Rick Santorum scored some telling points against Mitt Romney on abortion and Obamacare, and Newt Gingrich tried to pile on, but at the end of the night, the former Massachusetts governor weathered the attacks with little damage.
The fireworks started early when CNN’s John King — who looked as if he could have used a high colonic during the entire questioning — asked Gingrich about his ex-wife’s claim that the former speaker wanted an “open marriage:”
I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run of for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.
“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife, and make it two days before the primary a sign question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,” Gingrich said.
I guess that’s one way to dispose of the issue although Republican voters may be a little harder to convince.
The night belonged to Gingirch who fended off several feeble attempts by Santorum to paint him as some kind of RINO. Newt may be many things but RINO he is not. Romney responded fairly well to most of the charges directed against him. He stumbled a bit on abortion and Romneycare — his two Achilles heels as far as issues go. But he smoothly recovered and ended up doing what he came to do which is not screw it up.
Will voters forget about Newt’s ex-wife? That’s the question for the next 48 hours. No one doubts that conservatives want Gingrich, prefer Gingrich over Romney. But the personal baggage of the former speaker might be too great for even some conservatives to overcome.
Watch Tatler and the PJ Media homepage for further analysis and highlights.
It was Newt’s night => It was Obama’s night.
Precisely. Newt is playing the GOP base like a fiddle. Lashing out at the MSM moderator is a shrewd move in a Republican primary. I must admit, I get a bit of a visceral thrill out of it myself. However, it says nothing of substance about the issues themselves. It’s a device: Much like Romney’s go-to move is to deflect criticism by going off on Obama, Newt declares any and all criticism out of bounds by tearing into either the media or the opposing campaign that brought it up. Now, that works great when it’s primary season and the GOP voters (myself included) despise the biased media. But it won’t work in the general election.
ABO in the general. Anybody but Newt in the primaries until then.
Gingrich’ “personal baggage” is NOT in the past. He is currently living, each day, in adultery with his doxie. Scripture is clear that unless a marriage ends by death, fornication or desertion by an unbeliever, the survivor, innocent party or deserted one may not remarry. The RCC, to which Gingrich belongs does not even admit that the innocent party may remarry in a divorce for fornication. Repentance is contingent upon abandonment of the sinful behavior. A person in an unscriptural marriage is, therefore, not repentant. Forgiveness is contingent upon repentance; everywhere and always. So Gingrich and his “wife” are living in a continuing state of adultery; are damned- unless and until they do, in fact, repent.
Gingrich has been often and grievously unfaithful in relatively “small” things and will, ergo, be unfaithful in great matters, Lk.16.10.
You know what bugs me? is how much time everyone is spending hoping that we get the right guy to really stick it to Obama in “The Debates”. Thats just it, we think “Plural” as in, more than one debate with Obama. Care to take a guess how many debates there will be?
One.
Just one.
And it will suck on ice. It will be slow, dull and boring. It will not matter a jot who on our side gets in “The Debate” because it will be so controlled, there will be no big shining “in yer face” moment.
So stop obsessing with getting someone from our side who’s going to be good in “The Debates” and try to focus like a laser on getting a President who isnt a Marxist.
Great point…perhaps at future Republican debates the candidates could agree to unanimously reinforce the value of the debate process to the voting public and call for a series of Presidential debates — regardless of the nominee.
Actually Frank there will at least be three.
October 22nd, 2012 -Presidential Debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida
October 16th, 2012- Presidential Debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York
October 3rd, 2012 -Presidential Debate at the University of Denver
October 11th, 2012 -Vice-Presidential Debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky
Ah, the fuzzy thinking of liberals! State three and cite four. Wonderful!
As Newt’s numbers climb, more than a decade since his last personal baggage became publicly aired, it is what might possibly make him anathema to the voters who are telling pollsters that they want Newt.
In other news, Newt Gingrich allows 3 children and an elderly grandmother die in fiery blaze.
Newt Gingrich rushed into a burning building a couple of doors down from his house. He saved five members of the family that reside there, but the elderly grandmother and three of the children died, two before Newt’s lazy ass got out of his own house, and the other two at the hospital from their burns. Newt sustained minor injuries and should be released from the hospital in a few weeks.
Bless your little heart, honey, but your comment is senseless. It has no meaning. Well, maybe on Krypton or Kolob.
Well, my argument stood the test of the voters. So it did make sense.
Sorry you are hard of understanding.
I would take slight issue with the assertion that doubtlessly “conservatives want Gingrich.” He is as much “settler” as Romney (yes, in the sense that I’l “settle” for so-and-so.)
Newt has as much questionable baggage about him as Mitt; it’s just of a different kind, personal more than political: although even Gingrich has a few of those skeletons, dismissed airily by the Newtologists out there. Not the least of these is the manner in which he left public life decades ago.
I don’t think conservatives “want” Newt much more than they want Mitt. This conservative would have preferred Cain over any of the pack; this conservative never was really able to take Perry or Bachmann seriously to begin with, and would likely incline more to Santorum, all other things being equal – which they are not.
One thing above else – the Republican candidate has to win. Mods, please edit that last into a giant, flashing, bright red font. And make no mistake- Establishment Media is going to take no prisoners in their campaign to re-elect Sock Puppet. There will be not even the pretence of objectivity. Have you all seen the Newsweek cover? “Why are (Sock Puppet’s) critics so dumb?”? As the late Mr Jolson said, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, folks!”
No question, whichever candidate is the final nominee will get ripped into like rabid pit bulls on a mailman delivering raw steaks, regardless of the truth, regardless of the record. The question therefore is, which candidate will best be able to defend his candidacy? Yes, I think Mitt can defend his changes in position and changes in a paper mill far better than Newt can defend his changes in wives. The candidate will not need to convince the newspapers – they’re already a lost cause – but he will have to convince voters. Well I think I’ve rattled on enough, any more and I’ll just be cut n pasting from Romney’s campaign. All I will say in closing is this – no, I am neither thrilled with, nor convinced by Romney, but he’s good enough for Ann Coulter, and that’s good enough for me.
@PsychoDad: Agree almost entirely. I’d say Romney’s past failings versus current stands show an actual growth and change of heart and mind on things. I mean, he can’t say that Massachusetts is filled with perhaps the stupidest people on earth, whom he tried and failed to save from themselves. So he soldiers on, saying he approved a bill that they love in Mass., but he’ll be damned that we have it anywhere else, unless the voters of a state want to do that to themselves. And who knows, Illinois and California and New York may just love RomneyCare.
As to Newt, his errors were all of commission. Every bad thing that has happened to Newt happened because he brought them down on himself, despite having done enough things to have people raise him to amazing heights. He’s like Samson, with a host of Delilahs, pulling down the temple – for no real purpose.
Samson HAD a purpose, Honey!
So did Newt; but a very different one.
Samson wanted to kill all the bad guys.
And Newt wanted to fornicate with all the cute girls.
A truly presidential persona, as per JFK, Eisenhower, FDR, etc.
you know, I think it’s going to be the israelis to give the coup de grace via a lone attack on Iran and the mess to ensue: Hormuz fights, oil price with the skyrocketing fuel prices too. Obama and the dems are already panicking at the idea, but it is still their own fault.
Dear Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss, or whatever:
Has it occured to you that the Obamathugs might just WANT a war with Iran? Think of the trillions they could spend in the course of it. They could lose, and subject the USA to the New World Order/Grand Caliphate. They could win, and impose the New World Order/Grand Caliphate. They would have a rationale for imposing martial law, voiding the Constitution and imposing Sharia. And an excuse to call our enemies “allies”, and arm them to the teeth with our very best weapons. The CFRites, the puppeteers pulling the strings of this (and previous) administrations are both evil and brilliant. They love to kill- unborn babies, our best and bravest, innocent civilians. Their strategic gol is to control this planet- minimally populated. That means about 85% of us must be terminated with prejudice. But you won’t believe that until your boxcar arrives at the FEMA camp.
The bill for John King’s rectal repair surgery is going to be staggering
I was totally with Newt last night, until he stated that the account of his ex-wife was ‘false’. He should have left that one alone. Now she’ll start with counter-attacks (to preserve her good name) and the cycle will continue. He should have just blasted King and left it at that (or used the dignified response that he utilized at the press conferences earlier in the day).
I thought it was everybody’s night.
Maybe that’s what we needed, to whittle the field down to 4 and get some Rockin’ Robin going.
I thought John King did much better than in the previous debate he moderated and I appreciated just one guy moderating instead of a panel.
As a conservative I would much rather go with Newt than with Mitt. Yes, both have baggage, but I trust Newt over Mitt to say on a conservative course. His own side went after him in the Congress because he went after sacred cows and corrupt people. Mitt will change his mind to meet the moment, the John Kerry of Rinos. I like Santorum but he comes off being mad, especially after last nights debate. Also, concerning Newts ex., she committed adultery with him on his first wife, did she think it couldn’t happen to her? Just a bitter ex that was dug up by the LSM to take him out. Why can’t more people see that. If the LSM had their way it would be the one against Ron Paul or Santorum, How do you think that would play out. Can you say 4 more years of destruction?
Pundits and commentators on sites like PJM are actually incapable of judging debates. We know stuff. The voter who count don’t know squat.
Romney was not hurt at all. We are now left to decide if we want to nominate a Mormon vulture capitalist / croney capitalist who has a private history of destroying individuals, families and communities, or would we prefer a morally bankrupt career politician who disgraced himself in congress and is now in the process disgracing himself in his new Church by mocking and dishonoring the the sacraments of the Catholic faith, or do we want an apologist for narcissistic selfihness parading as a libertarian as our nominee? If these three are the best our party can come up with there is no chance any of them will prevail in the general election so how could they really be hurt one way or the other. They are just going through the motions for ego gratification.
IMHO, the most dangerous line of attack to Romney’s candidacy is not his being on both sides of the culture wars, or his tenure at Bain Capital. His largest vulnerability is his having paid a 15% effective tax rate on his income.
I have no doubt that whatever his accountants and tax lawyers have determined to be his tax bill is legally defensible. That is what they do. No, Mitt Romney’s area of vulnerability is that the tax laws as written – written by legislators and presidents bought and paid for by wealthy campaign contributors, in large measure – allow a person like Mitt Romney, who is so wealthy that he can call $374,000 in speaking fees “not very much”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/mitt-romney-not-much-definition-speaking-fees_n_1210522.html
FYI, the Social Security and Medicare taxes on the earnings of a person making minimum wage is 15.3%, and that’s before any income taxes are assessed; Mitt Romney does not pay any Social Security or Medicare taxes on his “investment” income, even though the “investment” was created as compensation for his work as head of Bain Capital. I think these inequities are going to come back to bite the Mittster on the butt.
The average person pays an effective 11% rate, so he should be able to parry that line of attack.
Danny Boy, Romney made his money legitimately. He paid the taxes due. He has no obligation to pay more than he owes.
Yes, he is a flipflopper; yes, he is responsible for several socialist/communist initiatives, including his infamous Romney care. Yes, he espouses an absolutely nutcake, polytheistic, polygamistic religion invented by a serial adulterer and con man.
Get him for what he has done and for what he chooses to be; but he’s clean on the tax bit.
We don’t care about Gingrich’s sleazebag ex-wife. She is in no position to complain about anything. She knew (or should have known) that she was marrying a man with strong political ambitions, and she refused to support him in those ambitions. She got what she deserved, and it is time for her go home and shut up.
We don’t care about Romney’s tax bracket; we already know he’s a RINO and a flip-flopper. Barack Obama could make Mitt look ridiculous in a debate. Romney is Obama’s dream candidate.