Well done!!!
BTW..on the topic of your diary..
Perry AND Cain sent Mitt a joint early Christmas present…The Four Seasons’ CD..”SILENCE IS GOLDEN”

was really shocking. That interview was nothing like the grilling the other candidates have gone through, especially Bachmann, Gingrich, and Cain.

I’m sorry, but all I could think of when his voice got all high and tight was this epic scene:

Yes Romney behavied like a petulant child just like Obama did with O’Reilly.

Romney had the attitude how dare I be challenged on my actual record.

I’m warning folks now Romney will be terrible in debates with Obama because he’s a bad imitation of Obama.

Good read on the 2008 campaign as well.

BTB did you catch him throwing GWB under the bus on a pro-life flip flop GWB never had? Just to show all GOP presidents flip flop, yeah right. Yes GHWB flip flopped on pro-life, actually I don’t ever know if he was solidly pro-life, but GWB never did.

that Romney will not be able to win a general election against Barack Obama. I will support the Republican candidate no matter what, but if Mr. Romney cannot even field questions from Fox, how is he supposed to deal with the LSM?

Does anyone believe that the media will not give Obama one “Get Out Of Jail Free” card after another against Romney, just as they did vs. McCain?

Newt has demonstrated time and time again that he can shut the LSM down hard. It is time for conservatives to coalesce NOW around a candidate/ticket (personally I think Perry/Gingrich or Gingrich/Perry is the way to go).

the press have no right to question him??? That they should just give him air time to show off his hair and accept whatever drivel he feels like spewing today??? He is not only a whiner, but he is slimy about it. If he really felt that Baer was being unfair to him somehow he should have had the guts to say so on the air.

Are we really going to nominate this Obummer Lite for the highest office in the land!!!???

Really!!!!!?????

…which focuses on The Newt…
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/30/latest-gingrich-oppo-dump/#comment-14966
…and which now has an extended-discussion [by yours-truly] that dovetails with BOTH the above-points [about Mitt] and the desirability [or lack thereof] to even ponder a Veep-Newt [which probably would parallel the Biden choice which, if nothing else, illustrates how hiring a hatchet-man can besmirch the POTUS].

It is reprinted, so that debate thereupon can be amplified as the anti-Mitt forces join with the anti-Newt forces…to seek-out another alternative!

***

[title] Multiple Observations and Loose Ends…

[text] …are provided as y’all awaken.

[text continues]

***

“Old Business”

First, on a prior web-page, I had an exchange with Wonkish1 which culminated in a summary that remains operational. I invited him to respond to this new thread…recognizing the Guiness-length of its predecessor on that site.

We were getting a bit squished physically [with half of the margin having been obliterated], and [to me] Wonkish1 was becoming a bit squished emotionally [manifest by inter-alia tangential commentary]. Meanwhile, he was being aided/abetted by JSobieski [whose support was steady, albeit more supplementary than definitive], but I have no problem handling 2:1 odds. Others were perhaps bemused by the byplay [sometimes akin to simultaneous-chess, inasmuch as multiple friction-points ensued]….

Thus, clarity is in-order.

I was busy attacking The Newt for having endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

The discussion had digressed into SS, try as I might to remain on-topic ["on-thread"..."on-subthread"?] In any case, Wonk disavowed personal endorsement of the Individual Mandate, and we were JUST AT THE POINT when he was going to be invited to rectify formally his stance with the above-quotes.

Wonkish1, and others who discussed this focused-concern, are invited to chime-in. In my view, this isn’t a product of stream-of-consciousness, etc. In fact, yesterday, he was still hearkening-back to the 1990?s rationale ["Heritage did it to combat HillaryCare, I supported to fight-off single-payer, Heritage rescinded, so did I"]. HE HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT HE REINFORCED THIS ATTITUDE IN RECENT BOOKS/TAPES.

I feel this is reflective of statism/elitism, for he consistently views Big Government as having a “tinkering”-role [at LEAST] when problems loom.

***

“New Business”

The discussion both on Special Report and on O’Reilly was how Romney became testy–overtly–during the interview with Bret Baer AND how he verbalized this emotional-reaction [after having taken a "break" in his quarters] directly to the questioner. Now, I thought the queries were not zingers [for he allowed him off-of-the-hook on multiple occasions], but O’Reilly advised him–next time–to query @ the end whether the interviewee felt the queries had been “fair” [as he had done with BHO on Super Bowl Sunday].

THIS IS HUGE, because it suggests Mitt has recognized that he may have peaked, in this case because of the Newt-Rush [although an inevitable phenomenon to some pundits]. He can no longer participate in the “Mittness Protection Plan” and must subject himself to interviews. That he didn’t want the “Center Seat” format suggests that he fears hostility from FNC, despite the particularly benign [but occasionally focused/bemused, noting Krauthammer's perception of Paul] atmosphere that is created.

What’s going on, here, and did anyone on this site prognosticate effectively?

***

“Analysis”

Mitt is in trouble. Even if the Florida polling is askew from the Leftie-Perspective, he has not gained strength when opponents [non-Mitts] have faltered. He is “Wall St.” and “Establishment” and even putative supporters [such as Ann Coulter] are [let us say] “thin” when they invoke the “electability” card. The GOP-Electorate hasn’t “bought” it, isn’t “buying” it, and is unlikely to “purchase” this item [certainly not overwhelmingly, perhaps not even back to the 25%-ceiling] during the primaries [except NH, because Huntsman is so much worse].

Despite “puff” pieces, Santorum/Bachmann haven’t become advantaged from this phenomenon. Indeed, if Michele [to whom I gave $180, ten days ago] claimed America had an embassy in Tehran…without postulating that this was “hypothetical”…then she again loses an opportunity to seize-the-moment. And Santorum is portrayed as earnest and improving, but ultimately bogged-down by his BIG loss in PA; I saw him @ a book-signing ["It Takes a Family"] in Bryn Mawr and suggested he had POTUS-aspirations, if for no other reason than his book-title ["It Takes a Family"[ was perhaps chosen to juxtapose his thinking with that of Hillary ["It Takes a Village"].

[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69492.html]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/gop-hopeful-rick-santorum-campaigns-with-a-seriously-ill-daughter-at-home/2011/11/28/gIQAMWdHAO_story.html?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop]

BTW, I asked Michele about Santorum’s confession of hypocrisy with regard to abortion during the Thanksgiving-Family-Event, for I viewed it as the most moving segment thereat; she said he had discussed this vignette previously.

So, if it can be concluded [1]–the field is set, [2]–Cain is failing, [3]–The Newt is rising, [4]–Paul is stable [and, per Krauthammer and EE and others, "won't be the nominee, period"], and [5]–Bachmann/Santorum remain without adherence…what is next?

***

“Synthesis”

Anyone who would claim [including myself, when Perry announced] that this race is anything but gaseous [beyond "fluid"], is trying to create a freeze-moment to validate a personal perspective.

Here, the rush to Newt is predicated – at least in-part – upon a desire to alight SOMEWHERE and then to self-assess how it “feels.” I predict [tenuously] that the onslaught of reality-testing will “test” Newt’s tolerance, whether it be on NewtCare, NewtLobbying, NewtFlips, etc. And anything missing will be raised by Mitt in 10 [short] days. For example, can his elitism/statism NOT be on-view when he claims not to have been a lobbyist because he was earning $60K per [client] speech?

So, where do the TEA {Taxed Enough Already} Party Activists, the Evangelicals, the increasingly-intrigued electorate [which excludes educated-bloggers on RS and elsewhere] choose to align themselves?

{Yeah, here comes the punch-line, perhaps predictable, perhaps not, you be the judge.}

Perry flubs again on the voting-date/age, but he remains the most likely recipient of the anyone-but-Mitt/Newt electorate [which remains huge]. An indicator of whether I’m correct will be whether the $-bundlers who have STILL been non-committal [en-masse] will resign themselves to an obvious DC-insider such as The Newt.

***

“Homework”

Perry has to rise to the occasion before the fortnight of end-of-December vacation places the campaign in a behind-the-moon-blackout mode [perhaps "brown-out" would be more apt, because the MSM/LSM/ELM still wants to attract all available eyeballs] for the fortnight immediately prior to Iowa.

It’s no secret that the expectations-game will be afoot [Newt high, Perry low...thankfully, in both instances] during the [relatively few] December debates, but the task-order is that Perry Must WIN All Encounters with The Newt. He cannot depend upon a “miffed” Mitt to perform this task.

The viewers will be attuned to this, and may be apt [finally] to “reward” the slayer-of-the-dragon. The openings are myriad [for The Newt, as well, as chronicled on this page and elsewhere], so he will need [1]–to pick his shot, and [2] to be poised to strike if opportunity arises.

I felt he unnerved Mitt [although others thought the Illegals-Hiring point was overbearing] as detailed previously [vide infra, for documentation], and this was the first/only time ANYONE had punctured/dented him during ANY of the debates. No one wants to give him credit, because everyone fears what he would do to the status-quo in D.C. if provided the chance to clean-house [without lingering alliances, as Mitt has created and Newt has expanded].

He can do it again. He can cite the most recent quotes from BOTH of these guys and then zinger-a-rejoinder if he just picks-up the delivery-speed from 33 1/3 to 45 rpm. He can invoke quotes with abandon from “Fed Up!” [because, if nothing else, this book proves he has already thought-through the "big questions"] to buttress his prior white-papers [focusing relentlessly on how he would apply the 10th Amendment from D.C. as he has from Austin].

The recipients of this attack-mode will be wont to treat him as a pinata, again, for we’ve “been there, done that.” He must be polite, but he must not fall into the unctuousness that The Newt has effectively/predictably exuded [when attacking questioners, a pattern that nauseated this viewer because it represented such a transparent unifying effort that contrasted with the purpose of debates....to com;pare/contrast so as to choose the optimal anti-BHO].

Only Perry has this opportunity, he has become seasoned, he’s up-to-speed, the voting starts in less than a month, and his moment is NOW!

{I might add that these arguments haven’t been decimated by my son, so they COULD be correct.}

The rest of us will do the rest….

***

“Documentation”

On another website initiated by Guzzardi…
http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy?page=3
…I compiled the database regarding Romney’s double-hiring of Illegals, thusly:

This is how Rick has summarized these concerns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FIKySVnSvA.

*

The Boston Globe has published an update of its two contemporaneous/relevant pieces [which appeared one year apart and cite his “you’re fired!” letter]:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/fact-check-the-story-behind-the-accusation-that-mitt-romney-knew-had-hired-illegal-immigrants/P8deMLtSoAMK7kZ7FnAj2I/index.html?camp=obnetwork

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/01/illegal_immigrants_toiled_for_governor/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2007/12/romneys_stateme.html

*

The overview-piece was based on the debate-quotes, but perhaps-purposefully drew no conclusions.

The first piece quoted the owner of the landscaping company thusly: “Saenz said Romney never asked him if his workers are legal immigrants….Saenz said he had never requested any proof from his employees to show they are here legally. ‘I don’t need to tell them to show me documents….I know who they are, and they are legal.’ ” And, in contrast with the claim that Rick is flawed for not supporting a 2000-mile fence, Romney also was quoted as having adopted a comparable stance: “Romney supports construction of a new 700-mile fence along the country’s border with Mexico and stationing National Guard troops at the border until it is finished.”

The second piece quoted Mitt thusly: “Romney said then that he had met with the company owner in 2006, after the first incident, and instructed the company to make sure the people working for them were of legal status. Romney said the owner guaranteed that the company would comply with the law going forward. ‘After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.’ ”

The third piece provides a starting-point of any cogent analysis; review the text of the letter Mitt wrote when he finally “fired” the company that had hired the Illegals. The key question that follows, therefore, is whether comparable documentation exists—from a year prior—when he says he had warned the company against this practice [“…the clear instructions provided on this issue last year…”]; the follow-up question that follows is why he had initially “given them another chance” rather than having invoked the Reaganesque “trust but verify” approach, taking active steps to ensure it had complied with his demand.

*

Critique, particularly from Wonkish1, is cordially invited!

People were against Reagan also regarding his changing his mind on abortion etc. and thank God he was elected. No one flip flops more than Obama. Romney has the knowledge to fix the economy, do what is necessary to create jobs and that is what we need. We have several Mormon friends and they are terrific. They love their wives and family and are caring people. Religion should not be a part of elections. Time to VET OBAMA and the horrible job he is doing.

In my view, the country is headed toward a European Welfare Socialist State and which candidate will change the direction toward Free Markets and growth.

It appears that Energy is the key to prosperity and that the Texas Model works.

It appears that government needs to be restrained and that means reducing certain agencies and departments, like Energy Commerce and Education.

Entitlements must be addressed and I have heard little discussion of this very complex issue.

It appears that most of the polling is based on shallow perceptions rather than an analysis or understanding of the issue.

Does anyone know why I’m seeing this article eleven times on the front page? It appears to all be links to the same article as all eleven have the exact same number of comments. It shows me as logged in.

we don’t need another.

Romney’s refusal to be in the center seat shows he thinks he’s better than everyone else and shouldn’t be subject to such treatment as the rest of the GOP contenders. If he can’t handle the center seat on Brett Baier’s show, he won’t be able to handle the scrutiny and attacks from the media if he is the nominee. And I don’t want the GOP nominee to continually have “deer in the headlights” expressions.

Yes, RR changed his mind on abortion, but it was because he was once a Democrat. That issue and others that he no longer agreed on with the Democrats precipitated his change. He wasn’t a Republican who changed his views on abortion. So Romney’s use of that argument is completely specious. Romney is supposed to already BE a Republican..

I think the mantra that “he is the most electable” is wearing thin and the real Romney is coming through.

It looks like he’s running for his father, who tried to run for Prez and didn’t get anywhere.

The more comes out about him, the more he seems like Obama..

Me and a few others actually stopped working out to watch this. Baier – Romney is the interview of the decade and the beginning of the end of Romney’s run. Absolutely stunning!

were dealing with a GOP led house, and dare I say it, GOP led Senate, How would the “insider” status be deterimental to the cause.
I would think that legislative experience as speaker would be a BIG plus.
Or have we already thrown in the towel on the Senate and don’t expect to keep the house much longer.

during the interview I wonder. It was obvious that he was shocked that he would be questioned at all about anything he has done. In a debate against Obama he would have been chewed up. He carries himself as the already chosen one and these pesky primaries are just a formality. It’s funny but the establishment Republicans just lavish praise on him and for what? That deer in the headlights look he had when Brett questioned him has shown me that he is not ready to take on the responsibility of running this country.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when fist we practice to deceive.

…the FNC interview is getting a lot of play.

Wouldn’t it be the start of a potential avalanche if new polling were to reflect migration AWAY from Mitt?

Even if it were [transiently] to pad the numbers of The Newt, it could indeed spark a new paradigm [Newt v. anti-Newt]…which could then yield reassessment that could favor…Perry!

…Mitt to have that type of reaction if he was being interviewed by people from MSNBC..

BUT GOOD LORD, FOX NEWS??

I would be the first one to defend Romney if these questions were even remotely unfair. They were not. Perhaps Mr. Romney is counting on our general lack of trust for the MSM? If that is the case, I suppose he does not believe we can discern what is a fair inquiry and what is not?

These were not only questions on many people’s minds, but also questions he will face again. They require thoughtful, intellectual and unemotional responses. Instead we received vapid, emotional, inattentive responses.

Just one more reason why people will not vote for him and he will not be the nominee. We already have a President that in unapproachable, diffident, self-absorbed and believes he is the smartest guy in the room. We don’t need another.

I guess I can’t add too much in light of what everyone else has said but…

I watch that Romney interview and he did very bad. I was surprised at how bad Romney did. I honestly don’t see where Romney is going to be in the top two candidates list in a couple months at the rate he is going.

Given that Romney can’t seem to grow his support base and is stuck in the low 20′s and even going down some I just don’t see how Romney stays competitive (except money wise).

However, if this turns into a two person race between Romney and Newt I will easily turn to Romney given Newt’s background. Newt flip-flops more than Romney and has even worse baggage so it is a no brainier to me.

the Mittens off this guy. If that’s his style, expecting favoritism from FOX, think again. Biar is a former Pentagon reporter who is known for tough but fair interviews. Just wait till the Obamabots start serving up ads with flip flops and his wall street dirt plus the goal of dividing undecideds and independent voters could face the next hoodwink from the Obamabot game of deceit.

Yes, wall street dirt, think about it, Obama got a larger donation from Baine Capital than Romney did. Why? More liberals or because BO is considered more wall street friendly. Both no doubt but what if anything will people at Baine offer up to help Obama? One has to wonder because Romney wasn’t vetted very well because the liberal media never sunk their teeth in deep, this is fact. And today’s media operate as Obama’s soldiers and they are corrupt as the Mafia!!! Plus the cannon fodder game shall offer up Romney next as stronger ratings = $$$$ plus they hope to reelect their messiah.

Fyi, I think Romney’s after interview comments were a ploy to convince FOX to edit portions but obviously Romney didn’t go as far as asking. Special Report was filmed earlier.

Will Mittens face the Round table with Krauthammer and the gang? I think he’d be leery of facing a pundit with a medical degree and a law degree.

Mitt still has a lot to answer for his support of abortion and why he moved left of center. I really question if he said he was independent as a way to avoid admitting he voted for democrats in the past. President Reagan and Rick Perry were dems, admitted they didn’t align with dems, moved on and learned valuable lessons and shared the facts. Perhaps its time for Mitt to open up because he’s looking lefter every day.

After watching Mitt with Bret and Newt with Sean, I can only conclude that Mitt wants to be president of America; Newt wants to lead America.

The key difference between Perry’s “gaffes” and those of others is that only the former is episodic; the others are sustained.

BHO lies constantly, and Mitt maintained an “attitude.”

Romney is now feeling the pressure to attack. something he really hasn’t had to do, until now.

Romney will receive his smack down on Dec 10 debate. There is a round table on Huckabee I think on Saturday but not sure if all participating

Romney has shown he gets flustered easily, evidenced by his scuffle w/ Perry earlier in debates, and now with Bret Baier, telling Bret he was “aggressive” after the interview.

Gingrich is going to have him some Romney liver if Romney goes on the attack.

The Romney paradigm is over.

But Erick’s post is on the front page like a dozen times.

botched attempt to copy Newt’s style of confronting the media as he has seen it work for Newt. Problem is, it just made Romney look worse.

There is so much irony finding the right person to elect to public office. On one hand, people are hungry to find outsiders–non-politicians, successful business people in the hope that they are not tainted by the filth of politics. But the problem with successful business people is they simply are not subjected to this kind of public scrutiny and they are ill-prepared to weather it when it avalanches upon them. In the business world, no one cares about your escapades with women, your position on global warming, abortion or blah, blah, blah. The only thing that matters is can you produce a profit. If so, you are a king.

Hence, the irony. And why I keep returning to Perry as the most qualified and the most honorable of the bunch. Even though he is an outsider to Washington, he is by no means unaccustomed to the cruel vetting and is able to take the constant overblown criticism in stride. This election has made that clear to me. Even though I am sick of corrupt, career politicians, public office still requires special talent and a thorough understanding of how the system works to play all the roles necessary to be successful.

So, the key is integrity coupled with government experience, I guess.

Not that they are “too tough.”

Herman Cain wasn’t asked, “why did you sexually harass all these women?”

But Mitt Romney was asked loaded questions which assume he flip-flopped on a wide range of issues. That’s not the responsible, Tim Russert style of asking tough quesitons. Those aren’t just questions, they are accusations against Mitt Romney. They treat the flip-flop allegations as though they are objective fact.

It’s listening only to the prosecution, not the defense. Romney critics need to expand their research. Not everyone lives in the anti-Romney echo chamber.

He’s complaining about being asked LOADED questions.

Herman Cain wasn’t asked a question which presumes guilt, such as “why did you sexually harass all these women?”

But Mitt Romney was asked loaded questions which assume he flip-flopped on a wide range of issues. That’s not the responsible, Tim Russert style of asking tough quesitons. Those aren’t just questions, they are accusations against Mitt Romney. They treat the flip-flop allegations as though they are objective fact. They are prosecution questions, not detective questions.

The flip-flop charge is debunked at http://www.whyromney.com

…the questions weren’t SUFFICIENTLY focused, for follow-up was insufficient.

Brett Baier also asked him a very difficult question about the most recent book he read. This was very similar to a question he was asked at the end of May on the Today Show. Here are his answers to both questions:

November 29, 2011:
BAIER: What was the last book you read or are reading?
ROMNEY: I’m reading sort of a fun one right now, so I’ll skip that one, but I just read Decision Points by President Bush.

May 29, 2011:

GANGEL: What’s the last book you read?
ROMNEY: The last book I read was a novel called The Rule of Nines, which was just fun. The more serious book, I just finished President Bush’s book, Decisions, and enjoyed that very much.

I guess Romney just decided to become consistent on something, doesn’t read very often or this is the only answer he is allowed to make by his robotic programming. Either that or he simply can’t tell the truth on even this simple question.

But I want to mention the changes in the most recent polls from Iowa. It is worth noting, though the most recent poll (ending 11/28) is Insider Advantage and the next most recent ( ending 11/13) is Rasmussen: there is change.
Gingrich- from 32 to 28
Romney-from 19 to 12
Cain- from 13 to 10
Paul-from 10 to 13
Bachman- from 6 to 10
Perry- from 6 to 7
Sanatorum- from 5 to 3
Huntsman-from 2 to 0
What I see supports the top 3 DROPPING, the next 3 RISING and the bottom 2 ON THEIR WAY OUT
OR
Supports the inconsistency and lack of reliability of the polls and/ or the fluidity to the race.

The next most recent poll ended 11/15- Rasmussen.

NO politician from Massachusetts. Period.

Then when he drops the “Im not a career politician”…then say Yes Mitt, but its not from a lack of trying. You ran in 1994 for what would of been a 6-year senate seat, maybe run for re-election. You then ran for Governor in 2002, and in 2006, you didnt run for re-election, which you likely would of lost, you decided to run for President and despite being the most well financed and maybe organized candidate, having many conservative endorsements like Jim DeMint in South Carolina plus many Conservative talk-show hosts who were pushing you hard vs. McCain in the primary season, you still couldnt win.

So its not like you showed up today and said, Im a CEO and want to run for President, youve ran and wanted to be in office quite a bit, you have just usually been rejected by the voters. Maybe its time to take the hint…

I would love to see a front page post showing a timeline of the race so far, including when candidates entered, major events, flops and scandal, when people said they were not candidates, and compare/contrast that to polling trends. I think this would be informative, visual, and interesting. Furthermore, the time to do it is now while the race is not over.

There is no such thing as an unfair question in presidential politics. Perhaps the questions were loaded, and Bair was definitely going after him, but that doesn’t mean Romney couldn’t have handled it better.

But seriously, 11 posts? This it’s making a mountain out of a mole hill. I never saw Perry take on such an antagonistic interview. Perry’s hotseat interview was fluff in comparison. Romney still made several important points in the interview, and the interview want a complete disaster.

Those claiming this still be the death of his campaign are overdoing it a little. In fact, it’s probably doing Romney a favor by overshooting like this. Momentum has a strange habit of flipping on you right when you think it’s finally in your favor. Romney will take his lumps and move on. He will learn from the mistake, and be stronger for it.

… of The Newt’s stance regarding the Individual Mandate for reasons aforementioned. This exchange between myself and Wonkish1 is to be a jumping-off point, and others are invited to pitch-in during my hiatus. To validate the logic that led to these tentative-conclusions, please check-out http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/30/latest-gingrich-oppo-dump/#comment-15030 [very close to the bottom of the page].

Initially, Wonkish1 is invited to validate the accuracy of this effort and/or to rephrase it to his liking….

This is based on the fact that The Newt endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

Wonkish1 is invited to critique my conclusions, which I’ll update in a few hours upon return from testifying on two disability cases.

1. When has The Newt stated recognition that he favored the Individual Mandate in these two relatively recent books? When did he state the issue that changed his mind? When did he change his mind? [And when did he abandon the "bond-age" idea?]

“He said last night [this was his past position], among other times. He said that libertarians wouldn’t go for it and that it isn’t strictly legal. I don’t know when the exact date was that he decided against it.”

I conclude he is obfuscating, because he wants the listener to believe that he’s currently rejecting a remote, tangential concept. That he hasn’t defined what/when/who/what/where/why/how he altered his stance is telling; recall, for example, how Mitt explains when he became Pro-Life [again] while dealing with cloning.

2. Because all realms of government-fiat affects cost/access/delivery, and because all of this is to be forcibly-financed via Individual Mandate [and/or BHO's "penalty" and/or The Newt's "bond], then [pray tell] why you support any imposition of any $ upon all Americans to accomplish this private-marketplace pursuit?

“Again your adding in other things to the discussion. It is the state regulations, government programs, etc. that are controlling healthcare. The individual mandate has nothing to do with it. We could wipe away all those things and have a 100% free market healthcare system and if we imposed an individual mandate nobody would be saying that it was government control of the healthcare system. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.”

I conclude you support imposition of an Individual Mandate, regardless of how the monies-collected are expended [and regardless of whichever governmental apparatus this occurs].

3. Please provide a differentiation-concept that provides a red-line between his desire to intrude in healthcare vs. what he might contemplate doing elsewhere.

“You want an example for yourself? Do you support Heroin being illegal? That is an action of government. Am I to assume that because you support that government approach you will want to get the government involved in everything?”

I conclude you are unable to answer this question, which carries tremendous philosophical implications.

4. Please ensure that, throughout, you ID whenever you [perchance] might DISAGREE with The Newt.

“Can you please rephrase what you are actually asking me into a question please.”

I conclude, until stated otherwise, that you concur with The Newt with regard to his [shifting] Individual Mandate policy.

This is a crucial issue, and both of them are aberrant from mainstream America.

So FOX NEWS, the only right-of-center news outlet on the planet, was asking Mitt “LOADED” questions? Really? Your kidding, right?
What is the distinction between a so-called “loaded” question and question that simply asks about the difference in Mitt’s position over the years? And then Mitt has an alternative reality moment when he denies he took various positions like supporting Obamacare, and stating that he thought it would be good for the country.

And if you think that the media, that being only Fox News at this point has been unfair, see what happens if he becomes (God Forbid) the GOP Nominee. The way I see it, Mitt is the Hiroshima of GOP candidates. He is being spared for the big attack. The attack that will be unfair, relentless, with the support of the Lame-street, drive-by media!
We all know how well things worked out for Hiroshima, and why they were fortunate enough to be spared all those fire bombings. He will be toast, but with perfect hair and a nice tan.

I noticed during the interview that while he was chastising Brett Baier he kept that phony smile on his face the whole time.
I do not trust someone who, when angry or disturbed about something, does not let you know it. The fact that he feels above having to answer questions about his flip flops is also reason to distrust him.
His frantic desire to be the GOP nominee and damn the facts, is very unbecoming.

It was a duet by the Osmond’s. Well, the way I see it Mitt is a Little bit McCain, and a little bit Barack. He is the GOP establishment’s proverbial “Next-in-Line.” And now, from the Bret Baier interview, we learn he really is a thin-skinned, whinny little man that thinks that just because he ran in 2008, he’s the next GOP nominee…you know….”ENTITLED,” just like Barack. One other thing, he brought socialized medicine to Massachusetts, just like Obama brought it to the country.

I have followed politics for a long time. I also know how to read people…I think this is a gift…perhaps from looking inside and reading what makes a person tick. I am not as articulate as either one of you…however, I do bring to the table, a folksy type of average American thinking. So, please allow me based on Romney’s interviews and Gingrich’s debate performance plus his appearance on Hannity last night to put forth my insight.

Romney is an over-achiever…on paper. He is forever chasing his imagined proverbial title that justifies Mitt to Mitt and Mitt to the public. IMHO…Romney is a person that enjoys the limelight but cares little about the concepts that allowed him to get there. His self-imposed discipline does not allow for any open-mindedness or humility. Whether he is still trying to live up to his father’s expectations or not, Mitt does not handle criticism well at all. Put in plain language…the man is an empty suit. Full of ideas, full of justifications but lacks the initiative to put them into place because he doesn’t believe his own drivel. It is a means to an ends. While in pursuit of his self-determined objective, he never considers the consequences of his actions…just the trophy of the objective. The “consequences” of his actions are “we the people”.

Gingrich reminds me very much of a spider. He weaves such a good web that people either accept his concepts because they are lost in the admiration of his “spinning” technique or there is enough silk out there, that people are looking at the design. Come into the parlor said the spider to the fly. Gingrich is a good debater, very knowledgeable concerning a myriad of topics…but inconsistent…but, we the flies never notice the inconsistencies because we are in awe of the silk of the web. Plain language…Gingrich could pull the wool over our eyes of the public and we would not even know we’ve been had. He knows the system in DC so well, that policies would be voted upon wherein comprehension of same is not understood by those voting much less Congress.

This is the dilemma the American people face. Both people are extremely egotistical. Gingrich is easier to accept because he appears calm…and we feel that calmness. As I have said before, Romney makes me feel like I overdosed on coffee when I listen to him. He’s upsetting.

Gingrich has one big achilles heal…he lacks organization and this might be his downfall. Failing to register on time in Missouri and not obtaining the proper amount of delegates in NH…shows that while he has many ideas…he lacks what Romney has…self-discipline.

So…that is my take on both of these candidates. If it comes down to both of them…Gingrich will close the sale.

So folks…unless something really changes fast…pray for the Hail Mary pass from Perry…because that is what we need. Perry, has, by far, the better positions on ALL POLICIES. His inability to articulate them needs INSTANT improvement.