« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Three States Down, 47 To Go

By The Numbers

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary)  |  January 22nd, 2012 at 06:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The basic dynamics of the 2012 GOP nomination battle remain unchanged: the bulk of the GOP electorate doesn’t want Mitt Romney, but isn’t really sold on an alternative. Iowa’s voters broke late to Rick Santorum as the conservative alternative; South Carolina’s broke late, and much more decisively, to Newt Gingrich. It remains up to Newt now to prove he can hold together the conservatives going forward, as Santorum was not equipped or financed well enough to do.

It’s worth noting here the raw numbers. While the categories don’t perfectly describe the candidates or their supporters, it has been generally true that Romney and Jon Huntsman have appealed to the more moderate Republican primary voters; Gingrich, Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann to the more conservative voters; and Ron Paul to the libertarian voters. What we see in the first three states is that in South Carolina, as in Iowa, the conservative vote was a majority:

Iowa: Conservatives 53%, Moderates 26%, Libertarians 21%
New Hampshire: Moderates 56%, Libertarians 23%, Conservatives 19%
South Carolina: Conservatives 57%, Moderates 28%, Libertarians 17%

There will be other states – possibly including delegate-rich California and New York – that will more nearly resemble New Hampshire’s profile; there will be states where Newt is not on the ballot (Virginia), where Romney has a home-field advantage (Michigan, Massachusetts, Utah), or where the confluence of caucuses and a large Mormon population favors Romney (Nevada). But at the end of the day, regardless of desperate efforts to prop up Santorum, it is hard to see any of those structural/organizational factors overcoming the core question: either Newt will unite the conservative vote, or Romney will have to earn a share of it away from him. Which has always been how we needed to pick a nominee. However you describe the GOP “Establishment,” our nominee can and should only be one whom the primary voters – however reluctantly – have decided after reflection and stress-testing to nominate.

Florida won’t be the last test of this, given Romney’s money and organization advantages there, but it will be the first serious one. In Churchill’s phrase, South Carolina was not the end, or the beginning of the end; it marked the end of the beginning.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • WillWong

    Wrong….54 more according to the 4th best President in history!

  • Xasteius

    I say this because the governor did endorse Perry.

    • conservativeparrothead

      Even if Gingrich wins Florida, I see him getting shutout in February, the question is how will this AND a month of really no debates and “news” help him moving towards Super Tuesday.

      - Most states are Caucus states – We know he is getting a late start in this thing in terms of trying to run a 50-state campaign: He probably has little to no ground game in these states, which is crucial for Caucus states.

      - Michigan will be a Romney state, as it was in 2008 and his dad was Governor.

      - Arizona, while Gingrich’s stance on immigration might help him in the general election, probably isnt going to help him with AZ primary voters.

      I could see Romney running the table in February.

      • josephusmyer

        February HEAVILY favors Romney. Unless Newt wins a landslide in Florida, February may well be a Romney shutout.

        That said, February states are largely not Winner-Takes-All, so Romney needs to win by a large margin to build enough of a delegate lead. Unless he has turned the narrative around, early March is likely to be terrible for Romney – with Perry campaigning for Gingrich, Texas’s huge number of delegates are likely to be chalked into Gingrich’s column, and I can’t see his Ohio flip-flop on public sector unions playing well in Wisconsin where that issue is the key GOP issue.

        My view: unless Romney does something convincing (like finally giving an interesting speech), it’s going to be tight. Romney will probably have a delegate lead going into the convention, but the rest of the field may combine to force a brokered convention. In any case, I think this race will keep going at least until New York and Pennsylvania in April.

        By the way, I found a useful resource for technical information about the primaries at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ccad.phtml – it has dates, cumulative delegates, delegate selection methods and quite a lot more.

  • goodgovernance

    To think one week ago, Romney was looking like a 3 and 0 contender, about to pull off something no Republican presidential candidate has done in the modern political era.

    Now, in the span of a few days, his record in the initial contests reflects how he’s truly the weakest frontrunner the GOP has ever fielded in the modern era: 1 and 2, with his only win in a virtual home state.

    Willard still has the resources and the far-sighted game plan to pull of the eventual win. As stunning as South Carolina’s results last night were, Romney’s people anticipated the possibility (just don’t ever buy the spin by Romney-bots that Mitt fully expected to lose last night — he was all in).

    But in order to really put that plan into effect, we’ll have to see Romney become a different candidate than he’s been, one less cautious, better able to go on the offensive. Another terrible debate performance Monday night will just add fuel to Gingrich’s fire, I suspect, and Mitt can’t just rely on Super Pacs and underlings willing to conduct dirty campaign tactics behind the scenes. I wonder if Mitt’s capable of being that candidate, though. He’s cautious by nature, so I wonder if he thinks he can continue to (mostly) play it safe, and wait for Gingrich to implode, or wait for the cumulative effect of the advertisement air war to take its toll in multiple states, while Gingrich’s resources are stretched thin.

    Still… I’m grateful for this moment. We were very, very close to Romney just cruising to the nomination, virtually unchallenged. I’m pretty sure that would have been a disaster in the general. And whatever happens now, Gingrich’s win in South Carolina will long be remembered. I think the Establishment will think twice before they ever try to foist someone as weak and unprincipled as Romney upon us again.

    • Adjoran

      Sounds like a description of Gingrich’s character.

      • greenpoint

        Sounds more like Romney’s brain.

      • mayflower

        Gingrich is an opportunist. A really interesting opportunist. A smart opportunist. A silver-tongued opportunist. A useful opportunist in stopping the Romney roll-over.

        But let us not pretend he is a man of good character. Gingrich is all about Gingrich.

        • bobguzzardi

          Newt Gingrich is getting traction because he is seen as a viable agent of change against the WallStreetWashington Republican Establishment Insider Network.

          Newt Gingrich, the Unlikely Agent of Change.

          There are few who do not that Newt Gingrich is a Philandering, Opportunistic Big Government Lobbyist.

          We support him because he is, most unexpectedly, the agent to destabilize the WallStreetWashington Republican-Democrat Establishment Insider Network of Lobbyists and Those Getting Rich from Government. A most unlikely agent of change, it must be said.

          American real world politics evolves in a random and unpredictable manner like biological evolution.

    • maybenexttime

      I have a feeling the Establishment will ultimately get its way and Romney will be a weaker candidate entering the general contest. The 2010 taxes come out on Tuesday. There might be something in there, or perhaps not. The problem is he only released one year of returns. How much will you bet the pressure for him to go back further than 2010 will increase as the campaign moves forward?

      So, he’ll have this constant drip of less-than-flattering news surrounding his campaign for months. Romney is already being framed as “One Percenter” by his opponents and the MSM. Once the debate frames you, the trend seldom reverses itself.

    • arthurmanger17

      Iowa shows what the establishment will do to get Romney on the ticket.
      This is the results of the Iowa caucus as last reported
      The vote delegate count
      Santorum, 29,839 24.56% 6 21.43%
      Romney, 29,805 24.53% 6 21.43%
      Paul, 26,036 21.43% 6 21.43%
      Gingrich, 16,163 13.30% 4 14.29%
      Perry, 12,557 10.33%
      Now there are 28 delegates in total. You can see here that only 22 are accounted for leaving 6. It is of note that there is also 8 precincts who?s votes are lost, forever we are told. How would the outcome be different if they were known and not lost. Might Newt have won or at least tied, we will never know. It would be a good bet that had the results been known, Romney would have been shown to be a lot weaker candidate than advertised. Also in no way could he have been declared the winner, even for the period of time that he was. This alone, shows what we are up against today and it has been exposed from the first contest. The results for Iowa don?t exist, at best they can be called incomplete.

  • Whacker77

    For a year or so, I have been worried as can be about the shape and the quality of the field. Honestly, I thought it stunk and everything I’ve seen only confirms my view. Many of the canddiates were better suited as circus clowns.

    Once Christie chose not to run, I reluctantly accepted the notion of Romney as the nominee. I did so because the other choices were so implausible. Unfortunately, Romney looks more and more implausible each day because of the way he campaigns.

    I’m fine with the desire many have to see anyone but Romney. Having said that, the alternatives seems so bad. Newt may be a good debater, but Newt? I can’t even wrap my head around that idea or the horrible consequences he might produce.

    Right now, I am very fearful we’re walking into a really bad situation. I don’t think Romney or Newt can win and that fact may ultimately lead to a real fracturing between the Tea Party and the regular Republicans. If whovever is nominated does lose, the acrimony may cause the Tea Party to go on its own.

    My belief is our best hope is a late entrant or a brokered convention. Otherwise, bad things, man. Bad things.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …because this is a healthy process.

      Supporting The Newt [c/o Perry] allows me to tick-off the Politico-lib articles highlighted today, as “covered” by The Newt’s performance on all three interview shows yesterday [and not rebutted during the appearances of the other three on the Huckster's show, last night].

      *

      POLITICO Daily Digest, January 23, 2012 6:58 am
      ———————————————-
      Go to POLITICO.com: http://www.politico.com/
      Newt: The master of disguise
      By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
      Gingrich has used his debate skills – and this instinct to hit the raw nerves of conservatives – to camouflage considerable weaknesses as a candidate. The three wives, cheating on and leaving the first two while they were ill; inconsistency on the most consequential conservative causes of the past decade; episodic bouts of self-importance severe even by politicians? standards, and countless tales of erratic leadership in crisis.
      more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71803.html
      ———————————————-

      Mitt faces a perfect mess
      By: Jonathan Martin and John F. Harris
      Rarely has there been a figure in American politics whose personality and achievements?taken as individual parts?so powerfully conveyed both uncommon success and a kind of reassuring conventionality.
      more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71806.html
      ———————————————-
      Obama’s big campaign speech: SOTU
      By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush
      The Republican candidates are about to get a sharp lesson in the power of the presidency.
      more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71798.html
      ———————————————-
      Mitt searches for debate ‘moment’
      By: Maggie Haberman
      Conventional wisdom holds that Mitt Romney is a practiced and highly polished debate performer. The reality? He?s sometimes good but almost never great. He?s no Newt Gingrich. His supporters are generally happy that?s the case, but it?s a problem this week because Romney has two big chances this week to flip the script in a GOP race in which the momentum has slipped away from him ? a pair of Florida debates, just the sort of setting where a game-changing ?moment? can be made.
      more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71805.html
      ———————————————-
      Mitt’s misery, in a word: Bain
      By: Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman
      The issue wraps up an array of criticisms of Romney in a neat, single-syllable package.
      more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71795.html

      *

      Each of these pieces ID potential weaknesses of The Newt, but rejoinders are easily conjured. Thus, “message” and “momentum” favor The Newt, notwithstanding potential “ad hominem” and “ad money” that impend from Mitt.

      • circlegranch

        This didn’t take long. www.spectator.org carries the online article, “A Fling with Federalism” by Matt Thomas. It was appropriately noted by the author that during the last debate both Santorum and Romney jumped on the 10th Amendment/state’s rights bandwagon, both hoping now to carry the banner brought into the arena by staunch 10th Amendment adovocate, Gov. Rick Perry.

        Perry was the ideas candidate for Americans that truly want to limit the federal govt. The Republican Party, Evangelical holier-than-thou’s, and the media have all found plenty to criticize about Rick Perry. It’s time to start recognizing that he has alot to offer this nation as far as ideas to get things moving in the right direction. Thanks are deserving of Matt Thomas for addressing the obvious.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …and we must ensure The Newt adheres to this commitment.

      • bobguzzardi

        Newt Gingrich, the Unlikely and Flawed Agent of Change; the real world is not a pure world.

        There are few who do not that Newt Gingrich is a Philandering, Opportunistic Big Government Lobbyist.

        We support him because he is, most unexpectedly, the agent to destabilize the WallStreetWashington Republican-Democrat Establishment Insider Network of Lobbyists and Those Getting Rich from Government. A most unlikely agent of change, it must be said.

        American real world politics evolves in a random and unpredictable manner like biological evolution.

        Would that Rick Perry were still in the race. But he could never get traction against the political and media Leviathan Establishments.

    • mayflower

      I don’t know what that would look like, could someone explain it to me please? Does it mean that the people at the convention could just choose someone else, despite any vote counts from the primaries?

      Also, how could a late entrant emerge? Would they be able to get on all the ballots? Would they be able to actually do it under various state rules (like Perry and Gingrich didn’t make Virginia?)

      How could that happen, does anyone kow?

      • tngal

        As to the convention part. A candidate must get X amount of delegates to win and become the party nominee. You get delegates by winning states. Some states you can get them not by winning but by coming in second or third. However after all the states have their primaries/caucuses and no candidate gets the magic number then the shuffling begins. After that first count, the delegaes can go anywhere.

        Interesting you mention late entrant and Virginia. Somebody in Virginia has put up an online petition to urge Mitch Daniels to run. Now he’s obviously not on the ballot in several states and has already missed a few, but in your brokered convention he could conceivably get a bunch of delegates. IF– none of the others had enough to win outright –AND – you could convince delegates to go to Mitch (or another candidate) after the first round.

        Oh, and here’s a link for anyone so inclined to urge daniels in.

        http://runmitchrun.com/

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          If he didn’t have the cajones to go through the process, he won’t have them against the Democrats when we need him.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I’ll vote for him if he’s selected, but you have no idea how poorly that would play out. Large numbers of Republicans would revolt at having their candidate selected for them, and the Democrats would be standing in the corner laughing at us (with the help of the media) that we couldn’t run a simple election.

          • tngal

            Mayflower asked about a late entrant. I mentioned there was a petition up for one. I haven’t signed the thing. Mayflower also mentioned Virginia and I remembered the person who put up the petition said they were from virginia. Poor souls there have little choice when it comes to pickin a candidate.

            While I respect you wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t jmp in prior to Iowa, I wouldn’t shy away from a decent candidate getting in now. Not a christie, but perhaps a Rubio or Fred (always fred). And what’s late anyway? Perry didn’t announce until everyone made their intentions known. Yet he picked up a following.

            If you can get the delegates through brokered means why not go for it?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            See my reply to my reply. I’ll voted for a selected candidate, but it won’t matter. Obama would win in a walk no matter who it might be.

            The grass always looks greener…

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            The GOP’s grass-roots would go WILD…as would those in the TEA Party Movement.

          • circlegranch

            While the Daniels’ have reconciled, Mrs. Daniels deserted her husband, children and home for a time. Knowing this information about their past would be scrutinized and criticized, Gov. Daniels opted out of running. Given the current focus on marital stability, or lack thereof in the race, it is doubtful a pinch hitter candidate with his own baggage would make a run for it.

  • elayman

    He is just not weak about it and effectively more dangerous for being a better demagogue than Obama. Pick your poison I guess. .

  • txpat

    and they have learned from this, but I am afraid that they will just belittle the not Romney folks as being stupid.

    • Adjoran

      the problem is the Yes Gingrich folks who can’t seem to remember his years of abuse of conservatives, our values, and our principles. And when his ego leads him off our path, he denigrates and disparages conservatives who do not follow him down the paths to perdition.

      Has he ever met a “green” boondoggle he didn’t fall for? Remember he was one of the biggest boosters of cap-’n'- tax and the individual health care mandate as “market-based solutions” for years.

      Read the full report of the House Ethics Committee Counsel, James T. Cole before you jump on the Newtwagon. Or just wait until fall – the Democrats will read it to you, line by line.

      • txpat

        However we are stuck with flawed candidate choices now.
        Now I am afraid that my pick at this time is based a bit on anger at the media, the establishment republicans for trying to twist, slant to whom they think is our perfect candidate.
        I am very ticked off with how they have treated Rick Perry.
        Yes he made mistakes in the beginning, but they never gave him a break when improved.
        So for now I am ABR= anybody but Romney

        • bobguzzardi

          The anti-Establishment avatar is most unlikely and flawed agent of change. The real world is not pure and pristine.

      • duanej

        Is “more of the same” with Romney? I don’t follow. John Boehner and Mitch McConnel have yeilded hard fought ground after hard fought ground on every single issue they have dealt with. And the answer in your mind is to pull them to the right by leading from the left? Seriously? How does that work exactly. Or is the strategy to give congressional and senatorial leadership a leader so far left of them, they appear right? We already have that. We know where it leads. No thanks.

        Newt is the only conservative left in this race. Santorum is NOT a conservative. Ron Paul is an oddity that will never be. Romney is a RINO and will be as bad if not worse than GWB. We MUST have a leader of our party who will force congress republican majority to do the right thing.

        Who is tired of high gas prices and “sky rocketting” energy prices. What, exactly, has Romney said that makes you think he cares one whit about high gas prices? Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, in 2008, started the “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign that forced congress – a Democratic congress no less – to lift the ban on offshore drilling and he wasn’t even in government at the time. Has he made mistakes? Yes. But he is the only one up there trying to win from the right.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …but most supporters of Perry are more driven by the issues.

        Each concern can be framed as “yesterday’s news” [as the marital baggage now can be perceived, for it was ignored--even by women--in S.C.].

      • mayflower

        And:

        DO WE REALLY WANT SUCH A MERCURIAL PERSON

        WITH A TEMPER AND EGO THE SIZE OF THE

        WASHINGTON MONUMENT – WITH HIS HAND ON THE

        NUCLEAR BUTTON ???!!???

        That will scare the socks off the general electorate. Heck, it scares the socks off of me. (I am sitting here, sockless, at the very thought.)

        This man is a mistake. Possibly even a fatal one.

        • hls87

          GOP voters are just cruising through the various stages of grief. Most of us wanted a conservative nominee and we are slowly coming to terms with the fact that we won’t get one.

          For months we were in denial. Serious people professed to believe that we could actually nominate Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain rather than Mitt Romney. We’ve moved on to anger as the voters in Iowa and SC flip the establishment the bird by opting for a pair of clowns like Gingrich and Santorum instead of the convenional choice. As Romney starts to mop Gingrich up, and he will, we’ll move on to bargaining — “OK we’ll give up on Gingrich, just please give us someone else.” It won’t happen and we’ll move on to depression, which for most of us will be followed by acceptance and reluctant support for Romney.

          Under no circumstances will Gingrich win. The full court press is already starting and he’s going down. The establishment takes care of its own favorites and Gingrich is the last alternative mostly because he was the most vulnerable candidate in the field. The bad guys could afford tolerate him until everyone else was disposed of.

          Voters’ anger will fade as they come to realize that it makes no sense to swallow strychnine as a protest against having castor oil forced down your throat. Newt loves ideas. The problem is that he’s indifferent as between good ones and bad ones. He’s volatile, obnoxious, vain, egotistical and foolish. Ideologically, tempramentally, intellectually and in every other way Gingrich is poison for conservatives and Republicans. We’re not going to go there.

          I’m already in the depression stage and likely to remain there. Gingrich is a non-starter and Romney is simply unacceptable. I’m left looking forward to 2016 and thinking about down ballot races that may help conservatives take control of the GOP from the progressive establishment that considers Mitt Romney a suitable nominee.

          Sad.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            You mentioned the stages of death and dying correctly, but you forgot to cite the fact that Elisabeth k?bler-ross emphasized that–throughout this process–the individual nurtures “hope.”

            This is what the non-establishment thinkers/activists are implementing, notwithstanding enhanced resistance to The Newt.

            What is your reference for the claim that “he?s going down”? Might this actually be a manifestation of wishful-thinking? Are you so attached to the personality-attacks promulgated by Mitt’s minions that they blind you to The Newt’s unique potential?

            Don’t foist your depression upon other RS-readers until/unless you can document your ad-hominem assertions; we’re still dealing with the loss of Perry and, at best, you’re being insensitive!

            Oh, and BTW, many of us felt that Perry was actually posing a far greater risk to the DC/NYC-establishment than did The Newt; this viewpoint further tarnishes your wild [undocumented] assertions.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          And to be honest, it is that reason why I voted for Carter (my first Presidential vote).

          Reagan did OK…..and I voted for him in 1984, and every other Republican since.

  • ctredstater

    It made me nuts to think he was going to “pull a McCain” and sort of let Santorum be his Huckabee, clearing out Newt and Perry, the two real threats to him.

    I am so glad it didn’t happen. I am glad the base didn’t let it happen. He was at his absolutely worst this week – looking petulant, elitist ($374,000 is not a lot of money), entitled (telling the electorate what it thinks), and stiff.

    Doesn’t mean the glass jaw has been shattered and that he is toast. He has been knocked down. Let’s see him get up, dust himself off, and become strengthened, not fatally weakened, by this.

    Similarly, let’s see Newt sharpen his messages, show some maturity, and really show what he has, what he could do. he made a great point on Face the Nation today – he has quite a body of work. Sure – people can cherry pick this and that. and I was a solid Perry man. but Newt is carrying the conservative banner.

    Santorum – campaigning for cabinet post, at best. Should consider himself fortunate that he “got hot when he did” in Iowa. Live for a couple years in Iowa and you increase the chances that may happen.

    Rockefeller Republicanism between Newtism – a blend of conservatism and a lot of other exotic stuff.

    I am for Newt. But let’s see a good, vigorous back and forth – and a couple of candidates who keep getting better – not worse.

    • bobguzzardi

      Nice work ctredstater You have coined a word that aptly describes the mess we are in. When Newt Gingrich is your leader, your cause is in trouble.

      • hls87

        Your cause is totally lost, unless the aggrandizement of Gingrich is your cause. If you’re working for the greater glory of Newt, he’s your man. If not, he’s worse than useless.

        Newt Gingrich is a contemptible human being, a sloppy, facile thinker and a preposterous presidential candidate. If he’s the alternative to Romney then there is no alternative and GOP voters will figure that out soon enough regardless of SC.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          nt.

    • circlegranch

      in spite of the fact that Romney’s PAC’s donated the max to her own election, close to $40,000, it is reported. Haley’s endorsement was supposed to put a lock on the tea party vote going to Romney. He suffered a stunning 12 point loss.

      While not illegal, the massive amounts of money funneled into campaigns as well as state and county GOP party coffers by the Romney PAC’s leaves a bad taste for those that believe too much money is involved in elections. It’s also rather disingenuous for Romney to stand on debate stages now and claim he doesn’t like PAC’s and wishes they’d go away. It also wasn’t illegal for Romney’s staff in the MA statehouse to scrub emails when he left office or the fact that computers were removed and replaced at taxpayer expense. It’s not illegal that he won’t release the names of his campaign finance bundlers. None of it is illegal but combined, it creates a cloud of something less than total honesty and transparency.

      http://salon.com/2012/01/07/35_romney_endorsers_received_contributions_first/

      www.opensecrets.org
      www.followthemoney.org

  • carmen

    … what are the chances we see someone new toss his hat in??

    Frankly, I think it’s clear that the majority of the electorate is desperate to find “THE” candidate, as I think is demonstrated by the constant shifting of support (Bachmann -> Perry -> Santorum -> Newt ->??) since the Iowa straw poll.

    If I can see it, surely those in and around politics can see it.

    Perhaps in the past, getting in this late, or getting in if you haven’t been part of the political landscape long (*cough* Rubio *cough*), would be taboo — but I can’t imagine the bar for “experience” being any lower than Barry has set it. Besides, as has also been made clear by this disaster of an administration, if you believe to your core in your ideology and surround yourself with like minded individuals, you can achieve your goals.

    In the case of a conservative (AHEM *Rubio* AHEM), I have a feeling the base would absolutely rally around him and recognize him for the true conservative leader he is – and would be – and would trust in him to surround himself with conservative “CAN DO’ers”.

    I’m a Perry supporter who realized after Iowa that it wasn’t meant to be, and found myself thinking Newt was the only one left who could help us avoid Romney.

    Now I’m wondering why I should settle for ANYone still in the race if I don’t think he’s the best person for the job….

    Thoughts?

    • http://conservativemountaineer.blogspot.com/ conservativemountaineer

      Got it?

      • carmen

        Which doesn’t mean anything if the electorate is splintered, fractured or otherwise unenthusiastic about our nominee (whoever that winds up being).

        I don’t plan to underestimate the power of the Democrat machine to manufacture votes, which means that if WE do not have a SOLID nominee which turns out the base, and siphons off some blue dogs as well as attracts a healthy number of Indys, a CLOSE election could very well mean an Obama re-election. Why do that to ourselves, to our country??

        I simply find it SO hard to believe that with an incumbent with Obama’s DISMAL record on all things foreign AND domestic, we’re having to worry about “maybe” being able to beat him.

        This should be as “slam dunk” an election as has ever been possible in our lifetime. And if we’re wondering about our chances, then it’s safe to assume our nominee is the issue… which is why I am questioning things…

        I plan to support ANYONE against Obama. But I don’t want to sit here and rely on the *hope* that the majority Americans feel the way I do and will ACT on it.

      • mayflower

        to wait for 2016 than to destroy the movement with a mistake.

        If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I check references for even an entry-level position.

        Gingrich’s references don’t check out. Talk to anyone who has worked with him.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …because the SCOTUS hangs in the balance.

          BTW, elsewhere on this page, I revealed what a congressman told me; he had worked with him from ’94-’98.

    • joecollins

      . . are doing a good job. We are doing OUR job. We are doing the job of picking the best candidate who reflects our values and our priorities. I’m proud to be part of this process.

      • ctredstater

        I was disappointed with the Iowans going for Santorum instead of Perry. The SC voters understood that if they gave Mitt a win, then Newt might have been out – and the nomination would have been over.

        a disaster in my view, for everyone but Obama. Thank you SC voters!!!!

  • Samsara

    That didn’t take long. As soon as Romney stepped off the plain in Florida he started swinging and slinging:

    Politico:

    ?Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,? the former Massachusetts governor said. ?He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don?t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.

    Romney continued: ?He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.?

    But he wasn?t done: Romney laid into Gingrich?s bombastic stage presence that?s helped him so much on the stump and in the campaign?s many debates ? the next of which is coming up Monday night.

    ?We?re not choosing a talk show host, all right? We?re choosing a leader, we?re choosing the person who should be the leader of the free world,? Romney said.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71802.html

    Governor Romney is feeling the heat from the GOP establishment. He has got the message, stop pussyfooting around, destroy Gingrich now. Stop talking about his baggage and start hitting over the head with it.

    The problem for Mitt is that he is a natural pussyfooter. When the video of this rant comes out, my guess is that he will look ridiculous, When he tries to bring anger to his aid, as he did in the interview with Brit Hume, it doesn’t seem authentic to me. He doesn’t convey righteous indignation, but rather self absorbed annoyance, like he doesn’t understand why “those people” wont just get with the program.

    • dajeeps

      I know it’s just politics, but there has been so much negativity emanating from that man since this whole process started, he’s starting to remind me of Demoncrats with their divide and conquer tactics. The more I think about it, the more like them he seems. He’s so far from Reagan, doesn’t even want to be like him, and has very little leadership or statesman skills. I don’t really know what kind of President he would be, but it doesn’t look very promising when he can’t even unite his supposed base.

      • JSobieski

        McCain is a great example of a violater of this rule.

        Romney may be the ultimate violator of this rule.

        Does anyone thing he would even try to do to Obama what he did to Newt, Huckabee, or McCain?

        I don’t think so. For a smart guy. Romney appears to have very limited tactical and strategic operational awareness.

        All he had to do was go a bit further to the right from the very beginning and he would have been fine. The man is politically tone deaf.

        • redcal

          Whether or not Mitt Romney is saying nice things doesn’t matter because the real problem is his absolute incongruence while saying them. He doesn’t seem to believe his own words — he’s both smug and insecure, stuttering and stammering over phrases to see how they’ll stick, whether the audience is reacting, hyper-sensitive and leaning forwards.

          Conversely, Gingrich (while saying equally mean things about Mitt) is relaxed, leaning back, in control of himself, not all that concerned or even aware of his particular audience (which is why he looks the same in an interview or on the debate stage, the same persona; while Mitt has a thousand faces, none of which really seem to be him).

          He’s not just politically tone-deaf; he’s emotionally and socially tone-deaf.

          • dajeeps

            And Mr. Negativity Mitt started dishing out the smears. I brought it up because Mittens doesn’t even try to unite the base behind him. His entire strategy has been to take everyone else down and be the last man standing so he doesn’t have to do or say anything that might be damaging to himself in the primary. Who cares if the base has been upset, angry and leaderless for years, or what damage the divisiveness does to the party as long as he gets to be it. The self absorption to the point of being purposely pernicious is simply breathtaking.

            Newt really does like himself, and it causes him to make some really stupid mistakes, but, to me, he at least has good intentions.

  • snowshooze

    And Newt will now attract the late-comers like myself who have fretted and worried and held back… not wanting to waste our precious $20.00…

    • Samsara

      Reuters:

      Restore Our Future has spent $5 million in Florida for Romney since mid-December. That was when the political action committee launched get-out-the-vote efforts aimed at hundreds of thousands who have sought to vote by mail or at early-voting centers well before primary on January 31.

      The PAC’s outlay is more than 20 times the amount spent in Florida so far by any other group supporting a Republican candidate, according to Federal Election Commission filings analyzed by Reuters.

      It shows the former Massachusetts governor’s organizational advantages in Florida as well as the dramatic impact of “Super PACs” that can swamp a state’s airwaves with ads aimed at boosting or tearing down a candidate.

      Super PACs, the legacy of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, can receive unlimited donations. Donations directly to candidates are capped at $2,500 per individual.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/22/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE80L0U620120122

  • Samsara

    Joe Scarborough was on Meet the Press talking about how Republicans in the house had to toss out Gingrich….the just of it was that Gingrich was corrupt and not a sound conservative…so he and other House members showed him the door.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-calls-gingrich-unsustainable-compares-him-to-michael-moore/

    My problem with this story line is, look at who they brought in to fill his place, Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay.

    • Adjoran

      But the conservatives agreed to him because he wasn’t a power player. And Hastert only came along after Livingston fell on his sword AFTER Newt had gone.

      There just weren’t enough Republicans in the caucus who would support Newt, OR enough who would oppose Livingston too, to pull off a true coup.

      DeLay was going to be in the leadership no matter who was Speaker, he was a conservative but had ingratiated himself to K Street lobbyists and was a go-to guy on channeling campaign money to Republicans. You didn’t have to like what he did but if you planned on winning you still went to see him.

      But yes, the establishment guys like these were perfectly willing to stick with Newt despite the Ethics charges and his personal scandals, it was the conservatives who had had enough of his crap.

      Most of what Gingrich takes credit for happened despite his efforts, not because of them. He was critical in welfare reform and passing it over and over, but the impetus for economic ideas wasn’t from him. After he marshalled through votes on the Contract items, he lost focus and became erratic as a leader.

      • acat

        that he was the ‘B’ team.

        Maybe that was what they had in mind, but .. once in place, Coach pushed through (or let past) quite a lot of bipartisan spend, with the clear intention of keeping the GOP majority.

        Guess he thought he was the second coming of Rostenkowski or something….

        Mew

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …that it doesn’t square with what I was told during lunch on Saturday by an incumbent Congressman during ’94-’98.

      Jon David Fox [PA-13, R] had nothing but great things to say about his leadership. In the caucuses, he could take a complex bill and digest it effectively…conveying a sense of understanding its multi-level import.

      Jon had no negative recollection regarding bombast. Indeed, when he would cook me an omelet on Sunday-a.m. while watching the interview-shows, I remember he would constantly express the view that incumbents liked his leadership.

      Scarborough [of PMSNBC] is fronting for the D’s; to claim that The Newt isn’t a true “conservative” by [in The Newt's predictive terminology] “cherry-picking” would challenge the credibility of the speaker [with a lower-case "s"].

      THEREFORE, let’s all take a deep breath and ponder [invoking the Talmudic definition of "wisdom"..."the ability to predict the effects of your actions"] the most profound forces-at-play.

      Here, let’s quote an e-mail received from an ardent pro-Perry…highly intelligent…thinker:

      *

      “You will be happy to know that there is a PPP showing Gingrich is leading in Florida. My only joy is in seeing the panic that is obvious inside the establishment. Whatever the outcome in this year’s primary should be, I do think finally we are gaining strength as a conservative movement. My only concern is the conservatives themselves and the fact that I have encountered such extreme vitriol. Really, it was shocking. I campaigned hard for Perry and on issues such as illegal immigration, the hatred was astounding. The rabid right doesn’t seem not interested in thoughtful reflection or looking at the larger picture of serving the best interests of our country. Ronald Reagan was gifted in his ability to draw the factions together. But, it does seem that those on the fringe have grown in number. I consider myself to be really conservative and a traditionalist but I have a difficult time relating to some of those folks. Of course, I am only offering my opinion after experiencing this grueling primary. I might add, I have met some wonderful people, as well, and it was heartening to encounter some truly dedicated Americans.”

      *

      What is her message? And what is the theme that threads through most of the more heartfelt postings provided supra? And what is the ideal posture to adopt during the rest of January?

      Mitt [and Chris Christie...and the entire campaign] went NEGATIVE, and invoked only previously-known data in the process. There is a “lifetime” to the couch-event, the can’t-get-along-claim, the too-smart-for-his-own-britches-pseudo-lament….

      The “establishment” is indeed in panic-mode; as Guzzardi and I concluded a few hours ago, it’s not that The Newt is anti-establishment [for he's functioned as a lobbyist]; rather, he has conveyed the impression [pugnaciously publicly and probably privately] that he won’t be subject to anyone’s control.

      Thus, he combines the ability to articulate conservatism and the gumption to do so with style. The base can enjoy the fruit of his labor, and he has created a foundation for BOTH following RR’s 11th-Commandment AND responding to pungent attacks.

      AND, lest we forget, he has encompassed the perspectives/goals of those who have dropped-out, most notably Perry’s FEDERALISM. To whatever degree that action erases prior error [I'm STILL awaiting his total rejection of the Individual Mandate], this positions him well to dominate Florida…the national polls…and the Indie electorate.

    • bobguzzardi

      Joe Scarborough’s analysis is most likely politically correct, disingenuous disinformation. As Samsara points out, the successors were worse. Tom Delay is in jail, isn’t he and Dennis Hastert, Earmarker Extraordinaire.

  • ctredstater

    to do anything but try and ingratiate himself to his MSNBC buddies by saying things that damage conservativism.

    he is a guy who 15 years ago I used to respect. he has become a blathering buffoon – a “useful idiot” for the unhinged leftist media.

    a disgrace.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …and, increasingly, the chattering-class of “conservative pundits” is self-classifying into two groups: those inevitably revealing internal biases [such as apologists for Mitt's wooden evasions] and those who reflect “Main St.” [not Wall/K St.] sentiments [such as those who simply recognize The Newt's ability to think/reformulate briskly].

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …is now [approvingly] quoting tots [literally] as having complained that this GOP-POTUS race is “boring.”

        “We’ll see which flip-flopper the Republicans pick.” [This invokes the classic "moral relativism/egalitarian thinking" characteristic of progressives/liberals/statists.] He was grouping all three [ignoring Paul], and then raising the possibility of someone new entering [this was rejected by Harold Ford]…and a prolonged race [this was accepted by Mark Halperin]. He claimed everyone was happy he left Speakership…but grudgingly recognized his achievements.

        Even F&F is noting that Mitt “needs a really big idea.” Gretchen is lamenting that the perception is negative…although she didn’t quite raise the obvious query of what may be in Mitt’s IRS-filings during the past decade.

    • bobguzzardi

      dr. bob and I saw him and Mike present in Iowa. Shallow showman with enough political information to pass as knowledgeable. a sell out to the Liberal Media. disgraceful is too mild.

    • circlegranch

      yet, he represents a growing class that continues to use the Republican party as a vessel from which to pour their liberal progressive views. Prior to Obamacare being gaveled down as law, it was Joe that sat most every morning next to some of the most outrageoulsy liberal voices in the media, advising Obama on how to get it passed.

      When the BP oil disaster occurred, it was good ol’ Joe, morning after morning, swinging a hammer to nail all the blame on BP, as if they planned for this to happen and were deliberate and happy about the mess it caused. Joe did his utmost best to scare tourists away, walking the beaches with pal Charlie Crist, both barefoot and glistening with tanning oil, seeming to have contests to see which could find the most oil balls. It was Joe that spoke time and again about how this disaster would help both the causes of the radical environmentalists, the anti-oil drill gang and most importantly, Pres. Obama.

      A true conservative, a Republican that sincerely wants to do their part to defeat liberalism and promote freedom and independence would not even work at that network. Beware, though. Joe is often encouraged to run for office again—-as a conservative.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …is apt, but it still requires monitoring.

        As Guzzardi noted, we saw him and Mika in Des Moines; after having lost the argument with Guzzardi regarding Santorum, he turned to the audience and said, “Look, even though he may be wrong, we should all give him a round of applause for having traveled her to work for your preferred candidate, Governor Perry!”

        Slick, with an agenda…and disingenuous constantly.

  • aj_0000

    According to the first poll since SC. By 8 points, 34-26 over Romney.

    • lineholder

      That would be a huge jump. I’d like to see the breakdown and what kind of poll it is.

      • septembergurl

        The first post Sc poll in Florida, you can find at RCP:

        Insider Advantage Florida:

        gingrich: 34

        Romney: 26

        Paul: 13

        Santorum: 11

        Awesome! The elite Republicans have tried to push Romney down our throats and guess what, we’re not buying!!

        • lineholder

          !

          • txpat

            n/t

          • redcal

            Great link, septembergurl.

            Newt has the big Mo, and all he has to do is keep doing what he’s doing in the debates. He’s had a history of doing his best from behind and then self-destructing when he gets to the top, sooner or later. We can only hope that he changes that behavior with this newest comeback.

            But Romney is the one at major, major risk. Polling 8 points down after spending 5+ million across his campaign + the PAC in the state? This is an absolute disaster for him. And he now has to dig again for yet another message to sell himself (what is this, Romney version 17?) and attack Newt credibly, fighting two wars at the same time, and not having shown enormous skill in fighting one so far.

            Gingrich has found a message that both wins with voters and is credible/congruent with his own persona. Romney has yet to do either, and his time is running out, even if his PAC’s spending isn’t.

          • heimdall

            It is doubly important for Romney to win this, otherwise Gingrich could be running away with delegates in no time due to momentum. Not that it would be a bad thing though.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          It’s a pdf at RealClearPolitics.

          It’s a poll of 557 likely voters and they don’t list the MoE. Gingrich is well ahead of Romney in EVERY surveyed demographic and crushes Santorum who is trailing Paul and “No Opinion”.

          You can expect the Romney commercials to be occasionally interrupted by programming over the next week. Santorum is about to find out that his “bought and paid for” evangelical buddies are likely to be rethinking dumping good money after bad into his campaign. Think Pantaloons is going to give the million back?

        • conservativeparrothead

          Too many polls there have Gingrich way overstated, not sure if its the way they ask, or who they eliminate or what, but I remember in Iowa, a few days before the caucus they still had him in a 3-way tie for the lead, they were the only ones.

          Somehow Im on their email list, and I get like 4 a day it seems, and I would say over 80% of the political ones are Pro-Newt news.

          • lineholder

            on twitter. They didn’t provide specifics pertaining to the demographics. This will be released tomorrow. But they did provide information stating that out of 600 voters polled, Mitt only had 2 votes more than Newt. This poll does indicate a dramatic increase in Newt’s position in FL. Just not as dramatic as the IA poll.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Do you have any evidence to suggest the polling might be wrong, or are you just flinging poo?

            Polling primaries isn’t the same as polling caucuses. We know this.

          • heimdall

            Even bigger lead for Gingrich than in IA poll.

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Lots of people have already voted in the Florida primary.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And I don’t know that it’s one pollsters have fully grappled with.

          • heimdall

            Don’t have any idea how they are going to measure this…

          • lizzie

            total turnout.

            probably read that at RCP or Politico this morning.

            but Florida allows early voting all this week, so hard to know what % actually vote on January 31.

            Perry’s SC team pivoted on a dime to GOTV for Newt.

            I assume Perry’s team in Florida (half of them had worked for Rubio) is doing the same.

          • conservativeparrothead

            But Im just being cautiously optomistic, if it were any other source and now I see Rasmussen has similar numbers then wonderful.

            Im just saying that Newsmax/Insider polls have traditionally been overestimating Newt, at least in the first two contests (Iowa and NH). I realize that caucus are tougher to predict than primaries and certainly open primaries are tougher than closed, however, nobody else had numbers close to what they had in Iowa. It was almost like an internal campaign poll.

            Example I get a BREAKING NEWS email from Newsmax:
            Trump praises Gingrich, Guliani endorsement may be the key.

            Michael Reagan endorses Gingrich

            Romney advisor: We may lose SC

            These were their three breaking news stories…

  • freemanja1991

    In 08 he almost won the convention, and very well could win the caucuses this time around.

    • mikeymike143

      except a trip to a the nuthouse

      • rifemadson

        Ron Paul should go to the nuthouse. Crazy ideas like balanced budgets, sound money and individual liberty.

        Somebody put a straight jacket on this kook!

    • rifemadson

      and when it is all said and done he will have enough delegates to influence the convention.

      True conservatism in catching on in the GOP. There is less and less tolerance for the neoconservative world view and every day more people are waking up and understanding that the only true small government conservative in the race is Ron Paul.

      • mikeymike143

        and being a member of the anti war left is not conservative.

        • freemanja1991

          in 2008 the GOP convention shut down due to Paul looking like he would win, 2 NV has a strong libertarian streak, I know I use to live there. and Paul did get 22% in 08. Also Most Nevadans aren’t comfortable caucusing yet, so turn out will be low.

  • rifemadson

    So good ol’ boy Newt, after 40 years in Washington DC as a politican and lobbyist insider is now “Mr. Anti-Establishment”. And you lap dogs are swallowing it whole.

    We spend so much time arguing over this and that with the media creating issues, keeping us fighting and distracted. Tell me what actual concrete substantial differences there would be between a President Gingrich and a President Romney?

    Please, I want to know.

    • 6t9boss

      Here are some actual differences:

      Will Romney repeal ObamaCare…Probably not , since he wrote it!
      Will Romney pick Conservative SC judges… No he is not a Conservative
      Will Romney fight for asmaller Gov’t…He certainly did not do that in Mass.
      Will Romney reduce EPA regulations…probably not since he stated he believes in Global Warming.

      So far everything listed above Newt will actually fight ( as you can see in the media) to change….not so sure Santorum can take to the lIberals like Newt can…..

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …by invoking Iran.

      During a ‘phone conference-call this past December, I asked him two questions.

      Regarding the 1000:1 prisoner-swap [for Galid Shalit], he said [1]–he wouldn’t second-guess Bibi, and [2]–he would ensure that the CIA could “handle” the 35 released-terrorists who had killed Americans.

      Wanna connect the dots?

      Regarding the possibility of quarantine/blockade [to stop refined-oil imports and weapons exports], he reflexly claimed it would be c/w his intent to achieve regime-change.

      Wanna anticipate what Mitt would have said, in response to either query?

      The Newt would be forthright, candid; this is what the GOP electorate yearns to experience. He would nominate Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito, not Myers/Souter/O’Connor/Kennedy.

      OK for starters?

      • rifemadson

        69er,

        Romney has flatly said he will repeal Obamacare.

        Smaller government? Honestly, if shrinking the federal government is your primary concern you should not be supporting either one of these candidates, but that is a debate for another time.

        EPA Regulations. Really? So we should assume Romney is lying when he says he will repeal Obamacare, but we must assume Newt is telling the truth when he says sitting on the loveseat with Pelosi pushing enviornmental legislation was a mistake? Got it.

        To the good Doctor,

        Basically, Gingrich is the man for the job because he will ensure a war with Iran, and will expand the extrajudicial killing program through the CIA? That will make a great TV ad.

        As for the Supreme Court issue, I agree this is important in contrast with who Obama would nominate, but either Romney or Gingrich will nominate the most conservative person they could get confirmed. Remember, congress still has the ultimate say in supreme court justices. See Miers, Harriet.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …and that is what transpired.

          Regarding issues…

          I hope The Newt will adhere to Perry’s Federalism as an antidote to prior Individual-Mandate endorsement; this contrasts with Mitt’s ongoing adherence to Big Government [even if constitutional on a state-level].

          I hope The Newt will remain forthright regarding the existential threat posed by Iran; this contrasts with Mitt’s posture [which resembles that of BHO] regarding the need [forever] to ensure the military-option remains “on the table.”

          I hope The Newt will adhere to Perry’s Federalism as an antidote to his having supported cap-’n'-trade; this contrasts with Mitt’s not having disclaimed overlapping consultants [in Mass/D.C.] regarding both environment/health.

          I hope Mitt [and you, perhaps] can rethink the claim “either Romney or Gingrich will nominate the most conservative person they could get confirmed,” inasmuch as Mitt nominated Mass.-Libs [well-documented] and slotted Planned Parenthood [but not any pro-life entity] onto a planning board of RomneyCare; you cannot reasonably ID any comparable action by The Newt during his power-period in the 1990′s.

          I hope The Newt [and you, perhaps] recognize that a war rages with Islamo-Fascists who continue to fight the Crusades; is it not necessary to preserve the Judeo-Christian Ethic…as The Newt [but not Mitt] clearly recognizes?

          {“Tag, you’re ‘it’!”}

        • 6t9boss

          Mader, to me actions speak louder than words. Romney DID instate socialized medicine in the Mass. and Romneys’ peopele DID help craft ObamaCare.
          EPA? I am confused now.. what has RomenyCare got to do with the EPA unless it is a environmental disaster! Oh and we are supposed to NOT to believe Romney when he is running around shouting “I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!” pass the hat! LOL!
          SC Judge, No we do differ here Romney will not pick a Conservative judge.

          as to war there is a saying “Peace through Strength” right now we have no strength.

          • rifemadson

            you have to understand Romney was governor of Massachusetts. It is quite ridiculous and unfair to lampoon him for not pushing through a strong conservative agenda in such a liberal state.

            I am not in the Romney or Gingrich camp. I am a Ron Paul supporter and will be until we have a nominee.

            Between Newt and Mitt I am leaning Mitt based on economic acumen and electability.

          • mayflower

            Frankly, I don’t want a president who deserted two seriously ill wives.

            I don’t want someone who was a lobbyist (and if you’re peddling influence, you are a lobbyist – whether you register or not) and tells Clintonesque lies about it.

            I’d be very glad to know that Newt is a changed human being, having repented and asked God’s mercy and forgiveness. I hope he is being truthful about this. That’s between him and God, really, but I do hope for him that it’s so.

            However – a forgiven person does not escape all the consequences of their actions. If this were so, we would have to release every felon who finds God. Forgiven or not, they forfeited their right to interact freely with the public.

            Newt forfeited his right to serve as a public official when he violated ethics rules.

            He forfeited his right to be regarded as a man of honor when he carried on a six year affair with a woman who he would now like to inflict upon is as First Lady. (What a horrible example this would be for the daughters of America.)

            Forgiveness – God’s, or in this case, the public’s – does not erase consequences.

            He should employ his considerable talent in service to America, but not as President of the United States.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …but you are unduly harsh to deny others his potential leadership.

            1. Wives. He apologized, and the exposition of wife #2 [who doesn't seem to be worse-for-wear regarding her MS...which she apparently only revealed 2 years after the end of their marriage] didn’t affect public-perceptions.

            2. Lobbyist. He claims to have disclaimed Freddie-Mac, despite the $1.6-million, via public testimony; do you know something to the contrary?

            3. There was only one charge upon which he ultimately was censored [payment for lecture, if memory serves], hardly comparable to the acts of a convicted-felon; I suppose you agree with Mitt that people who have served their time still should not be permitted to vote?

            4. Calista. You may wish to review her profile on newt.org; she appears to be accomplished and…oh by-the-way…they appear to have been in-love for almost two decades, now.

            You may not be susceptible to being convinced that the domestic/foreign-policy issues should drive the debate more than the social/personal concerns. But you may wish to dig-deeper regarding the degree of moralism you are injecting into the discussion.

            People who now support The Newt are aware, but we view him as having accepted Perry’s mantle; you may wish to trust his considered/ethical judgment, as well.

          • rifemadson

            So, Newt is depending on the daughters from his first wife to convince everyone his second wife is lying about his third wife.

            Family values indeed.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …although they are fine spokeswomen for their father.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Mitt continues to claim that Newt was a lobbyist, even though it’s clear that he was not.

            Mitt Romney has lied to us over and over again. Morality is off the table for both candidates.

          • rifemadson

            “When Newt Gingrich says he never lobbied, he’s not telling the truth.

            When he was a paid consultant for the drug-industry’s lobby group, Gingrich worked hard to persuade Republican congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored. To deny Gingrich was a lobbyist requires an Obama-like word parsing over who is and who isn’t a lobbyist.”

            The above quote was from the this article

            http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple

            Stop spreading your inaccuracies. Don’t bring any of this depends on the definition of “is” crap. I will not allow that kind of garbage to go unanswered.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Lobbying without being licensed is a crime.

            You know he wasn’t a lobbyist, but you can’t stand your man-god being beaten by someone who probably shouldn’t even be in the race. That’s how bad Romney is.

          • lizzie

            stay in remission due to the stress?

            I think that is extrememly selfsh of Mr. Romney.

            I would add to Dr. R’s points about Romney as squish that Romney, on Yom Kippur 2011, repeatedly refused to answer Judy Woodruff’s question on PBS NewsHour as to whether Mr. Romney believed apartments in Jerusalem are “settlements”.

            Mitt NEVER had my vote, but that waffling was 100% Obama-esque.

            Newt can win New York.

            After all, Giuliani never suffered for public cross-dressing on SNL or sneaking his mistress into Gracie Mansion while wife Donna and their children were asleep in other bedrooms.

            Perry never recovered from having endorsed Giuliani in 2008.

          • lizzie

            After all, Giuliani never suffered IN NEW YORK for public cross-dressing on SNL or sneaking his mistress into Gracie Mansion while wife Donna and their children were asleep in other bedrooms.

            Perry never recovered IN IOWA FROM HUCKABEE’S GRUDGE from Perry having endorsed Giuliani in 2008.

          • rifemadson

            his epic debate failures and his ridiculous public statements and speeches.

            The video against gays in the military where he was wearing the Brokeback Mountain jacket was so bad it was good. SNL could not have scripted something better than that.

            Perry was not ready for the big leagues and he proved that to everyone. Trying to give the Huckster credit for that train wreck is absurd.

          • gekster

            that was against gays in the military.
            Got a link to that.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …illustrates how many people feared the possibility he would receive “a second look.”

            This is less the problem of the candidate [who did well in the debates during the subsequent two months] than it serves as a condemnation of those conservative pundits who actually contain recessive genes for RINO-ism.

            He became ready, rapidly, for the big-leagues, but the Huckster was not alone among those who were threatened by his plan to dismantle D.C.

          • rifemadson

            Mitt Romney is forcing Ann to do anything?

          • lizzie

            at a certain point (I do not remember the xact date but it was when Mitt decided he should grace Iowa with his presence), Ann Romney suddenly appeared on the campaign trail, and had an interview somewhere about her battle with multiple sclerosis, and she has been next to Mitt ever since.

            gekster: it is futile to make anyone change their opinion about Perry questioning why gays can openly serve in the military when our children can not openly pray in schools.

            The entire liberal media characterized that ad as Perry “bashing gays who serve in the military” and a subset accused Perry of being gay because his Carhartt jacket was used by the costume director of “Brokeback Mountain”

            Perry had a valid question, but even I thought he should have not gone there in a 30-second ad. His “Faith” ad was the light touch needed for Iowa.

            Actually, I still think Perry should have gone for the fiscal conservatives (jobs, debt) and military from day 1, and not worry so much about Evangelicals in Iowa who always thought him too moderate on abortion.

            There are a lot of moves by the Perry campaign that I still do not understand, but glad that he is getting recharged with the 10A work.

            Perry certainly proved that no one should ever jump into the nomination process without spending at least one year fulltime in Iowa and NH, which is really a terrible system.

            No mas. Perry broke Romney’s glass jaw, and has already shaped changes in the national dialog, and Obama’s foreign policy.
            Yes, Turkey IS governed by Islamists who embrace terrorists!

            I expect the punditheads to start wistfully wishing the energized Perry had remained on that debate stage, but a tactical retreat is always essential to a successful insurgency :)

            and perry does need to insert more nuance into his 60-second responses. “Going back into Iraq” was not what he meant to say, but those were the first words and that really hurt him.

          • gekster

            And I do agree.
            To bad Perry had a real job and did not have the time to go and hone his campaign skills.
            Hopefully we can see him at a future date useing the experience he gained from this go round.
            It’s also to bad that it seems most voters let others, MSM and such, tell them about the candidates and not do thier own reaserch.
            That’s how we got Obama.
            One would think they would have learned from that.
            Oh well……

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Paulturd.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …with every nook-and-cranny of this posting!

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            http://wn.com/Republican_Presidential_Candidate_Mitt_Romney_Sits_Down_with_Judy_Woodruff

            Start listening @ 8 minutes. He starts by attacking BHO because he had gone-public against Israel. He indeed punts starting @ 9 minutes; claiming he would not share his opinion publicly. He stays generic, while the queries focus on the “settlements” [communities, suburbs, outposts, etc.], even repeating the need to lock-arms with Israel. One could argue that this off-putting posture suggests he actually would disapprove of Israeli policy, notwithstanding his coda [which notes Israel's status is as "fragile" as it's ever been].

            Lizzie was accurate!

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …as you had posited.

            This isn’t surprising, for your agenda actually was to promote Paul.

          • 6t9boss

            Mader your quote: It is quite ridiculous and unfair to lampoon him for not pushing through a strong conservative agenda in such a liberal state.

            This is too rich! We are supposed to just look the other way because Romney GOT ELECTED on a LIBERAL agenda in the home state of Ted Kennedy! LOL! Now that’s funny! Maybe we should do the same thing and keep Obama! Afterall he could not help it he came from Chicago either.

            Of course I will give you credit for being honest that you are for the “Head in the Sand” candidate Ron Paul.

            Of the three candidates that are still standing only Newt is willing to take the fight to the GOP Liberals and Democrates……Contray to Rush’s beliefs; Newt is NOT a “Vessel” for a Message from the Conservatives…Newt IS THE MAN THAT CAN GET THE JOB DONE ! Too bad nobody in the media ..even Rush can see it.

    • bobguzzardi

      No one on RedState doesn’t know who and what Newt Gingrich is. But in the real world which is neither pure nor pristine, Newt Gingrich has emerged as the most unlikely avatar of “anti-Establishment”.

      Note: when your leader is Newt Gingrich, your cause is in trouble.
      It is what it is.

  • 6t9boss

    I don’t think the GOP establishment-Liberals realize what is happening right infront of their eyes.
    Prior to 2010 conservatives were “Team” players..”yeah I’ll vote for a moderate.liberal just to get the GOP numbers up!” BUT in 2010 the GOP Establishment-Liberals DID NOT back Conservatives, in fact they attacked them as they are doing NOW! This betrayal by the “Left” in the GOP has opened Conservatives eyes across this country and they are saying ” I would rather go down fighting with a Conservative nominee than sacrifice my principles on the alter of the Letter “R”, only to get folks like Snow, Graham, McCain, etal…
    The Carl Rove RINO’s says “Obama’s gotta go!” and we replace him with WHAT!?….a lighter, leaner version of Obama? or some who will take the fight to the Liberals!
    To me this is truely a turning point in the GOP. The Conservatives are still in the GOP but making themselves heard and if the GOP Establishment-Liberals do not take this seriously they may find themselves damaged beyond repair.
    If you think this is just sabre rattling; all you have to do is look at how many people do not want Romney!
    Coulter, Beck, Kruathammer, Snow, and anyone else that is slamming Newt are damaging their crediblity………

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      Otherwise concur.

      Amazingly, these usual-suspects haven’t yet weighed-in regarding the ad-hominem attack-plan of Mitt on The Newt; this is problematic and must be remembered when they seek support for future critique.

      • 6t9boss

        Olympia Snowe…a GOP Establishement – Liberal US Senator that can always be counted on to vote with the Democrates………..

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          Meanwhile, “Morning Joe” quotes Mark Steyn quoting Mitt’s blandness…as they validate prospect of Mitt going-negative on The Newt.

          And, amazingly, they attack Joe-Pa because his not having called the police “overshadows all of his accomplishments.” [Remember that he endorsed Nixon.] Joe feels the death-penalty would be apt…and that there should be no football games played for a year. [Wonder if he'd apply such penalties to the shooter of Gabby.]

          I share these data to ensure everyone can appreciate the liberal-narratives…and their implications.

          • mayflower

            to conclude that failing to report to police the rape of a little boy overshadows a sports career.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …when coupled with the claim that the perpetrator [who reported the event to his superiors] should be subject to the death-penalty.

            “Mayflower” sent this to me privately, as well, emphasizing also that the career should be overshadowed “however stellar.”

            The WPost Interview should be noted…
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html
            …because he said he didn’t know he had to follow-up.

            This isn’t to be excused but, remember, this didn’t involve the coach’s work on the football team. More important, politically, is whether Corbett will be besmirched for not having gone-public as the AG. [Also, accusations exist regarding the number of agents who were investigating; conspiracy-theorists are tying this to the disappearance of the Center County DA, years ago.]

            Most important, from the perspective of the excessive hand-wringing by PMSNBC is that–as Perry noted with regard to The Newt during last Thursday’s concession-speech–there must be a sense of Christian Forgiveness factored-in…yielding recognition of his yeoman’s contributions to Penn State and collegiate sports.

            When I was @ University Park [1969-1970, 5-year program with Jefferson], he was already being heralded as having emphasized the importance of academics, and multiple events during the subsequent four-decades have reinforced his compulsion to discipline his players rather than to give-them-a-pass. This posture has been reinforced during interviews during the past 24-hours with NFL-stars who were trained [for life] in Happy Valley.

            So, surely, he should have followed-up…and he knows it. But this should not be permitted to besmirch his unique contributions to society. And, oh by the way, it can be argued that Corbett’s having fired him [hours after he had announced his retirement, with only 3 games left in the season] could have hastened his desire to be [physically] buried ASAP, inasmuch as [as a medical oncologist] it’s unclear why he was receiving high-doses of chemo-Rx.

            ….

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …is necessary.

            The latest histologic information is that he had small-cell anaplastic carcinoma ["oat cell"] which is rapidly progressive and rapidly responsive and then rapidly progressive [usually].

            There was reference made to his having refractured his pelvis.

            Thus, it’s possible he presented with bone metastases, staged as “advanced” rather than “limited” disease…carrying an even more dire prognosis.

            The proper treatment is, indeed, based on chemotherapy [not surgery], with irradiation of the residual primary lesion possible thereafter.

            The point, here, is that he probably received intense treatment which, in an 85-year-old, has significant toxicity risk.

            One cannot second-guess without knowing the data, but he probably got infected when he was vulnerable [pneumonia/sepsis may supervene]. Then, noting the problematic prognosis [medium-term, let alone the poor long-term outlook], they decided not to maintain an aggressive stance.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            Guzzardi’s elaboration [infra]; “Mayflower,” can you honestly jettison a unique life’s work because of one lack-of-follow-up indiscretion?

            For example, suppose JoePa knew the AG was investigating but hadn’t yet gone public [for an extended time-period]; would he not have felt his responsibilities had been successfully discharged [by whatever communications pathway]?

            I’m not excusing it, but I’m not also not convinced it reflected an elitist culture [although Guzzardi feels the multi-million-dollar payouts to coaches are obscene uses of tax-$, noting that ~10% of the budget is Harrisburg-granted]. My point is that the aloofness of the PMSNBC pontificators [death penalty for not having followed-up?] reflected a desire to attack mercilessly a conservative icon.

      • bobguzzardi

        ctredstater coined a new word and it is the strange phenomenon we see unfolding. Newt Gingrich is the unlikely agent of change.

        Note: when Newt Gingrich is your leader, your cause is in trouble.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …when I read input such as this [note ending-'graph]:

    Here’s the link to Insider Advantage…
    mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, January 23rd at 1:13AM EST (link)
    It?s a pdf at RealClearPolitics.

    It?s a poll of 557 likely voters and they don?t list the MoE. Gingrich is well ahead of Romney in EVERY surveyed demographic and crushes Santorum who is trailing Paul and ?No Opinion?.

    You can expect the Romney commercials to be occasionally interrupted by programming over the next week. Santorum is about to find out that his ?bought and paid for? evangelical buddies are likely to be rethinking dumping good money after bad into his campaign. Think Pantaloons is going to give the million back?

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …when provided succinct, reality-based articulations of what I’ve sensed:

      Romney has been unmasked
      ctredstater Sunday, January 22nd at 7:45PM EST (link)
      It made me nuts to think he was going to ?pull a McCain? and sort of let Santorum be his Huckabee, clearing out Newt and Perry, the two real threats to him.

      I am so glad it didn?t happen. I am glad the base didn?t let it happen. He was at his absolutely worst this week ? looking petulant, elitist ($374,000 is not a lot of money), entitled (telling the electorate what it thinks), and stiff.

      Doesn?t mean the glass jaw has been shattered and that he is toast. He has been knocked down. Let?s see him get up, dust himself off, and become strengthened, not fatally weakened, by this.

      Similarly, let?s see Newt sharpen his messages, show some maturity, and really show what he has, what he could do. he made a great point on Face the Nation today ? he has quite a body of work. Sure ? people can cherry pick this and that. and I was a solid Perry man. but Newt is carrying the conservative banner.

      Santorum ? campaigning for cabinet post, at best. Should consider himself fortunate that he ?got hot when he did? in Iowa. Live for a couple years in Iowa and you increase the chances that may happen.

      Rockefeller Republicanism between Newtism ? a blend of conservatism and a lot of other exotic stuff.

      I am for Newt. But let?s see a good, vigorous back and forth ? and a couple of candidates who keep getting better ? not worse.

  • bobguzzardi

    JoePa did report to the police. PENN STATE administration and law enforcement failed to investigate. Only one state trooper on the case until 2009. Note that then AG Tom Corbett, now Gov. Corbett, had been AG since 2004.

    A RAPE OF A TEN YEAR OLD!!!! The magnitude of this failure cannot be overestimated. This is sickening to any parent. The cry of a child was not heard by those in authority whom we look to to protect us and our children.

  • lizzie

    all week.

    You really have to read the whole analysis. For RedStaters who believe The New Yorker is too liberal? Yes, they have gone off the left end politically since Obama banned them in July 2008, but James Surowiecki is an iconoclastic financial writer – and his “Private Inequity” in the January 30 edition is linked at RealClearPolitics this morning because it is so clear on why the Leveraged Buyout model is NOT Free Market Capitalism.

    Here is the conclusion, which should resonate with some, followed by the actual URL for the entire piece:

    “…taxpayers are left on the hook. Interest payments on all that debt are tax-deductible; when pensions are dumped, a federal agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation picks up the tab; and the money that the dealmakers earn is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income would be, thanks to the so-called ?carried interest? loophole. The money that Mitt Romney made when he was at Bain Capital was compensation for his (apparently excellent) work, but, instead of being taxed as income, it was taxed as a capital gain. It?s a very cozy arrangement.

    If private-equity firms are as good at remaking companies as they claim, they don?t need tax loopholes to make money. If we capped the deductibility of corporate debt, and closed the carried-interest loophole, it would not prevent private-equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial gimmickry and save taxpayers billions every year. Private-equity firms are excellent at gaming the rules. Time to change them. ?”

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki

    I might add that the business writers at the New York Times (Gretchen Morgenson since Louis Uchitelle retired) have been merciless in critiquing Obama’s policies and exposing the bipartisan Wall Street to DC causes of the 2008 meltdown.
    NYT’s Great series “The Reckoning” even had one column exposing Schumer as the Senator FOR Wall Street, protecting that carried interest loophole to suck enough campaign funds to buy that 2006 & 2008 Senate for the Dems.

    I assume the NYT Op-Ed writers avoid the NYT business writers to prevent physical injuries :)

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      [again]

  • lakeshore

    The Dems are loving this. They are running ads against Romney in Florida, to push up his negatives. Now they will start financing Newt Gingrich, directly or indirectly, to make him the nominee, or at least force a long, expensive primary process that drives up the negatives of both, weakening the winner. Meanwhile, we’ll eventually hear even more about Newt’s life, if he should get the nomination. I’m sure the Dem trench coats have a large file on him they’ll keep leaking to the media later in the year. I recall an interview Newt gave some weeks ago, when asked if there would be any more scandals come out, he replied with “not that I know of.” Hardly reassuring.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/any-other-skeletons-in-gingrichs-closet-not-that-i-know-of/

    Our best hope is that Romney is the nominee. Here’s why. He HAS to pick someone for VP that the true Conservatives like, to bolster the base. Then, if Romney loses, that person becomes the new front runner for 2016. If Romney wins, Obama is gone, and Romney is still forced to keep the Conservative base happy, otherwise he’ll lose Congress and maybe not be reelected. Gingrich is unelectable. Ask anyone who isn’t already a Gingrich supporter–which is the majority of America. I wanted someone better than either of them, but we’re stuck, and have to pick the most electable person. Romney has to work with Conservatives, and he will.

    • moodyboots

      All those Vegas moguls who’ve been paying Newt’s PAC and running those false Bain attacks that some conservatives have bought are Harry Reid cronies. As the chief of staff of a Tea Party freshman said today “the Tea Party is allowing Harry Reid to pick up the GOP nominee”.

      • lakeshore

        Thanks for that, moodyboots. Can you post a link to the quote?

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      which is entirely appropriate given the LSM’s propensity to make stuff up (think Dan Rather or Trigg Palin). And if you think any GOP candidate is off limits to this kind of stuff, you’re naive at best.

      GINGRICH: Not that I know of. I mean, again, given the nature of the modern world whatever is there I?m sure will come out in the end. But to the best of my knowledge people know an immense amount about me. Probably more than any candidate who is running. I think people have dealt with and thought through whether or not they could support me.

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/any-other-skeletons-in-gingrichs-closet-not-that-i-know-of/

      Our problem isn’t that Romney will work with conservatives. He very well may do so. Our problem is that he will work with RINO’s, moderates, and liberals.