daniels, he’s not going to “return authority to individuals”.
There is so much wrong with that.
Not as much as there is in maintaining the status quo.
A brokered convention might just be the slap-in-the-face the GOP Establishment needs … keep in mind that “their” choice still has to be approved by the DELEGATES to the convention. They can’t just select someone and move on without their approval.
If the status quo is not shaken up now, we will continue our slide into decline. Winning alone is not enough … and given the Romney campaign’s big-money/mass-media ways and Mr. Romney’s history, I don’t think they are truly interested, let alone motivated, to lead the way in shaking up the status quo of governance in a way that puts quality of governance above the narrow interests of institutional parties.
Right now, the GOP Establishment reminds me of the Scot nobles in Braveheart … as William Wallace described them in the movie:
You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank’s table that you’ve missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.
Romney was one of the most liberal governors of one of the most liberal states in American history. He passed co2 emission limits, he passed health insurance mandates and he supported judges over-ruling parents when it comes to abortion for under-age daughters.
This week he announced support for automatic minimum wage increases and has adopted class warfare by focusing on the middle-class.
Why do I get the feeling so many voters what to vote for the rich, sexy liberal rather than the conservative old frump?
As bad as Romney is, he’s a lot better than Newty. If I have to vote for a RINO, I’d just as soon it wasn’t an amoral, hypocritical RINO, like the Newtster.
While I may vote for Romney in the general, I will never, ever “rally around” him.
Please don’t mix that up.
Personally, I hope Newt does stay all the way to the convention and will support him to that end.
my main concern with mitt is will he be like McCain and give the election away.
in 2008 when McCain stopped campaigning and went back to dc to vote instead of
beating the hustler in chief. you know that come late October there will be a manufactured crisis, what will mittens do?
i just don’t trust the guy – why has he been running for 12 years what is his real motive, teapartyers want to know!
The comparisons to McCain and Dole never make any sense with Romney – both were angry, ill tempered old men that spent their lives in the legislature. That sounds more like Gingrich (and Paul is at least friendly)
By contrast Romney is not a career politician, and while I guess he’s 60, he looks better than a lot of 40 year olds.
In what alternate reality is Romney not a career politician? That assertion is laughable on its face!
Dole was not an angry man. He has a wonderful sense of humor and I don’t think his handlers let his real personality come through. He was a different era Republican, a reasonable man who recognized that sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want. Jon Kyl, senator feom Arizona is like that also. He would be a good candidate and a good president but he doesn’t have the charisma required these days. The current GOP “rank and file” doesn’t like anyone who deviates from their agenda.
I can’t help but think that McShame’s chain got yanked by somebody, probably about either something personally scandalous or something left over from the Keating Five controversy. You don’t just fold up a Presidential Campaign that is within striking distance of a win for no reason. Somewhere between the dramatic announcement that he was “suspending” the Campaign and the vote, he simply struck his colors. And, the intensely combatative Clintons meekly struck their colors in the Democrat Primary. Since I believe that Comrade Obama is merely a front for some very rich and powerful people who’d like to see the US no longer have the ability to act unilaterally, it would make sense that people rich and powerful enough to buy a Presidency have the resources to possess silver bullets to use on the likes of McCain and even the Clintons. Unfortunately, that may indicate that they think they have a silver bullet for Romney as well, and, frankly, it wouldn’t take much. The electorate is so ignorant and distrustful of banking and finance that it would be pretty easy to make Romney into Simon Legree.
What I’d like to know, Art, is what do these rich, powerful people have to gain by having the US toppled from its position of being able to react unilaterally?
AFA the Clintons are concerned, I think it might have been more of a case of a quid pro quo than that of just waving the white flag.
I don’t disagree with your basic premise, but one of your examples is a mistake. “The Clintons” didn’t surrender anything.
Bill was the campaign genius, and he was NOT in charge. Bill was persona non grata in the campaign HQ. Hillary was going to do this HER way and prove she was as good as Bill.
Only she wasn’t. Not even close. She bungled the campaign. Badly. But she didn’t forfeit.
She got crushed by a skilled campaigner who held the race card.
But back to your basic premise: Look at the campaign, or rather, the NON campaign that Bush 41 ran against Bill Clinton.
Congratulations Roger, I believe you finally get it. I hope it doesn’t escape you when the next straw man is trotted out to audition for the part of slayer of cultists, as one or more surely will be.
Mitt Romney is the best chance available as of now to rid the mation of the Marxist. What’s not to like about that?
As for the three points:
1. Agree, but Obama does have to run with a record this time which greatly complicates things for him.
2. The price at the gas pump will carry more weight then media spin. Obama is screwed when it comes to the shape of the economy.
3. This worries me. I could see Obama rashly going to war to try to save his neck.
2. The price at the gas pump will carry more weight then media spin. Obama is screwed when it comes to the shape of the economy.
Well, we’ll see. The cost at the pump has been pretty high for a long time, even before Obama. And the stock market just had a record January (someone thinks the economy is improving). And unemployment is “down” to 8.5%. While this is all probably BS, it’s BS that will be useful to the MSM and they will make the most of it. Being even slightly blasé about this and making assumptions is a recipe for disaster.
Now that you are bringing up the economy. I just wanna point out that Gingrich is the only candidate who wants to repeal Sarbanes Oxley.
I know that the crowd on this board doesn’t have the brains to understand this. But the mark to market accounting rules introduced in Sarbanes Oxley both contributed in a deciding factor to the explosive effect of the Housing bubble and the subsequent liquidity shortage also known as the financial crises.
You’re blaming the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage fiasco on SOX??? Words escape me.
Couldn’t agree more. Moreover I’m bored with the anti-Romney schtick and ready to support Mitt wholeheartedly. He’s more than qualified and if he continues getting coached in campaigning and debating, he may just win in 2012.
1. It is over. Color Newt donions.
2. Stop worrying about whether Romney is this or that. He is the candidate, you didn’t run against him, and you don’t have the schtark to change the result.
Romney is a patriotic American, and that is more than you can say about Hussein.
3. Your choices are to back Romney and do everything within your power to get him elected, or to see Hussein in the White house for 4 more years, during which he will do his damnedest to wreck this country.
4. You have no choice. Deal with it.
It is over after four out of 50 states went to the primaries?
It is over after two states (NH, open primary, and FL, closed primary) out of the four voted Romney?
Do the other states not get a say?
How many delegates has Romney won? How many does he need?
Is this democracy in action?
Is it democratic when one candidate can outspend his opponents and can place 12,000 plus attack ads? If so – why not forgo all primaries and simply open the nomination to the highest bidder, in an auction?
Non-USA minds would really like to know …
The answer is, the GOP elite desperately want to convince everyone that it’s over and done, and are spinning madly in their attempt to do so.
On to Nevada, where Washington insider, Gingrich, will be trounced by pro- business job creator, Romney.
And with a 15% Morman population. On Newts side their is a 1% Jewish population and Sheldon Adleson
Listened to both Mitt and Newt’s speeches tonight. Both were good. Both were focused where they should be focused, defeating Obama. If only we had a little more of that this past week. Maybe then we might feel a bit more enthusiastic.
Well, living in Florida, you couldn’t turn on the television without seeing a negative ad, from Romney, against Newt. I’m not too sure that’s not going to hurt Romney coming up, because he’s still not getting the conservative vote and there are some conservative states coming up. I’m not quite sure Mitt plays well in Texas, and there are more delegates there than Florida.
Anyway, it does appear you can buy an election in Florida.
I’m not too sure that’s not going to hurt Romney coming up, because he’s still not getting the conservative vote
If “conservatives” are backing Gingrich over Romney, then either they are not actually conservatives or they are ignorant of the two mens records.
Actually its just an indicator of a lack of choice.
It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.
She’s still asleep.
As I told PJ Media fans last week, I was and still am a soft Newt supporter. However, it is 97% apparent to me that Mitt Romney is now the Republican nominee.
Therefore, I will do everything in my power to see that Mitt Romney is my President.
Let’s hope Romney can remain ruthless through November. Because I can assure you Obama and his lackeys from the media are going to be.
I respectfully disagree that it is time to call this race over, and not because I think Gingrich should be the nominee (or Romney for that matter, either).
One of the objections to Romney has been that the Establishment has been trying to foist Romney on the Republican electorate. Calling it a wrap now only reinforces that idea. Romney should have the opportunity to prove that he is not being foisted on anyone and Gingrich should have the opportunity to show that there is sufficient opposition to Romney that he can capture the nomination himself.
Pressuring Newt to quit only feeds fire to the argument to that party bigwigs are trying to silence the grassroots and leaves people disaffected. Let the race go on and prove beyond all doubt who the party wants. That’s why we have races is all 50 states and not just 4.
Either they’ll end up beating Romney or they’ll lose the race and the argument, but one way or the other the point will be settled.
After his solid victory in South Carolina, Gingrich did not continue the obvious strategy that got him there – running against Barack Obama by presenting himself to Republican voters as the great orator and thinker who could bring down the noxious incumbent, the man who rose above internecine intra-party squabbles for the greater good of his country.
Gingrich won in SC due to his (staged) attack on the media and John King, not because of his brilliant oratory and penetrating insights.
That is correct. I hate the leftist media almost as much as I hate the Communist in the White House. When Newt went ballistic on that media moron, I really enjoyed it. But I have been listening more closely to Newt lately, and I never hear any big ideas or substantial intellect. I just hear lots of adjectives strung together to sound like someone very intelligent is speaking to me. But after I parse the words, I realize that his magical debating skills amount to mostly thin skinned invective. I wish Mitt could light up his audiences with a little old fashioned revival like inspiration, but I realize he just isn’t that kind of a man. But he is thoughtful and he does speak with the air of a man who knows what he is doing, and that works for me. And I will work for him. Because I want my country back and he is our best chance to get it back. I know there are a lot of Republicans that are more emotive and more conservative, but when I compare him to Obama, Mitt is a slam dunk.
Jim Baker:
As you describe Newt, you could just as well be describing Obama. The shoes seems to fit both of them. And they’re ugly ass shoes.
The establishment don’t care who wins Newt or Romney. In all honesty Newt is the DC insider. This is why Tea Party Express was backing Newt. They also backed McCain on his senate run against a much more conservative candidate. This has been a strange election with the establishment split between two people. But it is easy to explain, Newt is claymore mine and when he blows there is a lot of collateral damage.
I do have to admit it was fun to watch Hanity kiss newts ass, while Rush was in the open minded. Lets not forget Beck who was on a search and destroy mission. When Palin and Beck on are different sides something is very wrong.
Newt let his personal antipathy overwhelm his good sense.
Just as, during his clashes with Bill Clinton, he made no effort to derail impeachment; quite the contrary. Instead of a laughingstock censured Clinton twisting in the wind for the remainder of his term, we had the party in the White House, against precedent, gaining Congressional seats during midterms–and we all but had President Al Gore.
Labradoodle wins Florida beauty contest.
GOP dogcatchers cart off Doberman to an uncertain future.
I hope Romney, if he indeed is the GOP candidate will surprise this voter. He’s knowledgable yes but am worried of him backing off Obama if/ when he has the guy against the ropes. Or down for the count for that matter.
Whereas Gingrich did show spunk recently, not only vs candidates but the sycophantic media as well.
Sure Gingrich flubbed big-time soon afterward, and know he’s not the ideal candidate but for a moment HE controlled the direction of the debate, questioning and momentum.
IMO it’d be easy to corner Obama. The ’08 Presidential debates were atrocious.
Obama was anything but specific, clear nor precise in his responses. Much akin to modern day Obama where EVERYWHERE the statement or similar thereof, ‘..President Obama didn’t provide as much detail or direction as expected in his (insert ANY speech)..’.
I wish to have the best go-to person for the debate’s ‘coup de grâce’.
Pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, unmentionable groveling, casting blame on faceless, nameless entities all the while accepting no blame and propping up the ever growing failure of the Fed as, ‘Savior’ for all problems has proven to be a failure of epic proportion.
I’d be pleased in returning an intelligent, pro-business, lead-from-the-front type leadership. Perhaps Romney has this. Time will indeed tell.
I am a lot less adverse to the Romney presidency than I was say a couple weeks ago because of personal realizations on my part.
However I will politely decline the invite to unite behind Romney. It’s still early yet and while Gingrich has cast some doubt in my mind about his presidency Romney has yet to draw me as a voter.
I did not accept that “I’m not X” arguments before and I won’t start now. Romney has a shot at making me a supporter. Key word being “Making”. I’m not going to give him squat till he works for it.
Pressuring Newt to quit only feeds fire to the argument to that party bigwigs are trying to silence the grassroots
Where on Earth does this idea that Newt Gingrich is the head of the plucky rebel alliance bravely taking on Emperor Romney and the Galactic Republican Empire come from? The man is the consummate DC insider! If people would stop obsessing about how “spunky” he is and look at his actual policy proposals, they’d see that he is this cycles John McCain.
It came from his “plucky” and rebel-sounding attack on the debate journalists in South Carolina.
Republicans need to get over this idea that anybody who pretends to say mean things to the media is their Messiah. (Let alone that they are “plucky”.)
He is the consummate DC insider AND the only person in modern history who has been able to cut spending and create a balanced budget in Washington. You think that’s easy? If it’s so easy to cut spending and create a balanced budget, why haven’t anybody done it before or after Gingrich was speaker? Not a single politician since Calvin Coolidge has been able to cut spending and produce a balanced budget, EXCEPT for Newt Gingrich.
How will Romney fare as president with a democrat senate? Will he fight tooth and nail to cut spending and save the republic?
not a mitt supporter, but…
remember the ‘ceiling’ romney was holding at 25%?
47% shattered it. only one poll among six offered that he would be near 47%(suffolk).
this was a red state. does anyone believe that romney doesn’t clear 50% in more than 20 blue states?
the polling units were actually quite good on predicting the actual support for all the candidates, with the exception of romney.
if he outperforms on the current tie he has with obama…
the wh, may pretend they want romney, but he is the one gop candidate that independents aren’t scared to death of. even if they want romney, they didn’t want him to garner momentum.
winning a primary is a big deal. just look at the mileage that barack obama got out of ‘reportedly’ managing his campaign. winning with authority, vanquishing newt, will lead to a permanent bounce.
he’ll pick a veep that excites the base, as did mccain.
still the non-Romney vote can beat him, so let’s the battles go on
It’s obvious to me that beating Obama to many on the right isn’t as important as beating up on Romney. If Romney is the candidate I predict a huge defection. This has been going on at places like Free Republic forever. They don’t call us wingnuts for nothing. Watch out for anti-Mormon smears. They’re cropping up everywhere.
Sometimes you have to wonder if a lot of this isn’t being orchestrated from the White House basement?
Granny Jan, what is just as important as removing Obama from office, is replacing him and as much of Congress as possible with people who will GOVERN well, after the election. That means putting honesty and hard choices ahead of the care-and-feeding of the party.
Romney, and the GOP Establishment that is solidly behind him, have not shown me, and a LOT of others, that they get this … all indications tell me that they still think that winning is the be-all-end-all, and that they can go right back to the virtual reality of politics-as-usual after the election.
We no longer have the economic cushions we had in years past, that allowed us to simply check (D) or (R) and go about our business, thinking that the career politicians and the party professionals behind them would mind the Federal store FOR us. There are areas now where we need SERIOUS policy reversals that will be hard to sell to those used to having the government do so much FOR them, or we will slide even deeper into decline as a nation, and find it harder and more time-consuming to get out.
We HAVE to get it right, this time … not only on Election Day, but starting at 12 Noon on 20 January 2013.
if romney’s the nominee and he wins… nothing is going to change.. it will be business as usual.. and that’s if he wins.. which he won’t.. i’m not holding my nose again… let ‘em suffer the fools..
Is it possible to become a Republican president, if you can’t energize the base?
Are there any examples of this in the past?
Seriously? Bush 1 and Bush 2
Seriously? Bush 1 and Bush 2
Wise question. Especially when Obama’s destruction machine is soooo good. How is Mitt going to compensate for Obama’s hold on the MSM, the White House pulpit, the race card, legions of fervent followers? I guess by … well, by attracting independents. Right. All that without a solid base of really, really *enthusiastic* supporters. Sure, that’ll do it.
If defeating Obama isn’t enough to excite the base, it’s not a base. This is not a “I don’t like you guys so I’m taking my ball and going home” election.
From the nature of feedback I see coming from many quadrants, that isn’t the case with many. Hopefully Romney will choose an “exciting” veep to help get more people off the couch on election day.
JL, you may find this article most interesting. It’s about the subject of your question.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Conversation-With-a-Florida-Tea-Partier-That-Should-Scare-Every-Republican
The two Bushes, and Eisenhower to boot. To win, nearly any candidate (from either party) has to avoid totally alienating both the base AND the squishy center. This means that a successful candidate usually won’t be thrilling to either the base or the center, since to energize one is often to repel the other.
The good news for Republicans is that O. hasn’t yet done much to mollify the center for November. Temperamentally, he might be unwilling to; certainly a lot of his inner circle would bridle at the idea. If a Democrat largely concedes the center, a Republican can snap up a lot of votes even without pleasing the center (and vice versa).
I’m not willing to give up on Newt just yet, nor willing to embrace Romney. One insight Gingrich has that Romney misses is that we don’t live on just one Earth, that 99+% of the energy and raw materials in our solar system are not on Earth. Decades of foolish politicians have kept the U.S. from expanding our resources outwards, and Mr Gingrich is the only pol in this race who seems to have any grasp of this understanding. Romney doesn’t seem to have the slightest clue of the energy and material possibilities surrounding us, calling such foresight “zany” even as he limits us to resource extraction only on Earth. Much better to tear open mountains on the moon than those in the western U.S.A. or elsewhere on Earth! So I’ll be a Newt supporter as long as he’s got a chance; then, if it must be, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Mitt under the Instapundit syphilitic camel option, i.e. better such a camel than any more of Hussein.
“We must be vigilant in our analysis and opposition to this. This will take great communication skills and a concerted effort on all our parts to make the truth clear to a public that is being so constantly deluded. A united party will be a necessity — and the sooner the better.”
Why the first person plural?
Doesn’t bode too well re objectivity, does it.
There are good points in this article, but 2 states do not decide for 48 others who the nominee will be. That’s Democrat mind trick that everyone needs to stop falling for. Another thing missed here, is that even with all Newt’s screw ups, 54% voted “no” to MittCare Obamney. This is not over at all, unless Newt does not learn from Florida’s results. In the meantime, I am sick of so called experts telling me that my state nor anybody else’s counts for a fart in the wind after sheep in New Hampshire, or that little swamp called Florida have decided for me.
I completely disagree, Mr Simon. Comebacks happen all the time. I’m not ready to throw in the towel. It ain’t over. It’s simply not. Every comeback leaves everyone astonished. Newt Gingrich’s campaign was supposedly over in the summer of 2011. And again, it’s supposedly over. I’m not buying it. Newt’s speech after the Florida primary was very positive. And he did take the fight back to Obama. He hit many key issues during that speech.
Me, I’m a Florida voter. I wrestled hard with this one, right up to the previous day. I have cheered a lot of things that Newt (and Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum) has said in the debates. While Romney is not perfect by any means, I ended up pulling the lever for him for three reasons:
1) Newt is a progressive, and has said so. He believes in the power of intellectuals in charge, and their ideas, to Do Big Things. He just wants a different set of intellectuals. This is not conservatism.
2) Newt is temperamentally unsuited to be President, and our good host points out some of the reasons why. Romney poked hard at Gingrich, sometimes unfairly (which was reciprocated), maybe because that’s in Romney’s nature and maybe because he knew it would work. It is dangerous for a President to be this easily manipulated.
3) I think Romney is much more likely to be able to swing the independent voters in the general than Newt. Newt’s negatives are very, very high, and his radical ideas will just scare people who aren’t paying much attention.
Job 1 this time has to be defeating Obama. If we want to influence the agenda to make it truly conservative, we need to focus on the House and Senate. Just give me a President who won’t veto what a Tea Party Congress proposes, and I think that applies to all of them. So who is most likely to beat Obama? Romney.
Who says there will be a Tea Party congress? It might be a Democrat senate.
How will Romney handle a Democrat senate? Will he compromise and make meager spending cuts like 5 trillion over 10 years in less proposed spending increases?
We already know how Gingrich handled a Democrat president. Gingrich let the government shut down until Clinton caved in and agreed to spending cuts. Will Romney have the nerve? How do you know for sure? You hope he will, because he says so right? Does Romney make good on his word? What hopes did you have for the other Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown? How did that go?
Newt Gingrich and Calvin Coolidge are still the only 2 people in the 20th century who actually delivered a balanced budget, not just talked about it.
Who says there will be a Tea Party congress? It might be a Democrat senate.
If the Republican (whoever he is) wins the White House, Republicans will take the Senate.
Gingrich let the government shut down until Clinton caved in and agreed to spending cuts.
Gingrich didn’t actually do that singlehandedly. The moral of the story is, elect conservatives to Congress if you want smaller government. It’s Congress which controls the size of government, not the executive.
Gingrich didn’t do that at all. Clinton shut down the government and blamed Congress for it. Then Congress backed down and passed a budget more to Clinton’s liking. The Republicans caved in because they got blamed, by Clinton and in the media, for the shutdown. That is why they cave in every time there is a threat of a shutdown today. They are afraid of being blamed again, and with good reason.
I absolutely agree for the party. I am an Independent and will vote Romney. There is way that Obama should be elected again. The first time was ignorance, but the second time is stupidity. Gingrich, is hurting the party, because he would rather take anyone down with him then to win the election over Obama. You can see his hate comments through and through. This country is in the middle and Clinton’s re-election has proven this. Romney will bring moderate and conservative democrats to his side during the election in November. This country does lean right (Gingrich) or left like (Obama). This country wants a leader who will work with Congress to move this country forward and stop the partisan bickering that is hurting this country. Even WP stated Obama is the most partisan president this country has seen. Gingrich will be just the opposite of Obama and that will not bring this country together.
Newt is too hated and mistrusted nationally to get elected. Newt vs Obama, Obama wins. And trying to reconcile South Carolina with Florida is futile. Romney lost South Carolina because his is (1) a Mormon and (2) a Yankee.
The short and victorious war to appease the dolists. Sounds like something I’ve read about before, like in Science Fiction. Too bad it seems like it’s going to be fact if Obama needs it to be.
The Unstable Newtrino lost Florida when he forced Marco Rubio to reprimand him….twice.
As Roger so ably points out, the Newtonian Implosion was always lurking in the background, ready to threaten to blow up the “not Romney” chances at any moment. Maybe he has surrounded himself with a bunch of yes-men, who will not walk out on him en masse for self-inflicted, disastrous, ill-conceived lunacy…or maybe he’s so undisciplined and out of control that he polarizes everyone and everything he touches.
Little difference of lessening consequence.
The Unstable Newtrino has now moved on to the permanent phase of The Days of Whine and Ruses.
He is running as a McCain/Obama hybrid. He’s the “maverick” who is “anti-establishment”…putatively Republican, but who attacks Republican cornerstones with hammer and chisel…and then blames everyone else for his shortcomings in an ill-tempered display of reckless, misdirected anger.
A man who has a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany’s…complaining about someone else’s success in the free market, is a losing proposition on multiple levels.
Whining about mythical “establishment dragons” to slay and musing about Jurassic Parks and sex on the moon…are probably not the best strategies for a guy COMING IN to the picture with a reputation for flights of fancy. Worse, a guy who has seemingly polarized nearly everyone he has ever worked with, including his entire “starter campaign” staff…or “starter” marriages…going nuclear negative simply reinforces the brand damaging he needed to overcome…not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Smarmy pandering, hurling incredible charges that are easily disproved…because “Mitty started it, Mitty started it, kiss my shoe and make it true!!!” is not Presidential, not effective…and as the younger generation would say…not just a little bit gay. (in the non-sexual context of the word)
Throwing a hissy fit and whining about how much more money the other guy has raised, or how the “Republican establishment” is doing some “double secret probation” invisible action to not “allow” him to win (on the heels of a win, in SC…huh????)is the theater of the absurd.
EVERY “non-Romney” has had the lead and BLOWN IT THEMSELVES. But the momentum never went back to Romney. It went elsewhere. The Days of Whine and Ruses is not a strategy, it’s a surrender.
Blaming the free market, stroking Nancy Pelosi’s knee, being for the individual mandate, attacking Paul Ryan, …all signs of a lack of discipline, erratic and unstable behavior.
There is NO enthusiasm for Promney. None. The Newtonian Implosion has virtually guaranteed his nomination, however. Congratulations.
The ONLY hope for someone better, is a brokered convention. Gingrich may have single-handedly eliminated that last hope. Anyone wish to bet that he continues to destroy the Republican Party, the free market and all hopes of beating Obama just to serve his own ego? Takers?
“Takers?”
He can try that (go nuclear on the Republican party) but I don’t think he will get too far with it. Now that the voters are coalescing around Romney, the money going to Gingrich’s campaign warchest is going to dry up, IMO. I have a feeling the electorate is tired of all the infighting that has been going on & is anxious for it to stop. Everyone is painfully aware now that it’s gonna be Romney no matter what. The establishment elites with all their money & influence has now been successful in forging the candidacy of their “golden boy.”
Now we can look forward to seeing how Romney’s strategy against Obama is going to play out. IMO, if Romeny goes soft on O a la McCain, I figure it’s AA rearing its ugly head (as I have stated before) with the plan to allow Obama to have his second term. I hope & pray I am wrong though. I want to see Romney go scorched-earth on O like he did on Gingrich. At least we know he has it in him to employ the veritable “politics of personal destruction” to serve his interests.
third party campaign in the general election.
The moon as America’s 51st state, that’s Gingrich’s “Dukakis in a tank” moment.
Honestly, I think it just so neatly exposes Gingrich’s “vision” for what it is, bluster, hot air to boost an ego.
I’m not too fond of Romney but the fact that Newt Gingrich is supposed to be the big conservative alternative just shows how pointless that whole endeavor to keep Romney from the nomination at any cost is.
Romney, who is unquestionably the least conservative candidate of the 4, won because Floridians are a bunch of fair-weather geriatrics
I don’t care, I never liked or trusted Gingrich, even when he said things I agreed with. I’m not very fond of Romney, either, but if he’s to be the Republican nominee, then so be it. I can’t imagine that, as president, he would ignore the will of the American people, show contempt for us, or go out of his way to alienate our allies, all of which Barack Obama has done without a backward glance.
Perfect.
First of all, Obama is not that hot shot at campaigning, he blind sided Hillary and caught her unprepared, the GOP candidate won’t be taken by surprise like Hillary was.
Secondly it is the economy, and Obama now has a record of failure, not just a bunch of high sounding sound bytes.
Finally, the electorate wants a responsible and experienced adult, not an Obama who whines and moans that all of his failures were caused by someone else.
This is also Newt’s biggest problem, Mitt did this, or Mitt did that, or the media attacked me, or the GOP establishment hates me, or the audience clapped too much, or the crowd didn’t applaud enough.
Laugh and the world laughs with you, whine, cry, and moan, and you do it alone!
This campaign season has been full of disapointment. I would like to support Newt but he has turned from issues to school yard name calling. Not edifying. The problem is, I don’t really have any confidence that Romney can beat Obama, not because Obama is so awesome but because Romney is so underwhelming. And he refuses to admit that Romneycare has not worked for the people of Masachusetts as it was promised. How is he going attack Obamacare the way it deserves?
According to an article in the Daily Rash, someone in the Gingrich campaign paid a man to stare at Mitt Romney “in an intimidating manner” during the debates. Looks like Newt’s playing hardball! http://www.thedailyrash.com/gingrich-campaign-denies-hiring-man-to-stare-at-romney-during-debate
Apathy will be the legacy of Romney’s carpet bombing
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/apathy-will-be-the-legacy-of-romneys-carpet-bombing/
…. Turnout is even worse for Romney when you dig down county by county as George Mason Univ. Prof. Michael McDonald did [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/theyre-just-not-that-in-t_b_1246896.html]
In counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.
….
“Newt let his personal antipathy overwhelm his good sense.” There is the first mistake; crediting Gingrich with good sense.
I think Newt would have been better served to have stuck to a “what I am going to do” line of campaigning rather than switching to “what the other guy does that is wrong” line. Everyone of the candidates has prior history and that’s not going to change.
I have been thinking and it seems that the crop of candidates essentially grew up politically in a progressive environment. That requires a certain amount of adaptation to operate and survive in it. You still get folks, who will fight the (at the time) Don Quixote fight, but they won’t have the constituency or influence to get anything done.
Now the electorate has been having some second thoughts about where the country is going but you go to elections with the politicians, especially national office, you have not the ones you want or would rather prefer. If the second thoughts do coalesce [probably mispelled] into a definite political faction/force and not a momentary ‘flash in the pan’ then we may start to see those Conservative type candidates that some people seem to want.
I have been thinking too that Congress is where the change has to occur. Change the way Congress thinks and you change a lot of things. In conventional wisdom, 2010 was a fluke, a bad reaction, and now we’ll see if 2012 repeats 2010, at least to some extent. If it does, and there is some evidence that current politicians fear that it may, then it may not matter who is President because if Congress can find the wherewithal to pass legislation and, if need be, override a veto, it can direct a lot of things with an opposing President being reduced to trying to delay things.
The only good thing I can think of about Romney is that he won’t be needing a contribution from me.
I tuned in last night when Newt was giving his speech. I hadn’t heard the results of the election, and I thought it was a victory speech. He was awesome, and he still has my support, including financial.
Regrettably, you’ve nailed it here. And I certainly don’t want a thin-skinned reactionary in the WH. Newt was my guy, but I’m afraid I’ve got to agree with you — and for the reasons highlighted. Nice piece. (P.S. I met you in D.C. at the Def. the Dream Summit. Formerly an editor for Evans & Novak, I would love to promote the cause here in Austin, Texas. Let me know if you need a writer/manager-type!) Best, Mary
So the other 46 states don’t matter? You pundits don’t like democracy much do you? How on earth is Romney going to run against Obama, or whoever he is, on healthcare? RomneyCare gave birth to ObamaCare which if implemented will change America forever. How about some rousing suggestions for Newt and Santorum on how they can build from Florida to deny Romney the nomination instead of this surrender weasel talk?
“Our Ideal Candidate” http://bit.ly/z5IP25
Newt’s a war monger, and has advocated bombing both North Korea, and Iran…as a sign of things to come, he has stated that he will fight cuts in Defense Spending. For those that aren’t aware, the U.S. spends more on defense than the next 14 countries COMBINED. a vote for Newt, is a vote for a war with Iran; as if we aren’t paying a high enough price being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://bit.ly/hNKDG6
Roger, how did you manage to take a wonderful collection of voices on the right and turn it into a one-note beat for the establishment/GOP? It’s really very heartbreaking. You used to be all about grass roots. But somewhere along the line your writers became all about supporting certain candidates and belittling other candidates and their supporters. Granted those candidates have varied but unfortunately the attitude of the writers toward those that didn’t support the particular candidate didn’t. Smug, arrogant and occasionally insulting is no way to build support a particular candidate. (I’m not referring to you in particular, just you as editor).
I see you finally broke down & hired someone who supports Newt. I suppose it’s better than the pathetic faux Newt support a few other writers have had to fake. But it’s too little too late.
PS Most Newt supporters don’t think he’s a great candidate, it’s just we’re conservatives, we hope & pray he’s electable and the alternative who is a liberal is not acceptable yet.
BUT NEWT: Reagan raised taxes 12 times, and still tripled the debt;
and his 1986 Amnesty unleashed devastating mass illegal immigration
http://bit.ly/hNKDG6
Who ever said that Newt was a conservative? Newt says it all the time and it gets repeated all the time but that doesn’t make it right. In trying to justify his association with Freddie Mac Newt said,
“Government-sponsored enterprises include, for example, telephone cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, federal credit unions. There are many different kinds of government-sponsored enterprises, and many of them have done very good things,”
The things Newt mentioned are coops, which are kind of mutual aid societies. Participants in these coops help each other, cover each other’s losses to some degree. Now one of the giant housing GSEs happens to have a mutual structure but it is not Fannie or Freddie it is the Federal Home Loan Banks, which have been around since 1930. And have not gone under yet.
Fannie and Freddie have a far different structure. They follow the structure of private gains but socialized losses, i.e., the stockholders win when these GSEs profit but taxpayers are on the hook when they have losses. Adam Smith noted how stupid such insider arrangements were in the Wealth of Nations. Newt was just another Washington insider doing what Washington insiders have always done: Get special deals that only Washington insiders get. This is not unlike what the insiders at Solyndra did in getting their sweetheart deals from the Department of Energy. I fail to see how Newt is a conservative. If it walks like a duck, it must be…
So the other 46 states don’t matter?
Newt failed to even get on the ballot in Missouri and Virginia, so they don’t matter.
Obama will eat Rommney up. Especially with the Rommneycare issue. Reagan was not suppose to win either.
I have, reluctantly, come to the same conclusion as Roger. I have two concerns, however. HRomney must make an effort to convince the Tea Party and independents that he is not in lock step with the RNC, and that may take some doing. And he must be clear that the objective is not just to take Obama out of office, but to repel the rising forces of doctrinaire Socialism and the hold they have taken on our Government. There are far too many who might vote for Obama but would never vote for a Socialist. And BO is very careful to not openly declare his allegiance to the cause.
A good article that I sadly believe is true. Newt took his eyes off the prize. He doesn’t have the money or organization to go toe to toe in a he said/ he said slugfest with Mr. Moneybags. I hope he may realize that. I noticed in the last debate he would turn his head and he did keep quiet for a while until Romney’s constant stabs overcame him. But he needs to just keep quiet and as was said above, Romney will come across as the infant in all of this. Maybe Palin, Perry and Cain can talk some sense into him. There is after all 46 more to go.
I don’t have any problem with the fact that Romney has a lot of wealth. I have spent my entire life trying to put as much distance as possible between the value of what I have produced and the value of what I have consumed. Good for Mitt Romney for having been so good at what I have aspired to accomplish. Why should I act like a socialist and try to punish him over his wealth? I am disappointed to see that so many people have unwittingly bought into this schtick.
Can we just get over the fact that they are both horrible choices? Mr. Simon, you neglect to address (as are most on OUR side)that the anti Romney vote is still quite high, which to me should have made Florida irrelevant. If Santorum dropped out (why he is there is a mystery to me anyway), I doubt much of his support shifts to Romney, which would make Gingrich the front runner. Santorum means well, I suppose, but is going to get Romney, the non-conservative, nominated. BTW, Romney should not have accepted an endorsement from that RINO McCain, just sayin’. Would have earned some respect from me if he had. Team Obummer must have rolled on the floor laughing on that one, especially when the old fool referred to Romney as Obama. But hey, Soros doesn’t see a difference anyway.
I don’t really have a particular affection for Romney (nor Newt now that he’s gone crazy again), but all of you people who are willing to stay home and let Obama win, this isn’t just about Barry O’Braindead.
It’s about Eric Holder.
It’s about Cass Sunstein.
It’s about Samantha Power.
It’s about Stephen Lerner, Andy Stern, Van Jones, Frances Piven, and CAIR.
It’s about the Flea Party, Steal-Your-Stuff, #Occupy, V For Vendetta Masked narcissists.
You’re willing to let them fully enact their _evil_ (there’s just no other word for it) agenda with nothing holding them back just because Obama’s Billion-Dollar destruction machine of Chicago Thuggery that he calls a campaign put the fear of God into Marco Rubio, Allen West, and Paul Ryan?
Mr. Simon, I agree you 100% (bet that’s a load off YOUR mind). I can’t stand Newt because of his character. He blew it big time. But I think there is still an outside chance that Romney could implode and Newt could step in.
Gingrich lost Florida because he’s simply not a good executive:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/02/gingrich_florida_defeat_why_newt_lost_.single.html
Gingrich is losing Nevada because he cant learn from his mistakes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/politics/gingrich-off-to-a-bumpy-start-in-nevada.html?_r=2
Unfortunately, even though I like Newt I have to agree. He is acting like one of the establishment politicians who fall into personality fights, attacking and trying to pull down their opponents instead of running on substance. It’s like they are biting one another and giving one another rabies and all running around foaming at the mouth. Very discouraging.