« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Gingrich & The Rick Perry Factor

It was the last debate. Newt Gingrich won it.

He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who dared point out that the media barely touched Obama’s infanticide support as an Illinois State Senator. He returned to the role of elder statesman.

The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare’s individual mandate.

Santorum did not shine. He came in, it seemed, prepared to be beaten up. He was off his game. In the second half of the debate he did better. But the beginning was stumbling, bumbling, angry, and in the weeds. One thing he did very, very well is steer the contraception issue to families.

If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

Romney out performed Santorum, but he had two flaws. First, Romney claimed to be a long time proponent of school choice, but he opposed school vouchers as Governor of Massachusetts and the Boston Hereald noted Romney refused to ever meet with the head of the Massachusetts Charter School Association while in the Governor’s Mansion.

The big problem for Romney was his concluding moment in the debate. John King asked him what was the biggest misconception about him. It was a legitimate question and a chance for Romney to help himself. Instead, he got bossy and arrogant and told John King he wouldn’t answer the question. That question of all questions was the one he chose to get arrogant about?!

Newt Gingrich won. He kept the focus on Obama. He sounded like the adult in the room. He was both diplomat and scholar.

I would caution the media on one thing — the Rick Perry Factor.

Back during the first debate, Rick Perry came under withering assault from Romney on social security as a ponzi scheme.

After the debate, the media consensus was that Rick Perry had been badly wounded, performed badly, and would be hurt by the social security issue.

His polling actually went up. Conservative voters actually embraced Perry doubling down on social security as a ponzi scheme. Conservative voters rejected Romney’s attacks. The conventional wisdom was wrong.

I think the conventional wisdom is wrong about Santorum. While I think he did not perform as well as he should have and, in fact, hurt himself, on the social values issues I think Santorum helped himself more than the media would believe.

COMMENTS

  • PatriotForLiberty

    Totally agree with you Erick, thanks to support here we voted for Newt here in Florida even though we knew Mittens paid for FL… RS reminded us to vote principles and that was hugely important. Newt did a great job at the debate. I agree about Rick, he’s getting his message out and on his terms… I wish he had a stronger debate. Now that people are paying attention this is the time for debates. Honestly, between Michael Steele’s changes to delegates (proportional to drag this out) and debates, this has been FUBAR. If Mittens loses both AZ and MI let’s see if he won’t debate again, I hope they will so our guys can keep competing against Rmoney (can’t spell money without romney!).

  • nutbjobstea

    Even for somewhat level headed conservatives the FACT that social issues are already dousing moderate republican enthusiasm and sending women and Latinos running seems hard to grasp. Moderates hate hate. All the red meat you guys (guys being very important aspect) keep tossing to the throngs that devour the Obama hatred is destroying your appeal to moderates.

    Here’s a number for you: 0. That’s how many times your front runner said the word “jobs” during the debate,

    A second grader has better instincts regarding building bonds with friends while trying to attract others.

    Women. Are. Leaving. Your. Party.

  • Creedo

    Gingrich has too much baggage. Paul is, well, Paul. Santorum and Romney are the only two who have any hope of uniting the party. The question is whether you want a man of principle, or whether you want Romney.

    Gingrich may be a great actor *cough* politician, but what he is not is a principled conservative.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niRK-sZg5jY

  • mikelindell2

    We know Santorum is only a social conservative, nowhere near a fiscal conservative. We know Mitt has been a moderate liberal most of his life. Newt is the only real conservative, and he happens to be the most articulate and has the best record&best plans. Before conservatives go off a cliff nominating Rick or Mitt let’s make one last stand.

  • wagthedog

    ….take the most intelligent Constitutionalist in the room with some baggage (like you don’t have any) over a Moderate Mormon Mudslinger, a Wimp that believes Libertarian means no government and a borderline raging Lunatic?

    Answer: Yes

  • ragstoriches

    I think you underestimate the value of family to women and that a focus on maintaining a strong, stable family is something that resonates well – especially when it comes from someone who himself has a strong, stable marriage and family.

    Santorum is right – economic strength comes in part from a strong and cohesive set of social values. Something we are decidedly lacking today in America.

    If women are “running” because they’re afraid of a man having an opinion on contraceptives or abortion or family I’ve got news for them – men have just as big a stake in these issues as women.

    Men have reproductive rights too, and they’ve for too long been heinously ignored and trampled under the banner of radical feminism and the dehumanization of their unborn sons and daughters.

  • lizabtha

    Wrong.

    A lot of Latinos are fairly strong family-values proponents, or didn’t you notice? I live in an area with a large Latino population. Guess which church they frequent. Right…Santorum’s.

    A lot of these Latinos are women, and they tend to be champions of women-in-the-womb. That ol’ Catholic thingy, again, dear.

    So you see, the only women’ leaving the party’ are figments of your fervid imagination. The pro-aborts are already firmly following their pied piper, the high priest of abortion-rites, B Hussein Obama. We, in IL, remember his charming championing of letting alive ’tissue’ from abortions die in a cloth-covered bucket in a closet.

  • renl57

    Every additional voter that Gingrich wins over, keeps the anti-Romney vote split between Gingrich and Santorum.

    Which has been Romney’s game plan all along: Keep his more conservative rivals divided and squeak through with pluralities.

    The worst-case scenario for Romney would have been Santorum doing very well and Gingrich doing very badly. That didn’t happen.

  • mikelindell2

    Newt is the only principled conservative in the race, and he’s the only one with the record that proves it. Must be tough to watch your pseudo-candidate Santorum get the tiniest bit of scrutiny and quickly wither away. Refreshing to see some truth come out on this big gov’t, big spending, Big Labor, Bridge to Nowhere-voting fraud. At least Romney is a transparent fraud. For a while Santorum was operating under the guise of being a true conservative.

    Comprehensive Look at Real Santorum:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWQC62LSsWM

  • mikelindell2

    His baggage is irrelevant stuff decades ago in his personal life. Everyone else has baggage relevant to today (Santorum banning condoms/attacking Christians & running up debt, Romney shamelessly insincere/changed on every issue literally.)

  • mikelindell2

    Newt still has a real chance of winning nomination. Romney camp is still tremendously fearful of him, why else would they be running negative ads against him?

  • cacharlie

    Glad to hear you saw, on location, what I saw on TV.
    I see Newt and Santorum as sincerely interested in doing a good job as President. Newt seems more prepared and both of them seem to have learned to be better for past mistakes. – key word “seems”, what can I know of their hearts but what they let me see?

    I do not like what mr. romney lets me see of him (lower case intended) in his continuing behavior in debates. He reminds me of Obama. ie: maybe a nice guy who is coached to put up a good fight and doesn’t know how? (best case scenario)
    In any case, he comes off arrogant, disrespectful, sniping, snarky, ugh! Maybe this behavior will work well against Obama and union thugs and Pelosi and Reid and the Iran maniac – since unlike Obama, he’s not likely to suck up to them?
    As for why young people and other pie in the sky types support Ron Paul or whether reports of his being in cahoots with Romney are true, sadly, no big surpise there to me.
    Call me hopelessly out of touch, but I miss Perry!
    For sure, after perusing various other blogs, it’s not hard to see why many young lions I know speak so woefully of our Nov. 2012 prospects. It’s a jungle out there! But, then, that’s why you’ve got your job. Thanks for being there for us!

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

    The consensus among all three cable-news shows [including the instant-analysis @ CNN last night, amplified by EE] is that The Newt won, while Santorum lost and Mitt was workmanlike…but often broke into a cold-sweat.

    So, Super Tuesday looms as the moment when those who flirted with Santorum can register their anti-Mitt sentiments by voting for the “Most experienced, most knowledgeable, most conservative, most accomplished, most articulate, most solutions-oriented candidate.” [quoting earlier posts, but applicable @ this site]

    The “Rick Perry” factor could emerge in March, as people confront themselves with realities [finally]…and support the candidate who will supplant BHO as the “Debater-in-Chief”…who can DELIVER.

  • mikelindell2

    -

  • elayman

    Romney, like Obama, seems to relish the knife fight and tearing other people down behind the arrogant evil sneer of techno talk and platitudes. I understand your feelings on Perry. If only Jon Huntsman would get back in the race..;he would be president. if only….

  • Filibuster Keaton

    Spot on, E.E.

    I fail to see how anyone says Romney won after that bizarre tantrum at the end. But then, I fail to see how Romney is in the race at all after Romneycare.

  • bobguzzardi

    Correct me if I am wrong but did not Newt Gingrich have a six year illicit adulterous affair with then staffer Callista Gingrich?

    I know “illicit” is a bit old fashioned. It is hard for me to see voting for a First Lady who is an adulterous. Laura Bush fits my idea of a First Lady and even Hillary Clinton.

    Anita Perry is the almost perfect first lady. As ladylike and traditional as Laura Bush and yet politically engaged and involved in real world politics. Anita Perry is my ideal First Lady.

    Women vote and married women vote even more. I think many are underestimating the resentment that a married woman has toward an adulteress, another old fashioned word. Just because we don’t talk about in the political arena does not mean it is not a factor.

    The scorned woman is a classic and Callista comes across more as a femme fatale than a wife or first lady.

    Values and beliefs may drive behavior more than economic self-interest.

  • APA Guy

    I was entering my teens when Reagan was elected, and when that guy spoke, I saw my wise, learned grandfather who had the age and experience to give educated assessments about problems and the solutions that must follow.

    Gingrich, in my humble opinion, is best when he is in this mode. There is a time to stoke the fire, but there is also a time to calmly and intelligently lay out the facts for the public to digest. Newt clearly understood this and won the debate handily. Hopefully it will be enough to carry momentum into the MI and AZ primaries because I have a feeling that come Super Tuesday, he will have a surprise in store for both Romney and Santorum.

  • APA Guy

    The guy is the only remaining candidate who can handle the Obama machine on the grandest stage in politics…and he has taken on similar challenges in the 90s facing the Clintons. He has a policy record of balancing budgets and low gas prices. He has the intelligence and skills of articulation to present conservative policies to a country that desperately craves them.

    I think you have it backwards there, Creedo. Santorum and Romney are the two who will be sacrificial lambs against Obama. Newt the lion is our best hope to take Obama out.

  • bennybeaver

    Are you kidding me Newt is a non starter.
    Women want more than a serial adulter for President.
    Newt was a disaster in the 90s (while he was fooling around with Callista) and he is a disaster now.

    Indpendant women will not vote for him look at the polls for cripe sake.

  • romansdaughter

    Romney is 1 of them that can unite the party? Where have u been? They want anybody but Romney.

  • APA Guy

    When I see the other two, I see fear of ANY challenge to their records and positions. I don’t want someone who is afraid taking on the most well-funded and organized political machine in this nation’s history. I want someone who stared down the Clintons, balanced budgets, successfully worked to keep gas prices down, and has the ability to articulate conservatism when the country needs (and wants) it the most.

    Newt is our man.

  • romansdaughter

    What are people thinking???

  • APA Guy

    I think you are overestimating the importance that married women are placing on Newt’s personal life and underestimating their concerns about feeding their families. I say this per countless conversations with Indiana Hoosier voting wifes…and it’s pretty darn conservative in this part of the state.

  • romansdaughter

    Anita Perry would make the perfect first lady! Yep that is a problem for Calista and Newt. I think people think if that much more than people think.

  • APA Guy

    nt

  • jon11

    He was actually booed numerous times.

    The two loudest by far came when he tried to explain his support for title x and no child left behind and Arlen specter…

    By repeatedly voting for bills that went against his principles. Those were his words. “I voted for bills that that went against my principles.”

    He tried to explain thr no child left behind vote as “taking one for the team” and he got booed there too.

    Newt had a good debate by keeping things very general and no one atacked him so he was never on the defensive. He and Paul were both just sort of there. The media has been calling it a 2 man race for a while and that’s what the audience was focused on. The two front runners.

    Santorum showed, if there was any doubt, that hes not ready for prime time

  • kleerstreem

    Just another boring GOP debate…..really not much new revealed….thank God there will not be any more….maybe…??

    To me the most telling part of the debate was when the contenders were asked to use ONE (1) word to describe themselves…..NOT ONE SAID ……….CONSERVATIVE…….NOT ONE! Of course I have been blogging and writing for months, that none of them come close to being RR TYPE Conservatives…..not one. I have further written, many times, it is time to stop using the ‘label’ conservative on any of these contenders, rather it is time to find another candidate through a brokered convention or it’s time to get behind the contender that has the best chance of beating Obama.

    Plus, I want to know why NO ONE, except Ann Coulter and me point out that in 2008, Santorum, Rush, and Levin all said Mitt was the most conservative candidate in the 2008 field…..even thought Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson were in that group?

    For the 2012 field I have the 40-40-20 Theory. It’s obvious the two forties cancel each other out…..one is GOP voters and one is Democrat voters. Our next president will be the candidate that wins 50.01% of that 20 Factor. That 20 Factor or that 20% of the electorate who are mainly Independents and Latino voters. Any GOP candidate that does not carry at least 40% of the Latino, will not beat Obama.

    So what does my 40-40-20 Theory really mean??? It’s means if we want to beat Obama, we had best forget about the 40%…they will vote for anyone but Obama or they will stay home; the other 40% will vote for Obama….. the eventual GOP Candidate MUST be the one that can get at least 10.01 or basically 10.1% of that 20%……all this other back and forth about which candidate is what, is really not germane to beating Obama.

    Summary: Two important items:

    1. GOP candidate must get 10.1% of that 20% of the electorate (40% + 10.1% = 50.1% wins WH)

    2. In my opinion, it will be far more important to elect a Super Majority in Congress…..the best defense should Obama win a second term….which is not beyond question.

    Just a sidebar: The GOP must change this primary process. I would suggest either one big primary in March or not more than 4 Super Tuesdays from January – April. January would start out and cover the Eastern Time Zone; February would be the Pacific Time Zone; March would be the Central Time Zone; and April would be the Mountain Time Zone. Which means, by May 1, the GOP would have their candidate thus allowing 4 months for candidate to campaign and raise the necessary money and have a high intensity rip roaring united GOP Convention which would be the 2 month launch to president.

    I also, would suggest no more than 8 debates, 3 which should be held in the states of CA, TX, NY….why? Those 3 states have the highest number of delegates and certainly deserve to be part of the debates. The other 5 could be most anywhere.

    Thanks!

  • reggie1

    “Newt Gingrich won it… He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama.”

    So true, Erik. And, so close.

    Not even John King would address anything that contrasted with November’s opponent. We voters want to know who has better ideas than the current president, but that is never addressed. Not by any MSM debate’s host(s).

    No wonder Obama’s number rise during these dog & pony shows. More than attack each other, his rivals are not attacking him.

    Shame on John King. And shame on you, Erik, if you don’t use your exposure there to point this out.

  • lizabtha

    Silly….’independent’ women are all into sexual freedom and such, right? So why wouldn’t they support someone who isn’t into rigid sexual mores? IF anything, Newt and his free-wheeling ways, should appeal to sexual libertines(which ‘independent’ women tend to be, at least in theory’).

  • joeydavis

    I didn’t see Romney winning anything.

    And maybe I’m biased but I thought Santorum did very well. He was expecting to be attacked (and he was) and defended himself well.

    He owned his voting record. He started with NCLB, explained why he thought it was a good idea, then explained, with hindsight what he would do differently now.

    On earmarks he bent Romney over the table and had his way with him. First, he gave him a Civics lesson in how a bill becomes a law. Then he explained to Romney and everyone else that it was in fact a very open process. Then he pointed out that he voted for the line item veto designed to eliminate earmarks and how the supreme court said no. Finally he pointed out how hypocritical Romney was on earmarks citing his use of them for the olympics and to balance the budget in the state of Massachusetts.

    Plus the Dukakis line will go down in the list of all time greats right beside Lloyd Bentsen’s Kennedy line to Dan Quayle. I guess you had to be an actual Republican to get that one. It went right over the heads of the leftists at CNN. (Erick you should really quit hanging out with those people, they make you lose intelligence)

  • joeydavis

    I think Gingrich is done as a candidate. I thought he performed well, but he didn’t hurt Santorum at all. In fact, one of the things I found interesting was Gingrich seemed to be almost protective of Santorum last night.

    He never fired a shot at Santorum. When Romney went on the earmark tirade with Santorum, it was Gingrich who essentially told Romney to sit down and shut up. On the contraception issue Gingrich stepped in front of the bullet aimed at Santorum. By the time the question made its way to Santorum it was dead.

    It really looks like a 2 man tagteam wrestling match now. Romney and Santorum are the combatants, Paul is standing behind Romney and Gingrich is standing behind Santorum.

  • Waderic

    In thinking back on the debate, there was only 1 really damaging moment for both Romney and Santorum. Romney’s was, as Erik indicated, the final question when he said he would answer whatever he’d like, no matter if it wasn’t in response to the question. While he seemed to try to adopt Newt’s tactics, it seemed to come off as arrogant and dismissive… not something I would think is a positive when following the Obama presidency.
    Santorum’s gaffe was to mention that politics is a team sport. This will not go over well among voters. This is the problem with Washington DC and he only cemented that he did indeed play the game while he was there.

    All the other attacks on Santorum on the night, while they might have technically won debate points for Romney, seem rather silly in retrospect. Attacking Santorum for not being pro-life enough or sufficiently anti-contraception… does anyone believe this? Does anyone really believe that Santorum is more at fault for Obamacare than Romney? Can anyone actually be convinced that since Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008, it disqualifies him for running against him today?

    In the end, if voters were struggling with Romney’s genuineness, he did nothing to assure them his attacks on the other candidates were anything but political.

    The real from last night was – did Newt do enough to make a run at Santorum’s supporters. To do that he needed to win and win decisively enough to garner all the headlines this morning, which really is what determines the impact of a debate. While he won, he doesn’t seem to have won the headlines. Rather than vaulting back into the race, I think he probably took enough votes from Santorum to give MI to Romney.

  • mikelindell2

    and want someone to stop its decline, preferably someone who has actually done it before. If you’re main issue is a candidate’s personal life, which you will never know the fully story of, I have to believe you are in a small minority of voters.

  • mikelindell2

    What else is new? They’d rather have a century of Democrat presidents than to let him win.

  • mikelindell2

    I dare you to tell me how the only balanced budgets in your life, 4.2% unemployment, welfare reform, tax cuts, 11 million new jobs, huge spending cuts translate into a disaster?? Do you not like conservatism? You Don’t like budget surpluses? SC women went overwhelmingly for Newt. People are more concerned about fixing the country than their fascination with a candidate’s personal life decades ago which none of us know the fully story about.

  • Waderic

    Aside from the very good response to the contraception question, pointing out the media’s hypocrisy, I think Newt’s 2nd most memorable answer last night was “Cheerful”. While its a nice answer, it hardly makes for a good clip.

    The media is all about soundbites and short clips. There just really weren’t that many that he was involved in last night.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    later

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

    Just about every answer was on-point…and [mirroring the treatment afforded Perry] he was ignored [because he didn't do anything that could be derided].

  • Waderic

    Fred Thompson – He was done by Florida. Really never had a chance and never really established his platform. An argument could be made he was technically more conservative
    John McCain – I don’t think this even needs an explanation.
    Mike Huckabee – While he is staunchly a social conservative, he is not nearly as fiscally conservative when you examine his record. He probably comes close to McCain in his willingness to introduce government programs to fix issues. He raised taxes in Arkansas… Even on record supporting Michelle Obama’s food programs.
    Mitt Romney – Managed to come in as the least big government republican in the field. Had a better understanding of the economy than any of the others.

  • Lesstressrx

    Yes you are right. Santorum is a huge RINO when it comes to spending. In Congress he was a big government person. Newt knows the system. He wants to prove he can be a Reagan leader. I think he will go out of his way to cut government. The media or the people in Washington doesn’t want him. Just like Perry they fear he will make too many changes.
    He would make mincemeat out of Obama. He is our only hope.

  • Lesstressrx

    In Keene,N. H. yesterday Santorum calls for Social Security cuts for older voters. He said, “We can’t wait 10 years even though “everybody wants to”. He anticipates possible attack ads on his position. He is also taking Obama’s position in class warfare.
    He said we need tighter restrictions for upper-income people.
    See report here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-social-security-cuts_n_1190527.html

  • paco12348

    I wonder why the majority of the debates have been led by Obama’s media?
    On the debate itself, I hate to say it but Romney won. Newt didn’t have the time he needed but made the best with what he had and, like always, Newt did very well. Will it be enough for a comeback? I don’t know, I hope so. Santorum wasn’t on his game and Romney punched him in the gut several times with geat success. I love Paul with his irrespressible honesty which I appreciate. With Paul one knows exactly where he stands. He’s as open as a book.
    I will vote for Romney if I have to but will never forgive the GOP for pushing him , just as they pushed McCain. The GOP treats the Base just like the Dems treat theirs, like we’re total idiots without the sense God gave a goose. If Romney wins it will be because he “bought” the election with the help of the GOP and that will not make him a beloved President no matter how well he would do in the job.

  • clintonformccain

    <blockquote.If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

    I think EE greatly overestimates even the most remote possibility that Santorum can turn birth control into a winning issue with indpendent voters, no matter how much lipstick he puts on that pig. It’s a horrible, horrible issue politically.

    Santatorum plays to the cartoon characature of Repubicans and I don’t think that attacking single moms is a productive strategy. It’s one of those times where the underlying premise is valid, but it’s bad politics. What new votes does it attract? Republican’s already win among white two-parent married families. It’s red meat to the base, but don’t be fooled into thinking that it will appeal to independent swing voters.

  • circlegranch

    is a very good article this morning at www.spectator.org

    EE hits all the nails w/ comments here. I, too, found Mitt’s arrogance and refusal to answer the question at the end last night to be a reminder that he’s a bully when allowed to reveal himself. There was nothing ‘gotcha’, unfair or misleading about the question. Perhaps he doesn’t want to face (or admit to) the fact that most Republicans and a growing number of Independents are not comfortable with him, don’t trust him and wish someone else had emerged as the ‘inevitable’ nominee.

    Ron Paul was clearly there to aid Romney and www.dailycaller.com is reporting that son, Rand, claims “it would be an honor” to be asked to run as VP for Romney. Now it becomes ever so clear……

    Unless Santorum wins Michigan and keeps this alive for himself and also to a degree, Newt, we’re going to be stuck w/ Romney. He’s got a huge order to fill in beating Obama with his newly adopted “1%” rhetoric and a host of other issues.

    If Romney gets nominated, he won’t just have the weight of our country’s future on his shoulders but also a world in desperate need of old-fashioned Reagan-era American leadership and clout. To a far lesser degree, he also will carry the load of whether or not the GOP survives. If Obama is re-elected, the RNC and the GOP in general are history. They had their chance to change history and save America. With blinders on, they tried the no-huddle offense of moving up primaries, they helped amass the millions that have been used with venom and vitriol against fellow candidates. They ignored election results of 2010, resorted to Obama-like tactics and leveled insults such as McCain’s ‘hobbit’ remark with respect to the tea party.

    The Old Party is anything but Grand at this point in time. Instead, it resembles a political machine that operates much like the defending team in Chicago.

    As EE adeptly articulated, Newt was the winner last night. His one-word self-description of “cheerful” was great. He’s relaxed, focused and while he’d obviously like to be the next president, he’s not defined by this campaign. Win or lose, he’ll be effective and vital in the fight that may well be impossible—preserving this nation. Mitt so badly wants to win–for Mitt and his family. His father failed to win the presidency, his mother failed to go to Congress, his brother failed to become the Atty General of MI, his former sister-in-law lost a bid she made for Congress also. Lots of also-ran’s in the Romney family tree. Mitt himself has lost many a race; there’s aot of honor to be defended.

    It was great seeing Gov. Perry in the audience last night. He, too, can offer an important voice if the Establishment ever figures out that they don’t have all the answers.

  • westcoastpatriette

    in the audience. When the camera focused on him, he had that “if looks could kill” glare on his face….like the man who hunts with his bare hands. Loved it.

  • laodalisque

    I’m an independent woman. I’m white, married, a college professor and in my 50′s, and I will NOT vote for ANYONE ELSE in the field but Newt Gingrich! I’m not electing him pope, I’m electing him to take on the viper’s nest that is the entrenched, arrogant, self-interested elites of Washington. I don’t give a rat’s furry little butt that he fooled around. His sexual appetites don’t concern me; I’m looking at the fact that he SCARES THE BEJESUS out of the GOP-Establishment, and THAT’S what I am gleeful about. I figure he’s been doing something right to generate that kind of vitriol from them. He’s my man alright–and I’ve been giving everything but the kitchen sink to his campaign!

    So stop speaking for me, there’s a good laddie.

  • red_oakster

    That’s his last best chance. If we can win Georgia and maybe do well in a few more states, he remains credible. He detests Romney, so I suspect he formally will stay in right to the convention.

  • sethellis

    I couldn’t disagree more with Erick’s analysis. If anything the media went easy on Santorum’s poor performance.

    Trying to defend Specter was bad enough, but the key moment was his “politics is a team sport”. It perplexes me that the site isn’t completely up in arms over this comment. That attitude is exactly what got us into this mess, and it’s one of the reasons the trs party got started in the first place. How can we elect a standard bearer that thinks this way?

    This comment alone will bury Santorum. Heartless was nothing compared to this. Santorum could have exclaimed oops and fled the stage in embarassment, and it still wouldn’t have been as damaging as the things he said last night.

  • red_oakster

    I’m not sure Santorum has hurt himself nearly as much as you think. Here’s the key point: a good performance next Tuesday will boost Santorum and probably close the door on Gingrich. A poor performance by Santorum will open the door a crack for Gingrich.

  • mikelindell2

    Whether it was about the way Obama treats allies, Illegals Not Caring About Wetlands, Self Esteem, the list goes on and on. Were you watching the same debate? They don’t want Newt, they want Romney. If that means having to be kind to Santorum for a while so he eats into Newt’s votes they can live with that.

  • ceili_dancer

    Your party is a big tell. Also the use of the word hate has some connotations that give you the scent of a troll.

  • buster93

    I have one TV in my house presently. So the debate got DVR’d .
    We have heard the media discussing birth control for weeks and social issues. They want us to stay there and keep our eyes off jobs ,taxes , oil, Iran and thru the blip of the media screen Obama is going to create 2 million jobs really.?
    Get back on the ideas of job creation and off birth control. I think woman can make there decisions about that !!!!. this is an example of Obama care gone wrong and we have spent to much time on this.
    Flip back to fiscal conservative ideas so we can really get Americans working again and not on unemployment !!!!
    Newt is a skilled debator and the only one that can take on Obama and I can’t wait to see it. He is a man with great ideas and he will put them to work.
    He has been out of the spotlight and I am waiting for his 3rd and final surge. I think Carillista would make a great First Lady !!!
    I am for the Candidate that can beat Barack Obama and that is Newt !!!

    Republicans go with your head and your gut on your decision , Not all the social issues. I have alot of Independent friends and they are hanging on to there wallets, and will vote for the best Candidate and that could be ? or Obama.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    looked great.

  • skorrent1

    That the President is not elected by popular vote? Therefore your 50.1% means nothing. The Obama can get 90% of the vote in CA, IL, and NY, but if he pulls only 49.9% in each of the other states, then he losees in a blowout.

    If the issues are played right, with $5/gal gas and even the doctored UE rate back up around 9%, there might be 47 states in play for the GOP, no matter the nominee.

  • recentlyenlightened

    I am a married woman and I am more concerned about the future of my daughter and, God willing, grandchildren than anything else. That’s why I am supporting Newt. He has a plan that is coherent and comprehensive, he has a vast knowledge of history and he has the guts and experience to get the job done. My Mother and Mother-in-law, both married for over 40 years, are supporting Newt. The women I know are too smart to be side-tracked by the petty stuff. We want action and results and know that Newt is the only one left in this race that can provide both. As for Callista, she won’t do any worse than Mrs. Obama and based on the little I know about her, I believe she is and has always been proud of this country. That makes her head and shoulder pads above Mrs. Obama in my opinion!

  • recentlyenlightened

    nt

  • Whacker77

    These 20 debates have been a disaster for the party. Rather than demonstrate who was the strongest candidate, they have magnified the immense weaknesses of the field. Night after night, we’ve seen them devolve into childish food fights while the important issues of the day have all but been ignored.

    Last night was further proof of that. Romney may have beaten Santorum, but Romney did himself no favors. In fact, no one did themselves or the party any favors. If anything, these debates have made me disspirited. It’s hard to watch those four guys and envision any of them actually winning.

    I’ve written this time after time, but we need a new choice or we will lose this race. Romney and Santorum simply can’t and won’t win in the Fall. Santorum gets bogged down in process answers and Romney comes across as so phoney that no one will ever believe him when the heat is on.

    At this point, I’m pulling for chaos. I hope Santorum wins Michigan and Gingrich wins Tennessee and Georgia on Super Tuesday. That would so muddy the field and so harm Romney, I feel a new candidate would feel compelled to join the race. If this race is going to the convention, there’s nothing wrong with another candidate entering the race.

    Any one of these men would be better than the embarrassing characters we have running right now.

    Jeb Bush
    Chris Christie
    Mitch Daniels
    Bobby Jindal
    Marco Rubio

  • joeydavis

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. My girlfriend and all her female friends don’t like Newt Gingrich. The only way she’d vote for him is if I took her into the voting booth and twisted her arm off her shoulder.

    She’s perfectly fine with his politics. It’s his principles she has a problem with. Women, above all else, can’t stand a man that will cheat on them. It’s an insurmountable mountain.

    Having said that, in the big picture Santorum and Gingrich are relatively speaking the same. It’s a bit harder to be a true conservative in Pennsylvania than Georgia but Santorum has by and large done a good job. Santorum appears to have widespread appeal across the rust belt battleground states. Gingrich appears to have little appeal outside the south. Santorum is the electable conservative and those of you adoring Gingrich should accept that.

    I like Newt Gingrich. My first political job was in 1994 during the Contract with America. Newt Gingrich is a personal hero. But I realize he can’t win in November.

  • edintexas

    Don’t Feed the Fan of Dear Leader. And remember “Fan” is short for “Fanatic”!

  • joeydavis

    Santorum was in the Senate while Gingrich was leading the house. You can’t give Gingrich credit without crediting Santorum as well. He was there too. Santorum sponsored most of the bills you’re crediting Gingrich with.

    Gingrich’s record is Santorum’s record. Santorum’s personal life is beyond reproach, Gingrich’s is not.

    I like them both a lot. I’d proudly support either and work hard for them. Santorum can win, Gingrich can’t. Simple as that.

  • Creedo

    I don’t like Romney any mrore than anyone else does, but when it comes down to it (and I do believe it will come down to it) I will fall in line and vote for Romney over Obama.

  • Creedo

    nt

  • Creedo

    If Newt dropped out tomorrow, the race would be over, Santorum would be the nominee. Newt doing well is the best thing that can happen for Romney because Newt has a ceiling.

  • bobguzzardi

    Newt Gingrich has been less than faithful to publicly stated principles.

    Newt Gingrich is a Washington Insider who is getting rich from politics. Newt Gingrich has no business experience or job creating experience.

    Newt Gingrich re-invented Earmarks as a funding tool for political campaigns.

  • evilbloggerlady

    Was there some sort of deal between Romney and Paul going on…I felt like I was watching Survivor.

    Good post, BTW. Good point about Santorum helping hisself on social issues.

  • evilbloggerlady

    The bottom two: yeah. Number three, a weak maybe.

  • Scope

    This post refers to the large Mormon factor in AZ. Mitt Romney won Nevada, many believed because of the large Mormon population in NV. I’m reading headlines claiming Romney has the advantage in AZ because of the large Mormon population. One can only ask, are the majority of Mormons voting for Romney because they share his religion? Are they ignoring his record, positions on the issues, and supporting almost every side of the positions at one time or another, simply because they share his religion?

    How many blacks voted for Obama simply because of his skin color? Did they ignore his record, his positions on the issues, and made promises he knew he could never keep, even if he wanted to?

    Is it any way to pick a president simply because of a shared religion, or a shared skin color, while ignoring every other factor?

    There was a very good point made this morning on CNN about illegals and immigration. No one missed that both Romney and Gingrich modulated their tone and positions on immigration while campaigning in Fla., which was nothing more than pandering for the Fla. Hispanic vote, especially with Gingrich saying that we should have community boards to decide what illegals should stay and what ones should go.. Arizona also has a large population of Hispanics, maybe even more so than the Mormon numbers. AZ, being a border state obviously has such a large population of Hispanics that they passed laws to crack down on the illegal Hispanics, before that law was challenged, and it still sits undecided.

    When Romney answered the question on immigration last night he couldn’t go further in claiming that he cracked down hard on the illegals while Gov. of Mass. He did this, he vetoed that, he did everything he could to get rid of those illegal brown skins. He even exaggerated/mislead when he said that he signed an order to have the state police round up the illegals. The fact was that he signed that order just days before he was replaced as Gov., and the order wans’t to take affect until he was out of office. The new Dem. Gov. promptly cancelled that order, before it took affect. The point is that Romney wanted to sound so tough on the illegals. Too bad he didn’t have Perry there to remind him about hiring illegal Hispanics to do his yard maintenance, even up to a year after he was warned about the situation. Remember him saying “I’m running for office, I can’t have illegals working here”? Is he trying to get an endorsement from shoot them all at the border before they get here Tom Tancredo?

    I’m reading that Marco Rubio has been advising some of the candidates on what the proper rhetoric should be to win over the Hispanic vote. According to the 2010 census, the Hispanic block is the largest growing segment of the population. Apparently whoever he has advised has not listened to him. They still continue to try to be the big tough guys, sometimes talking as though the illegals are not even human. Some of them sound like they will personally go out and round them up and put them on busses and ship them back across the border. Ohhh they are so tough.

    Reagan even said that the hispanics are really Republicans, but they just don’t know it yet. There is no question that they share the traditional family/social values, that the Democrats are trying to destroy with their culture war. I would guess that even the legal Hispanic population is in support of closing the borders. Yet the GOP candidates are still on the rhetoric war path against those dang illegals. The best suggestion I heard was talking about being in support of legal immigration, and leave the big tough guy rhetoric by the roadside. We can’t afford to keep alienating the fastest growing voting block.

  • joeydavis

    In truth 40% of Americans define themselves as conservative, 25% define themselves as liberal and the other 35% consider themselves moderate.The moderates lean about 2:1 Democratic. That margin will never change no matter what either side does.

    That means Republicans go into every election cycle with a 2-4% advantage. After that it’s a war about voter turnout. Obama won in 2008, not because he appealed to moderates and Independent voters, I don’t he outperformed 2:1. He won because conservatives didn’t show up as 40% of the electorate.

    In 2010 conservatives did show up at 40% and it was a Repblican landslide.

    It’s never ever about the 20% in the middle. It is ALWAYS about the 40% on the right edge. Go back and study past elections and look at nothing but voter self classification (liberal, moderate, conservative). If the Conservative number drops below 37%, the Democrat won. If it’s over 37% the Republican probably won. If it’s over 39% the Republican definitely won.

  • Archer

    but I’m not sure how much it will help him. Hopefully a lot…but Fox News is burying any talk about Gingrich even being there last night, much less how he won. I’m not sure how many republicans were actually watching CNN last night or the political discussions there afterward when most of the commentators thought Newt did well.

    I’ll set aside my Newt cheerleader outfit for a moment to take an objective look at Santorum.

    To the extent that Republicans did watch the debate, I thought Santorum hurt himself, perhaps badly. I don’t know if he was truly as irritated as he often looked but it created a terrible impression. He came across as very defensive and, worse, his defenses never seemed to adequately answer the pointed questions put to him.

    I don’t think anyone who has taken classes on how to debate or has gone through conservative leadership institute training could honestly look at the Santorum performance and say he did a good job. Try turning off the sound of the debate. Now watch Santorum’s body language, how and when Santorum cut his eyes around, the expressions on his face, and what he does with his hands. He was visibly out of sorts for most of the debate.

    That sort of thing communicates itself to people even on an unconscious level. If you are a Santorum supporter or are anybody-but-Romney, its not likely to matter to you. But for people who are genuinely undecided, those kinds of things really matter.

    My impression was that some of Santorum’s discomfort was being from being seated physically close to his opponents and perhaps from not having a podium available to jot notes down secretly as other candidates were talking. It may not seem like much but I’ve seen debating while sitting within arms length of your opponent throw people off before.

    Or another possibility might be that Santorum is always this uncomfortable and uncontrolled in a debate but there’s been so many candidates for the cameras to cover that he just hasn’t been on camera often while his opponent is speaking. I don’t know of any way to get unedited debate footage of just Santorum throughout a debate to be able to tell if that possibility is true. But if it is true and Santorum wins the nomination, we’ll be treated to a lot of footage of Obama vs Santorum with Santorum looking frustrated, angry, exasperated, slightly bewildered, etc. Oh, joy.

    Thinking back to the Kennedy vs Nixon debate, people listening on the radio thought Nixon won due to the content of the debate. But people watching Nixon being uncomfortable on TV overwhelmingly thought Kennedy won.

    As for the Rick Perry factor, Perry had the facts on his side in the social security as a ponzi scheme matter. When you look up the definitions of a ponzi scheme and see the elements which make up a ponzi scheme, the Social Security System fits perfectly. The press chose to ignore that and chose to believe, without proof, that Republican primary voters would believe the press rather than their own dictionary/encyclopedia and decades of conservative pundits who have pointed out the truth.

    The narrative the press is wanting to put forward this time about this debate may certainly be wrong, but it won’t be wrong due to the Rick Perry Factor. Santorum didn’t seem to win upon his personal appearance OR upon content.

  • noogan

    Erick, I think your judgment is seriously in question. First, your pronouncement that Newt Gingrich will be the nominee; then your pronouncement that Rick Santorum is “what a big government conservative looks like,” and now, you say you don’t think Santorum’s admission that he “voted against his principles” to “take one for the team,” won’t hurt him. It’s sad, watching you dance around the clear fact that the only conservative in this campaign is Mitt Romney. Santorum admitted during the debate that the premise of his campaign–that he’s the “convictions” candidate who will always stay true to his “convictions” and has the “courage” of his “convictions” — is a lie.

    Got that? Santorum revealed to all last night that he is NOT a man of his convictions at all; that he’s George W. Bush’s man in the Senate, and that he goes along to protect the PARTY.

    This is essentially what the Tea Party arose out of and rebelled against in the GOP, folks. Or, to put it your own way, Erick:

    THIS IS WHAT A DC INSIDER LOOKS LIKE!

    The supreme irony from last night is Ron Paul pointing out the PAINFUL TRUTH to Rick Santorum–schooling him on Santorum’s own sanctimony in the process:

    “If you voted for Planned Parenthood, like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills,” said Ron Paul. “And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money … they have the money left over to do abortion.”

    OUCH. But it is the painful truth, and it exposes Rick Santorum’s rank hypocrisy on his “values” and his “convictions” and his “courage.”

    You had it right in the sense that Santorum’s voting record is that of “big government,” and “big-spending.” But you called him a “conservative,” and he is NOT. Rick Santorum is a big-government, big-spending PROGRESSIVE.

    But worst of all, Santorum was a foot soldier in G.W. Bush’s “big-government” and “big-spending” and “progressive” administration. Does the GOP even realize how stupid it is, to put forward a G.W. Bush guy as their nominee??! It’s insanely stupid. Stop the insanity; Gov. Mitt Romney is the ONLY candidate who’s not a DC insider; in this political climate, that is a PLUS with all voters. Romney can make the case against Obama; if you want to have a chance of getting rid of Obama, you must accept the obvious: Gov. Mitt Romney.

  • Martin Knight

    His last name is not a liability he would be able to overcome absent Barack Obama caught pants-down with another woman (or man).

  • nepanyrush

    What I took from the debate is how much more substantial the GOP candidates are than Obama. Obama has the ability to inspire the masses with his delivery and ability to sound intelligent, but has very little substance. He can play the usual sound bites of class warfare and it was Bush’s/Congress’/other people’s fault and name dropping, but all 4 of these GOP candidates are way beyond him in substance.

    Overall, each of the 4 candidates have impressed me all 20 debates with their depth of knowledge about the economy, social issues, and government and three of the candidates are great on foreign affairs. It is just a delight to listen to them, other than when they are attacking each other.

    I agree with EE’s analysis of the debate. However, in the overall scheme of things, Romney probably benefitted the most. This is because the presence of Gingrich in the race spllits the conservative vote, while Gingrich himself has too high of negatives to ever win the presidency. If there were 20 Lincoln-Douglas debates maybe, but I doubt Obama would do more than 2 or at most 3 debates, and Gingrich would be steamrolled.

    I could live with any of these candidates. I find them all impressive. Unlike many, I am not at all unhappy with the field.

  • Finrod

    Your girlfriend doesn’t care if a politician sells out every single principle he has, as long as he doesn’t cheat on his wife.

    So would she have voted for Carter over Reagan, because Reagan had been divorced?

  • Finrod

    The real difference between Gingrich vs. Romney/Santorum is that Gingrich actually got legislation based on conservative principles through Congress and got Bill Clinton to sign them. When has Romney ever stood up for conservative principles? When has Santorum ever stood up for conservative principles other than the SoCon ones?

  • Finrod

    .

  • chuckludd

    He’s not the ideal candidate, but which one of them is? Newt has a chance to be the real stop to Romney. He may not win the nomination, but Newt at least winning the South could get this to an open convention.

    At this point, conservatives need to think strategically about their vote. If I were in Michigan, I’d vote for Santorum. If I were in Virginia, I’d vote for Paul. If I were in Ohio, I’d vote Newt.

  • geotan

    Erick you really need to start being a little more fair in your analysis. I know it’s hard when you have a strong disdain for Mitt, even though you supported him in 2008. However, how pray tell did Newt Gingrich win a debate when he is so far down the polls and at times you weren’t even aware that he was there? Clearly, Mitt won the debate because he showed Santorum the earmark inside Washington, team playing hypocrite that he is. You don’t have to like Mitt to see that what he had to do was come across as competent, point out the opposition research on Santorum, and smile for the cameras. Redstate and others are run the risk of damaging Romney so badly and making him bleed money that it will be a wonder that the Republican nominee will win in November. We need to stop being so critical of Romney’s record as Governor of Massachuseutts, a Liberal state, and take him at his word that he will apply fiscal conservatism to the huge debt and spending issues of the budget debacle so as to avoid becoming Greece! This will happen!

  • annie54

    which is smack dab right in the middle of a huge Morman settlement, who were there last night in mass to cheer Mittsy on and boo Santorum! Ron Paul’s fans, in mass also, cheered Paul and booed Santorum.

    Can’t people see this? CNN was for Romney, also. Thank God that many, many voters don’t watch the debates and, furthermore, can think for themselves.

  • Scope

    much about Bob McDonnell. I live in VA, and I am well aware of what he has done as Governor.

    Bob McDonnell kept the budget in place that was passed by former D Gov. Tim Kaine. He did in fact get the government workers to kick a little bit in towards their healthcare and pensions, but not very much. He denied the state government workers a raise in his first year, but promised them that if the next budget came in with a surplus, he would give them all a Christmas bonus of 3%. The budget did come in with a small surplus, and he did give them their bonuses, but, did not make the required payment that the state must make into the state pension funds. That is without doubt one of the liabilities that have all but broken the backs of the D lead states. He did not make the payment to the pension fund, but rather gave it to the current state workers as a bonus.

    Gov. McDonnell is all in favor of government subsidized green energy. That is a big no no to most Republicans/conservatives. If someone in the private sector wants to invest their monies to advance green energy, all power to them. When they find a way to make it effective and cost effective, great, they will make profits on it. We are not there yet.

    McDonnell signed an EO to demand that all state vehicles switch over to alternative fuels. At the signing he said that he awaits the day when vehicles are going down the road on solar energy. Hel1, battery operated vehicles, that must use fossile fuel energy to recharge them aren’t even any where near there yet.

    McDonnell recently asked the legislature to set aside $500,000 for a wind energy project off the VA coasts. He conveniently forgot that a major push has been on for years here in the state to drill off the VA coasts. Of course the last D Gov. opposed it. Obama told him no, he said oh tay. It’s as though no future R president will not go all out for “drill here, drill now.” Is he trying to block any future oil drilling efforts for the state?

    You read the diary by streiff concerning his cowardness on the ultrasound bill. I assure you the pro-lifers and the majority of conservatives will be keeping that in mind. There is a huge backlash against him for his wishy washiness with a bill that he was the first one to champion. Bob McDonnell is earning himself quite the reputation as being a follower, and only does what he must as told to him by the party elders. That and the fact that many here have not missed, he desperately wants to be Romney’s running mate. That is what is called an opportunist, not a leader.

    The VA legislature is now controlled by the Republicans, with Lt. Gov Bolling being the tie breaking vote in the Senate. There is no reason at all for the Republicans to not pass Republican/conservative legislation. None. Bolling was shaky on his tie breaking position, and was intimidated by the Democrats threatening to sue for an equal voice as the majority in the Senate. McDonnell and Bolling are like wimps who are afraid to stand up to the Democrats, even when they have the ability to do so. Neither one has shown any leadership abilities, and they have been equally as bad on Republican messaging.

    The fact that Bolling is Romney’s state campaign chair, and that only two people made the state ballot, I promise will not be forgotten come March 6, VA primary day. McDonnell, who said that he wouldn’t endorse, took all of 24 hours after Perry dropped out, to endorse Romney, one of the only two on the state ballot. He has traveled the country to campaign for Romney. I haven’t missed him standing on tiptoe behind Romney in order to have his face out there. He is about a foot shorter than Romney, and is a very vain man. I saw him at a rally when he was running for Governor. Cuccinelli came bounding out, friendly as could be, shaking hands and talking with everyone. Bolling stood on the stage like a boob, not sure of what he was supposed to do next. McDonnell stayed in the background, waiting to be announced, while his wife fixed his hair, he put on his lip gloss, and his daughter brushed off his suit. When he thought he looked perfect, he gave the nod that he was ready to be announced.

    Even though McDonnell has approval ratings in the state around 60%, there have been no surveys done since the ballot access debacle, and that is going to hurt both him and Bolling. It’s as though the VA GOP is in a state of chaos, and if Paul wins the state on March 6th, which he very well may, McDonnell will be yesterdays news.

  • onemovoter

    After the debate, Perry was surrounded by the press.

    Press surrounds Perry

    / sigh I so miss having Perry in the race. I actually had a choice when he was still in it. Now we are left with who the least insider and least liberal of those left.

  • Common_Cents

    He knows how to work DC, where the bodies are buried, how to apply leverage. He will clear cut the dead wood.

    Gingrich has the best of both worlds, former insider knowledge, but committed to true reform of DC as an outsider.

    Last night’s debate revealed Santorum and Romney as two unqualified candidates getting bogged down in the minutia back and forth petty personal attacks. Meanwhile Gingrich has learned history’s lessons, sees the big picture, and quickly puts issues into larger context.

  • Common_Cents

    It’s funny how reality is lost on the media narrative.

  • annie54

    connection. Rand Paul has even stated that he would be honored to become the V.P.

    Now, doesn’t that reveal why the Paul and Romney people, who were there in masses, were booing Santorum?

  • keithe

    I see Newt as Tommy Devito (Joe Pesci’s character from the classic film ‘Goodfellas’). He was our most loyal SOB. He would stick a knife in anyone – Republican or Democrat – for the cause; he was a bareknuckled thug who would advance the cause by any means without remorse (ethics charges against Byrd, Monica Lewinski, whatever). He was reckless, bombastic, and inconsistent, but a brute force to be reckoned with. And the family loved him for it. But when it came time to “make” him, the family decided they couldn’t trust him, he was too much of a loose cannon, so they put a bullet in his head.

  • acat

    and that’s a good thing.

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    when they pulled out of the GA CNN debate. A total spineless cowardly move. When campaigns start conspiring w/ one another it is disgusting and frankly Anti-American.

  • annie54

    n/t

  • acat

    And a very confused understanding of history as well.

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    Women are intelligent and rational. I’m sure they’ll figure it out when given the stark choice.

    Guzzardi, you don’t give women much credit, do you?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I know…I am still pining for Perry and cannot get behind any of the other candidates. Like comparing chopped liver to filet mignon.

    And it is fascinating how he continues to draw the big crowds, huh? His entire campaign was derailed by the corrupt media and establishment more than any of his mistakes, IMO. Cannot wait to see what the future holds for him. I have never felt such fondness for a politician before he came along.

  • Common_Cents

    Since they worked underneath you, and they deserve equal credit as you. That is according to your logic.

  • znjs

    What’s disgusting or un-American for Republican candidates to say they’re sick of them too? If 3 out of 4 of them agree that they’re starting to hurt rather then help the Republican brand, well maybe they’re right.

  • cbartlett

    If Santorum can’t deal with Paul & Romney attacks, just imagine what Obama and the DNC will do to him. They will re-play all of those “extreme” conservative social issue statements he has made over the years and the moderates and independents will run, not walk, in the other direction. The true conservatives are already skeptical of his big-spending tendencies. Who’s left for him? Romney is a wimp against Obama – there’s not enough difference between their beliefs to distinguish them in the general and he cannot effectively fight Obamacare when he won’t admit Romneycare was a mistake. Newt knows the ropes and can slam-dunk Obama in a debate. He is the only one that has the knowledge and ability to fight to “fundamentally UN-transform this country”.
    I agree with the circlegranch post upthread – if we end up with Santorum or Romney as the nominee, and Obama wins, I am concerned about the future of the GOP altogether. Can’t believe “we” didn’t learn from 2008. Sigh.

  • lapert

    I mean when your own employees fire you for being a lousy leader you shouldn’t get the same credit they do for doing the work.

    But let’s fast forward to the general election – who really thinks that Gingrich arguing with Clinton over who gets credit for the 90s is a winning electoral strategy?

  • Common_Cents

    That’s why combating the media is so important. If a person didn’t watch the debate themselves, they’d have no idea Gingrich did well. No chance. The media has failed America.

    Gingrich is trying to air his own 30 minute presentations now, the first on energy. As he is either ignored or attacked by the media.

    I hope Perry can step up and be more visible in Newt’s campaign.

    It’s time for Palin to go Rogue on Fox news and fully endorse Gingrich has well. the country really hangs in the balance here and its time for guns blazing.

  • Common_Cents

    Santorum is whiny and full of excuses.

  • keithe

    Wow, pretty hateful response to what was supposed to be a tongue in cheek post. I’m not sure if you think I’m being overly critical of Gingrich or what. I actually think Gingrich and Weber and the boys in 70-80′s were heroes of the conservative movement, but if you think Gingrich accomplished what he did without being one of the nastiest guys going, I think you may be the one confused about history. He got hit for criticizing Reagan – troubling until you learn that he hit Reagan from the RIGHT on not doing enough to undermine the Soviets. And he went after moderate, get-along Republicans like his predecessor speaker in pretty heavy handed way, but it needed to be done. We were a minority party for 40 years for a reason – our country had a democratic agenda and no real clear conservative alternative thanks to the Bob Mitchels and Doles and other go along get alongs. So Newt was necessary. We wouldn’t be the majority ideology (and we are) without knocking down the old system. But he made lots of enemies along the way. Devito was a joke, but a more serious analysis is that Newt was a great political insurgent but wasn’t deemed a very capable leader. History is replete with those.

  • keithe

    Wow, pretty hateful response to what was supposed to be a tongue in cheek post. I’m not sure if you think I’m being overly critical of Gingrich or what. I actually think Gingrich and Weber and the boys in 70-80′s were heroes of the conservative movement, but if you think Gingrich accomplished what he did without being one of the nastiest guys going, I think you may be the one confused about history. He got hit for criticizing Reagan – troubling until you learn that he hit Reagan from the RIGHT on not doing enough to undermine the Soviets. And he went after moderate, get-along Republicans like his predecessor speaker in pretty heavy handed way, but it needed to be done. We were a minority party for 40 years for a reason – our country had a democratic agenda and no real clear conservative alternative thanks to the Bob Mitchels and Doles and other go along get alongs. So Newt was necessary. We wouldn’t be the majority ideology (and we are) without knocking down the old system. But he made lots of enemies along the way. Devito was a joke, but a more serious analysis is that Newt was a great political insurgent but wasn’t deemed a very capable leader. History is replete with those.

  • Juggernaut

    don’t have a grasp of the fiscal problems nor did they focus on what matters to voters.

    Romneybots booed, what a bunch of zombies knowing darn well that RomneyCare is Right Wing Socialism.

    RomneyCare is Right Wing Socialism – please feel free to use is as often as possible…….it will kill his campaign.

  • keithe

    I thought the same thing every time they showed Perry in the crowd. Maybe the GOP will have an “oops” moment a la 1976 when we realize we nominated the wrong guy.

  • keithe

    I thought the same thing every time they showed Perry in the crowd. Maybe the GOP will have an “oops” moment a la 1976 when we realize we nominated the wrong guy.

  • Common_Cents

    It boggles my mind that the RNC and the campaigns have not put any restrictions on the liberal media hosting/moderating/spinning these things.

    It was obvious that John King used viewer “submitted” questions to be the tough attack questions. Something Wolf Blitzer would do. I’d almost guarantee the submitted questions where fakes just put in by CNN. They can also canvas the audience for questions until they get the question they like.

    When Gingrich went after the media in debates, nobody else backed him up. Nobody.

    Santorum and Romney are media suck ups and will be destroyed by the media in the general. Gingrich has a decent chance of success.

  • Scope

    once prompted by King, to repeat that Santorum was a fake, all while the biggest fake was sitting right next to Santorum, Romney.

    I remember an interviewer on TV asking Paul about the fact that he has never gone against Romney, but has the other candidates. His answer was that he didn’t much like any of the others, but he thought Romney had the best management experience.

    The alliance between Paul and Romney is only something to behold as ludicrous, given Paul’s small government, isolationist views, which are the complete opposite of Romney’s positions. At least Romney’s positions today. Them working out a deal of some sort can be the only explanation. So much goes for Paul being the only honest and consistent candidate, as his supporters claim. Rand Paul’s statement that he would be honored to be Romney’s VP choice seems to be the only explanation that makes any sense.

    How would it work if it came to a brokered convention? Paul’s delegates would be committed to voting for him on the first ballot. Then they are free to vote for who they want, not who Paul tells them to vote for. Is that correct?

  • acat

    The real question is not whether Gingrich is a vicious political fighter .. it’s whether he’s learned anything in the decades he’s been fighting.

    He wasn’t a capable leader – of a group of squishes who sought to preserve their rights and privileges at taxpayers expense – 20 years ago .. but that could well have changed.

    Given the alternatives of the gilded weather-vane, the quack, and the pro-union nanny-statist … my view is Gingrich represents the best option we have.

    Mew

  • lapert

    To quote a former speaker of the house:

    “The fact is, under our constitution, 435 members of the House, each elected by a constituency based on population, work with 100 members of the Senate, two from each state, then we work with the President of the United States. And surely those of us who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last 4 years that we have to work together on big issues.”

  • keithe

    He stumbled on this. There is no good answer to having supported it, even though almost everyone in the Senate did, saying “91 of us were wrong” isn’t much better than saying “I was a team player” IMO. Would have been better to remind folks that there were at least some plausible conservative arguments in favor of it (although ultimately none of them justify federal oversight of education) – one of the main controversies surrounding NCLB was the teachers’ unions opposition to setting standards for teaching, so maybe make it an issue that he wanted to stand up to the unions to make sure unqualified teachers weren’t being shielded by the unions. And I would be surprised if there was any contemporaneous reporting showing that Romney was opposed to NCLB at the time it was passed, so he could have pointed that out. If they are going to hit Rick for not having any contemporanous articles proving that he was against TARP when it was passed (after he was out of office), then the goose/gander rule applies.

  • acat

    and 2012 looks a lot more like 1968 than 1976 to this cat.

    Mew

  • acat

    That’ll usually stop the double-posts.

    Mew

  • keithe

    Its just that while I get called stupid a lot, I get called “remarkably” so, less often. We agree more than you think, I like Newt as well as Santorum, and more than Romney, but I do think the establishment did him in because he ruffled too many feathers along the way. And I think there are way better people who could have been our nominee, one of whom was sitting next to Gingrich’s wife in the crowd. Newt’s “fighter” image is relevant, though – I think he hurt himself by letting Romney draw him into a fight that outsiders saw as petty squabling by an angry little attack muffin. He couldn’t help himself because that is his nature.

  • aesthete

    More spending and bigger government? I certainly agree that Santorum was all in when it came to that “team sport”.

    It strains credulity to state that the guy who went along with leadership like a loyal lapdog is going to make substantial changes in the way Washington DC works as President. Sorry, but that’s not how leadership works.

  • rightland1111

    I stayed on CNN as long as I could…but if he was…I guess I should go to YouTube…yes

  • rightland1111

    especially Perry

  • texasref

    It’s really not that complicated. You summarized it very well.

    Now is the time for EE and Palin to join Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and several others behind Newt Gingrich. We cannot allow Mitt to seak on through.

    If we must have the Fiscal Liberal, then at least we have an honorable man in the White House and not an arrogant powermongering flip flopper. But we can do better than the Fiscal Lib. Even the Isolationist, because he is so strong on fiscal issues and abortion, would be preferable to Gloves.

  • acat

    have been … remarkably stupid the last couple cycles.

    As for the Romney/Gingrich dust-up in FL, and to continue your gangster motif, I think Romney had to be shiv’d, and at that point there was nobody else left who could do it. Santorum – at the time – wouldn’t have been taken seriously, Ron Paul less so.

    I would also not count Gingrich out yet – there’s a regional flavor to this contest today. Romney owns the northeast and the more densely clustered Mormon areas west of the rockies, Santorum owns the rust belt with some appeal in the bible belt, Gingrich owns the south ..

    Unless someone stumbles badly – and Santorum did himself no favors in the last debate – this is going to be a long grind of a fight, and IMO that favors Gingrich.

    Mew

  • texasref

    seak = sneak

    Fiscal Liberal = Santorum

    Gloves = Mittens = Romney

    Isolationist = Paul

    I SUPPORT NEWT!

  • keithe

    I’m interested in hearing how you mean. I think Romney is a lib by today’s standards, but probably not as liberal as George (just say no to Goldwater, the military “brainwashed” me in southeast asia) Romney. And I don’t want to equate any of these cats to Reagan (unless Perry is Reagan). I think its more like 3 Nixons.

  • texasref

    First of all, while I appreciate that we are both big time Newt supporters, you need to slow your roll on a few things:

    1. Romney’s religion is IRRELEVANT. He is horrible on the ISSUES and on his personal arrogance and ambition!

    2. Ron Paul served in the military honorably and saved lives as a doctor and is a decent, good, public servant. Not a wimp! He is fundamentally wrong on some issues, but that is no reason to call him a wimp!

    3. Santorum believes in family values, but he goes overboard to some extent. That doesn’t make him a lunatic or even borderline so. I do think he rages a bit, so that’s fair, but half the time it’s rage at what Obama is doing to this country, so I share that rage.

    4. New IS cheerful and you could have said something positive about the candidate you and I clearly are all-in for. Now you’re going to get smacked down and you make us Newt supporters look bad. Thanks a lot.

  • texastaxpayer

    I love Rombots…. Forget his record, his previous op eds and what he may have said yesterday. It’s what he said at 12:14 pm February 23rd 2012 that matters…….. Why not just take Obama at his word that he will half the debt if reelected? He has as much credibility as Romney after all.

  • cbartlett

    I don’t like Newt’s wife baggage but his knowledge and experience and ability to speak the conservative, limited government narrative is WAY more important. Newt is the only one that Obama and the DNC fear and the only one that can take them on. Santorum and Romney will look like wimps in contrast – either of them would be a McCain re-run.

    (And yes – Anita Perry would absolutely be the BEST First Lady of the group!!)

  • lapert

    Again to quote the former speaker:

    “a win for the American people because it is a win for the President and a win for the Congress.”

    Maybe Santorum won’t change the way business is done in DC as President, I doubt he would, but hose who think Gingrich would are just as delusional. He believes that the way business is done is how it is supposed to be done – which is why he could swoon at Clinton’s mastery of it, tell his fine conservative perfectionists friends that they could get there bills in worlds where they are petty dictators, sit down a couch with Nancy Pelosi for a shared cause he believed in, actively argue for Medicare Part D, unflinchingly support the Republican nominee in the NY 23rd etc.

  • APA Guy

    …is remarkably STUPID, regardless of how that reality impacts your feelings.

  • westcoastpatriette

    nothing more…

  • Scope

    discussions off the table. Santorum is being criticized for responding to questions about his positions on the social issues. Hmmm.

    Ever since Obama announced his mandate that even religious institutions like hospitals and universities, must cover contraceptives, and the ensuing arguments between the left and right unfolded, the liberals have only doubled down. Every single day since then, CNN has had segments still talking about the contraceptive issue. They never ever talk about it as a freedom of religion issue, no no. It’s all about a woman’s right to what many have called “preventive healthcare.” That’s right, they consider contraceptives as preventive healthcare.

    They are incensed that the hearings on capital hill only included men. Pelosi was aghast that men had the nerve to talk about woman’s health. Carol Costello said this morning that Pelosi is holding her own hearings today, that will feature women. One of those featured women was on CNN today. She claims that she speaks for Catholic women, and has met with many of the Catholic women’s organizations, and they are appalled that the church would find offense at the president’s initiative to cover contraceptive’s. Dem GA state Rep. Yasmi Neal has now sponsored a bill in the House requesting that abortions should only be allowed if the life of the “father” is at stake. What a farce.

    If anyone remembers from Obama’s 08 campaign season, George Soros started and funded some faux Catholic organizations. Catholics for the Common Good was one of them. That organization was headed up by former liberal Catholic VA Rep Perriello. His job was to convince Catholics that it was OK to vote for pro-choice politicians, as they made up for that negative position, by being in favor of the common good. The Common Good being socialized governance which made everyone equal. Moral relativeness on steriods, just so we can further the cause of moral and social rot of the Amer. citizens. With half the country now receiving government checks of some sort, they are half way to their goals.

  • kcdude

    word when it has changed so much, so often, to suit his political requirement of the moment. I have watched nearly every debate. Romney has only ‘won’ a couple. Last night was not a win. He came off as a prig.

  • kcdude

    to rescind that endorsement just yet.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Wilson, FDR and LBJ

    I think that’s all.

  • honoraryintern

    Newts is the smartest guy at the debate last night and if he had kept his trousers zipped you would have a point.
    His negatives are through the roof and won’t get any better when the ‘road to nowhere’ opens fire with $1.2 billion of Pac money. He is the only Repub who right now loses head to head against Obama, everyone else is ahead or in the stat error.

    Newt and Rick need a pledge to combine delegates before the convention so we don’t end up with a Romney-Paul anti so-con ticket.

  • rightland1111

    The first thing that I noticed was that Santorum was nervous. Glad that others recognized that also. Yes, EE he did come on stronger in the second half…but it was more into the bickering and…the bickering of the past.

    Ron Paul…again…I understand where he comes from on the Constitution and how the government should not be permitted into private business, issues, etc….but his foreign policy is empty and in today’s world…that is no good.

    Santorum and Romney talked ‘IN THE PAST’….I want to know about the future and the only one that was offering up ideas of how to get out of the mess was Newt. For instance…notice that royalities were mentioned concerning energy and how same would wipe out our deficit. I was happy with that one. He mentioned some other concepts and I was impressed. Again, as I have said…he is a visonary.

    The Governor of Arizona all but gave Newt the endorsement last night…did you all catch that interview? I was happy to see Perry there and I also like Newt’s idea about them being on a task force.

    Oh…and one last thing…did you all catch how Romney…AGAIN…said…you get to ask the question, I get to answer it my way…or something to that effect….ALL I COULD THINK OF IS THIS: Another dictator. He’s just like Obama…he’s an elitist snob.

    Again…Santorum got lost in the weeds. About the contraception business…Newt put it squarely back where it belonged…With the First Amendment and not about women not having their pills. I am so sick of the misrepresentation of this issue by the MSM.

    Another thing…Newt was hardly mentioned on Drudge…another black-out by the Media…just like Perry. I hope people realize that the MSM is picking the candidate for Obama to debate.

  • cbartlett

    Fox is ignoring Newt – exactly like what they did to Perry. Makes me very angry that the media is running this campaign. Very visible Perry & Palin support for Newt could be extremely important – especially if they do it before March 6. It might at least remind people that Newt is still around since the media is marginalizing him. Kind of wish Romney would have some major public implosion in the next week or so and wake people up. Obama/DNC has been saving up stuff to sling at him for years now and are just waiting….. I can’t figure out why Romney supporters think he has any better chance against Obama than McCain had.

  • jamesm

    “My presidency is not over,” Obama told Univision’s Eddie ?Piolin? Sotelo “I?ve got another five years coming up. We?re going to get this done.”

  • rightland1111

    nt

  • APA Guy

    But Obama’s negatives are in areas that actually impact the lives of working American families. I’ll take my chances with Newt debating policy with his personal negatives against Obama and his POLICY negatives any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

  • acat

    almost enough of the delegates to clinch, but not *quite*.

    Reagan won Cali, his “home state” (despite being born in Illinois..) and Rockefeller won NY on an anti-war platform.

    Between them, Reagan and Rockefeller should have been able to push Nixon off the ballot and replace him with someone more conservative… but they couldn’t get together on the deal.

    If I’m re-casting things, Rockefeller is easily played by anti-war Ron Paul, and Nixon is obviously today’s lousy establishment pick, Romney.

    The role of Reagan is currently being played by two people, Santorum and Gingrich…

    This is looking like a repeat of 1968 so far… and my fear is the Santorum/Gingrich/Paul (i.e. anyone-but-Romney) group will not be able to keep Romney from being the nominee .. in part because Rockefeller and Nixon will cut a deal. In fact, it sure looks like there’s a deal between Romney and Paul already.

    Mew

  • texastaxpayer

    The hypocrisy of ignoring the foolish aspects of Mormonism in an attempt to avoid being considered bigoted when most if not all of the regular posters here would scream bloody murder over a Wahabis running is revolting. News flash for you. A persons religion contains the absolute core of a persons beliefs. To pretend that isn’t so is foolish. To pretend Romney is going to be asked to defend every crazy Mormon belief in the general is stupid. To pretend asking some basic questions about a persons belief system is bigoted is “liberal”…

  • unclefred

    2008 voter demographics: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.T0aDuxwcatA
    2004 voter demographics:
    http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html#.T0aDYhwcatA

    Obama did win more independents and moderates than Kerry. He won 17% more blacks than Kerry and increase their over all participation as a share of the electorate by 2%. The under 30 vote turnout increased by 1% and he won 66% compare to 56% for Kerry.

    Conservative turnout 34% in 2004 and 2008 was the same as percentage of the vote but 6% fewer voted for McCain and of which 4% voted for Obama.

    Obama ran more strongly among moderates & independents than Kerry.

    Obama won because he ran more strongly in almost every demographic than Kerry.

  • acat

    Politicians. Lesson one is to stop listening and look at what they do.

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    We’re gonna see more of ‘em as it gets closer.

  • APA Guy

    May as well take that free t-shirt and head on home if that is the best you have to offer.

  • texastaxpayer

    This site needs an edit feature

  • jamesm

    are absolutely relevant. To say to the contrary is pure nonsense

  • texastaxpayer

    If I am a bigot for pointing out hypocrisy what does that make you?

  • colonelflagg

    …he’s still Newt Gingrich. So he’s still unelectable, a squishy conservative at best since leaving office with negatives that won’t be cured by one debate. Or any number of them, for that matter.

  • honoraryintern

    Alright history kitty. Since we know now about Mitten-Pauliack attempt at a hostile takeover of the nomination, What can be done?

    The Newtonian’s are on the warpath over his performance and think they have super Tuesday in their pocket and a path to the nomination.

    Mitt-Paul will pool their delegates before a vote at the convention.

    I think the only hope of short circuiting the anti-so-con ticket is a Newt-Rick pledge to combine their delegates with the leader taking the top of the ticket.

    Would you purr about that a while?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Short too, but you don’t have to rub it in.

    As for what I am? I’m the sort of person that gets to laugh at you after you’re gone.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’m also the sort of person that knows when to use you’re and when to use your. Apparently, you’re not.

  • honoraryintern

    A Pac financed by Hollywood libs to create a bigot with ‘standing’.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    uncommon sense

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    just saying

  • gracie

    Look Romney pulled out first and Santorum quickly followed. Romney is weak in the south. And he knows that Newt is the one guy who could really do him in.

    Does anybody really think Romney is going to win the South??

    So it is close-out-Newt at any expense! If they had any cojones they would do another debate and face down Newt. But nobody ever accused Romney of having any. That is what is the matter with him.

    Santorum just showed he has way too many vulnerabilities to win the general. IMO. So we are going to get stuck with Romney if we don’t act fast.

    I just fail to see a way to get people to trust that Newt can win so that they will start voting for him in the rest of the primaries. I am not trying to be negative. Prhaps someone can see the path and explain it to me.

  • honoraryintern

    …I’d say Amen

  • aesthete

    You don’t hire the guy who said, “h’ohkay, boss”, and who enthusiastically worked to produce the results of the Bush administration, to depart from that model.

    If you think that Bush conservatism is what conservatives should aspire towards, or that it’s better than what the other two are offering? That’s reasonable, and it’s honest. If, on the other hand, you want to start characterizing Santorum as anything other than that, it’s incumbent upon you to find evidence to support your claims. So far, you’ve waved a number that you don’t understand in our faces.

    This is the same nonsense that made conservatives so passive under Pres Bush, and I have no intention of repeating those years.

  • honoraryintern

    Clinton wanted blood for impeachment. Every magazine (including Forbes) had an evil caricature of Newt on the cover and a 10 page story inside. Do you really believe the have mended that bridge? Newt will be in the Cross-Hairs of both the big o’ and Clinton. Do you believe Newt has told us all his secrets? Nancy seems to know one or two. He won’t stand a chance.

  • bankalyst

    I felt that way during the final debate leading up to the actual Iowa caucus. I was very proud of all of the candidates, and happy for any of them to carry the torch. Then of course came the negativity which is unfortunately part of the process. It’s demoralizing, but happens every primary season. I hope we can bring it together in November and get rid of BHO!

  • littlehouse18

    Sitting down takes away the height advantage from Romney and Santorum, which is fair, I suppose, but it makes all four of them look like they are equally in the race, which they are not, Paul in particular. What was really bad, however, it that it made them look unpresidential. They looked more like The McLaughlin Group. I feel this was deliberate.

    Also, what happened to giving the front-runners more time than the others? Santorum finally gets his turn at the center, and now suddenly everyone gets equal time. And in his strongest areas, he doesn’t get asked till 3rd or 4th, after which the others have already had the chance to make the salient points and he winds up with little left to say other than ‘I agree’. Not to whine, but last night was set up to be unfair to Santorum in particular.

    That said, Rick was off his game – did ok, but not great. He could have put the rest of the pack behind him, but didn’t really get there. I kept wanting him to stand up and strongly confront Paul on such things as Iran! I wanted to see fireworks! I’m thinking he was trying too hard to look calm, cool, and collected.

  • texastaxpayer

    But go ahead and answer the question, get on the record. If we were talking about a Muslim candidate who attended a wahhabis mosque would you still consider religion of limits for questions or as a qualifier / disqualifier for service as president?

    Why don’t you try using a little less character assassination like some lefty liberal and a little more logic and debate? I bet you and I would get along a lot better, I am not your enemy after all.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Everyone that’s known me here for a few years knows that.

    I’m sorry, did you say something about character assassination?

  • texastaxpayer

    ;)

  • littlehouse18

    and who has seen prenatal ultrasounds of her children, and can still support abortion, has a strange kind of heart. I’ll bet most are on the side of pro-life.

  • texastaxpayer

    Your just not worth chatting with are you? Sad…..

  • acat

    Specifically, the Reagan/Schweiker ticket.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    none of your conclusions are supported by fact.

  • Archer

    just unexploited.

    If a Republican were a member of a segregated country club, he would be practically unelectable. So let’s compare that to what could be said about Romney:

    Romney was born in 1947 and hit 18 years old in 1965. Around that time Romney made a vow to tithe: give 10% of his income to the Mormon Church. So what kind of church was that when Romney made his vow.

    There are a large number of Mormon leaders who are on the record from the beginning of Mormonism through the 1960′s as saying that blacks could convert and go to heaven but only to be servants of the whites there. One 1963 Mormon newsletter I’ve seen a copy of stated that “darkies” have a place in our church. The Mormon apostle Mark E. Petersen gave a talk at Brigham Young University in 1954 concerning race relations saying, “if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.?

    I’ve seen dozens of quotes along those lines and many using language and derogatory terms which I wouldn’t care to repeat in public or private.

    In 1978 the Mormon Church changed and started letting blacks into their parts of their temple in Salt Lake City, started letting blacks join the priesthood, and started rewriting the Book of Mormon to “re-interpret” the places where it referenced the joys of being white skinned (the newer version was released in the 1980′s).

    The scuttlebutt around Washington for decades has been that the Mormon church only changed its policies because the Carter Administration’s Justice Department was ready to revoke its tax exempt status.

    I don’t know if BYU allows interracial dating yet but it was still an issue within the last couple of decades.

    Now let me be clear. The Mormon church says all those church leaders were stating their own opinions and not official church doctrine. And I don’t personally believe Romney is racially prejudiced in any way.

    But do you believe for a second that Obama is going to fail to exploit this for all its worth?

    That they can’t do a simple google search for “Mormon, mark of Cain” and find boatloads of quotes?

    Or find anti-Mormon activists who have physical copies of older versions of the Book of Mormon and speeches and newletters talking about blacks in derogatory terms?

    Or find people from the Carter administration (or Carter himself) who will say that the Justice Department rumors were true?

    Or point to the lack of high-ranking blacks in the Romney campaign as proof of prejudice?

    I haven’t tried walking through their Salt Lake City temple but if they’re still denying access to blacks to some areas, as I’ve heard is still the custom, do you think a hidden camera experiment showing it won’t go viral on youtube?

    People who are against Newt due to his supposed baggage aren’t really thinking through this Romney thing very thoroughly. I think we could easily go into the November election with republican candidates trying to distance themselves from both a nominee Romney and the republican party.

    Or worse: have this issue be the democrat’s October surprise and give no time to try to refute the smear campaign before the election.

  • fromusa

    between the affiliation of Paul and Romney. It is rumored that Romney has a cabinet position for Paul.
    Paul is dedicated to being the spoiler of Santorum for the sake of Romney.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Does your mom know you’re not in school today?

  • acat

    select cases.

    There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Romney, I see no point in discussing a bad reason.

    Mew

  • littlehouse18

    for Santorum, instead of being ganged up on by two at once.

    Romney’s Mormon issue is lying in wait, unfair as it is, it will be huge. And he can’t disavow some of the odd beliefs, because then he would put himself in the position of being a heretic, But he can’t own them either, because it makes him look strange. (Sorry my LDS friends). It’s a trap he can’t escape.

    Catholicism is mainstream, as are its tenets, controversial as they may be today. It can’t be twisted in the same way as Mormonism, and especially considering the sheer numbers of Catholics who cannot be insulted without great electoral risk. (Of course BO is making a try at it).

    As for Newt, we need more than a good debater in our President. And Obama will only agree to 1 or 2, and definitely will *not* do a Lincoln-Douglas style debate of which Newt is so fond. So the debate angle is not so important now. Santorum and Romney are more than adequate in debating ability. Newt’s baggage is too much to win with.

  • Archer

    If it is, I for one shall rejoice.

  • demsaresatanic

    would you? Like being sucker enough to believe Pelosi, for example, or cringing in fear from an America-hating Christian-hating, lying media. Congrats on another silly sky is falling post.

  • aesthete

    Your just not worth chatting with are you?”

  • lapert

    What the Mormon church said or did 30+ years ago isn’t Romney’s baggage. If you think Obama wants to get in a discussion on what religious figures degrees removed from the candidates have said you are crazy. Particularly when there will be so many more relevant, persuasive and less likely to come back to haunt him avenues of attack.

  • joeydavis

    would have been a difficult election for her since she didn’t exist for almost another decade. I’m not even sure her parents were old enough to vote in Reagan-Carter

    You miss the point. The point is that girls don’t like cheaters.

    As far as selling out, Rick Santorum is no sellout. His conservative record is at least as good as Gingrich’s. It’s funny to hear the Gingrich people say otherwise. I’d be willing to bet that Gingrich and Santorum voted together at probably 90+%. And I’d say there differences had to do with Rick being in a Pennsylvania battleground and Newt being in safe Georgia district.

    I’ve got no problem with a politician casting a political vote when it doesn’t matter. I’ve done it myself. I understand taking one for the team (and so does Newt Gingrich).There’s no sense in creating a wave when you don’t have to.

    On fiscal issues, there’s truthfully and historically no difference between Santorum and Gingrich. To my knowledge their votig records on budgets, appropriations and debt ceilings are IDENTICAL.

    On social issues, Newt Gingrich talks the talk, Rick Santorum walks the walk.

    On electability, Santorum has a path to the White House that runs through the rust belt. Gingrich doe not.

    I’d be happy with either Gingrich or Santorum, but Santorum can win and Gingrich can’t

  • acat

    You refuse to address the flaws in your argument and instead try to expand the scope or otherwise shift the goalposts.

    Not playing your game.

    Mew

  • littlehouse18

    Mormonism is unfairly an albatross that will be hung around Romney’s neck. I do not care about his Mormonism, but this vulnerability (like the October surprise you mentioned) adds one more reason why I don’t want him to be our nominee. But if he is, I will work my heart out for him to defeat Obama.

  • littlehouse18

    Santorum has 71 delegates and Gingrich has 29. Romney has 105.

  • WillWong

    There are some serious issues here, least of all is your personal integrity. Are you willing to put that on the line for Romney? Unless of course you have none!

  • demsaresatanic

    about it. If they run away now they will run away in the future.

  • WillWong

    Everything you have posted so far shows beyond a shadow of doubt!

  • lapert

    They are avoiding a fight that offers them no real strategic upside and some risk for potential downside – that isn’t cowardice it is smart strategy.

    Only fools, or McFlys get dragged into fights they don’t need to take part in by being called cowards or chickens. And if choosing the strategically prudent road is now un-American, well that doesn’t bode well for the country.

  • APA Guy

    And you never addressed my comment…surprise, surprise…

    Why should we believe that the voting public will forgive Obama’s POLICY indiscretions and vote him in again in the midst of poor economic numbers and high gas prices in lieu of Newt’s personal negatives, none of which cost a voter a single penny?

  • texastaxpayer

    You know your a hypocrite dont you????

    Go ahead and answer and we can move on or would you rather play grammar games and pretend you haven’t been caught??

    If we were talking about a Muslim candidate who attended a wahhabis mosque would you still consider religion of limits for questions or as a qualifier / disqualifier for service as president?

  • Archer

    that you had pointed out any flaw in my statement. But if you don’t care to comment further, feel free.

  • clowngirl

    I’m not seeing the parallel between Perry’s Ponzi scheme remark and Santorum’s many problems last night.

    First off, all the hoopla about Perry’s remark was an attack from the left. The media made it out to be a mistake – but it probably wasn’t. At any rate his bold remarks about social security were in keeping with his image and – if I remember correctly- Governor Perry looked pretty good in that debate overall – and came off as a guy who knows what he stands for and doesn’t mince words.

    With Santorum last night, it was different. His image is supposed to be that he’s a relatable Christian guy, who wears sweater vests and puts substance over style. A guy who got kicked out of office because his state was too blue and he was oh so principled.

    What hurt him last night wasn’t the question about contraception, it was him getting caught talking out of both sides of his mouth (on that Planned Parnthood vote) more blatantly than anybody I’ve ever seen.

    It was “politics was a team sport” and his explanation of his endorsement of Benedict Arlen (which, most charitably be described as inside the beltway myopia. Who, outside the political class, thinks the best way to accomplish conservative goals is to elect moderates so they can give cover to other moderates instead of electing more conservatives and changing the conversation?)

    In short, Santorum was damaged, not by the media but by attacks from the right which were- accurate.

    He was damaged because he came off – not as an extremist – but as every bit the wheeling and dealing, eager to compromise professional politician.

    And one without the self awareness even to recognize it.

    I don’t expect his poll numbers to free fall (yet) but I do think Santorum hurt himself much more than he helped himself last night.

  • znjs

    It’s just common sense – if you think debates help you, you participate in them. If you don’t think they will, you don’t. You’re not obligated to help your opponents tear you down. And frankly Newt has had plenty of debates to beat up on Romney, one more, especially this soon after we just had one) isn’t going to make that big of a difference.

  • honoraryintern

    Dems, I have a personal custody fight that went on 8 years. There are 4 feet of legal documents, Restraining order on lies of her new boyfriend. He said , she said, before I got custody of the youngest 2. Do you think I could run for office?

    Try to look at this as a consultant for Newt. What questions would you want answered to run in front of the issue? Have you seen answers to those questions?

    I can imagine a thousand interview questions but the worst one I can think of (MisMedia are better at this) is Callista and Newt for the ‘couple’ interview. ‘Callistia, you knew that Newt was married when you started the 6 year affair, in what he calls an ‘open marriage’. What were you thinking? What would have thought if you were on the wife, instead of the other woman? You are the wife now, what if Newt strays again what would you say to the other woman?

    Worse, what if there is still an ‘open marriage’ and we just don’t know who?

    It is trash can and telephoto journalism at its worst. You want an election about big ideas? If Newt has told all, there are no worries. whats your gut say?

    Hoping to someday be somebodies; Honorary Intern.

  • acat

    than a Ponzi scheme .. but it’s close enough.

    Otherwise, I agree with what you’ve written.

    I don’t expect Santorum’s poll numbers to crater .. but I do expect – for those who have eyes to see – his “enthusiasm” to drop.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    little o Big, Big. o’bama-McCain (Rescue Me) it was an Irish election. bad joke..

  • acat

    Expansion of the point (from “Romney” to “all candidates” and “religion” to “baggage”) is not a valid defense.

    First rule of holes.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    Posit. Internet can short cycle the ’76 – ’80 campaigns into one nomination process. If the nominees are both so-cons the problems of ’76 go away…the mud wrestling that got the top spot on the ticket would be the problem.

  • acat

    the one time since 1950 where a full-throated conservative won the POTUS nomination was 1980…. and then only because he began gathering support to himself in January, 1977.

    While I see that the internet could shorten the cycle, one would imagine we’d have seen that starting in 2010 or 2011 .. but social conservatives remained in separate packets behind a variety of long-shot and dark-horse candidates…

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    No way would one candidate announce he was out of a debate.

    romney got slammed for it when he waffled on FL debates after being beat in SC.

    Instead, they all call each other and all of them skip.

    That is cowardice.

  • Archer

    I spoke of Romney, Gingrich, and the people who are supporting Romney because he doesn’t have baggage. Look at the last few sentences where you apparently quit reading.

    There was no expansion so I will restate my original response to you, if a candidate’s baggage were never an issue, I for one would rejoice. I think elections should be decided on a candidate’s position on issues. But there are people who apparently think it should have something to do with electing the candidate with the least baggage.

    If that were someone’s belief, it makes no sense for them to pay attention to one candidate’s baggage then behave like an ostrich to another candidate’s baggage.

  • lapert

    Even if that is true (and I actually doubt that it is), it is still just smart strategy. Doing what makes it most likely for you to win the nomination is not cowardice – it is the whole point of the exercise.

  • acat

    Do you have some kind of a problem with Mormons?

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    ever

  • lineholder

    I’m genuinely stunned at people. O-care is perhaps the single biggest threat to our nation’s future, both in the context of Constitutional protections of our freedom and liberty, not to mention threats to the value of life across the entire spectrum of life (which the IPAB will place a low value on if it will “save” some of “the government’s money) and the single biggest threat to our economy that our nation has faced in many a year.

    We should be fighting against it, day in and day out. Yet people continue to believe that Romney’s “electability” illusion will let us win this battle?

    He could have easily put himself in the catbird’s seat months ago by disowning the socialized health care model on which Romneycare and Obamacare are based. But did he do it? NO, his pride just won’t let him admit that it was the WRONG kind of plan to even remotely consider putting into a place in a nation of free people and that it is WRONG for government to have an excessive degree of power (which can very easily be abused) across the entire spectrum of life from the cradle to the grave.

    That’s a hole of his own making. Romney dug that hole, not other people and not the Liberals in the state of MA. He could get himself out of it if he wanted to…but apparently he doesn’t really want to.

  • Scope

    Just saw him a few minutes ago on John King’s show. King asked him if he ever had that conversation about judicial nominees with Santorum. He said no he never did. Kind asked him who he is supporting for the 2012 election. Spinchter says he doesn’t like any of the GOP candidates, but he thinks Obama is going in the right direction. I’d bet that Spinchter is hating on all the Republicans, because none of them, including Santorum supported him when he lost his re-election bid.

  • honoraryintern

    … in November…

    http://www.redstate.com/honoraryintern/2012/02/17/is-a-mormon-mainstream-enough-to-earn-the-votes-for-president/

    But Romney has a plan that is just as workable….

    http://www.redstate.com/honoraryintern/2012/02/22/mitts-not-stupid-or-hey-have-you-seen-my-new-aluminium-foil-cap/

    It will just make so-cons persona-non-gratis at the White House….

    How do we keep Romnaul from steeling the nomination?

  • Scope

    today has been particularly interesting with all their fighting back against Gingrich with his infanticide comment, Santorums social views, over and over, and Christine Romans this morning said that we have a good unemployment report for last month. She said that “only” 351,000 filled unemployment claims last week, and that is great news, because it stayed below the 400,000 threshold. Happy days are here again.

    Wondering how EE is going to hold his own with support of Republicans/conservatives in the bloody shark tank that is heating up at CNN.

    CNN hosts, until 4PM are all females, and I can tell you they are fighting mad, and as nasty as can be. Chris Christie has nothing on the angry liberal women. Nothing.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    who couldn’t beat Obama. How is Romney going to defeat Obama?

    As for voting records, Ron Paul should take the beam out of his own eye first.

    From a redstate diary here:

    Ron Paul is believed to be a ?fiscal conservative? and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis. (source: Open Secrets)

    In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives.

  • Common_Cents

    She was sure to use the snarky “elite media” reference a couple times in slamming Gingrich. She pointed out some reference to talking about Obama’s position in 2008. But the main thrust was slamming Gingrich for calling out the media as elite and having their own biased agenda.

    The media is raving mad for being challenged and called out by Gingrich. They are vicious and need to be taken down.

  • Common_Cents

    I think Gingrich has in the past, saying why nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to obama?

    That puts romney on the defensive and should be brought up in every debate and speech.

  • Scope

    where she went hard and heavy, with foam almost coming out of her mouth, when she said that she in fact did do a report on Obama’s abortion votes, in answer to Gingrich’s charges last night. She never played any part of her report, and we are all just to take her word for it. My guess is that she may have done that type of report, possibly as a Clinton supporter in 08, before Obama gained the nomination.

    Now, it would be honest on your part if you will admit that the leftist media is out for the jugular on all of the GOP candidates. They have been easier on Romney, and seem to conclude that Paul is not even worth talking about.

  • Common_Cents

    and will become more vicious in the general.

    The media has largely set the agenda and people fall for it.

    Look at how King let romney and santorum run on and on and on when they were doing petty damage to themselves and the party.

    However, King moves on quickly, cutting people off when they start bashing Obama.

  • demsaresatanic

    if our soldiers thought your way we would have no country. If that is your idea of smart, so be it, many good men have died because they did the right thing rather than the “smart” thing.

  • Scope

    they played the fight between Santorum and Romney over and over. It is what they do, they promote infighting, and then use those sound bites for the next few days, to further the fighting, nasty GOP’ers as nasty creeps. King questioned Ron Paul on his ad saying that Santorum was a fake. He set Paul up for Santorum bashing, and Paul gladly took up that challenge. That has been another big time replay on CNN today. They played Romney’s last question, where Romney said that he gets to answer the questions, only a rare few times. Then they went full throttle against Gingrich and Santorum as these neanderthals that just don’t have a clue about the living breathing constitution. Preibus should be shot for agreeing to the debate thingy this season. Gingrich could have, and did, do well in the Huckabee format. So did the others. It wasn’t a circus show.

  • Scope

    Bush campaigned for Specter, and Toomey took one on the chin for the party, and supported Specter. How is that different than Santorum taking one on the chin for the Bush agenda when he was in the Senate? Did Toomey give up on his principles in supporting Specter, a known past Democrat turned Republican, who switched back to being a Democrat shortly before the Obamacare vote? Specter wants to deny that he promised to vote for Bush’s SC nominees, but he did in fact vote for Roberts and Alito, which I would think any squish like Specter would have voted against. He did fight hard against the Bork nomination.

  • Common_Cents

    Is the American people being liberated by the left wing media.

    If there was even an attempt at lame stream media balanced reporting, America would be radically improved and the world would be much better off.

  • lastgopinillinois

    in a debate against 0-bama ?????

    What planet did you just come from????

  • demsaresatanic

    really nails it. When you tell us how polls taken before the debate determine who won the debate you will amuse us even more.

  • lapert

    If our soldiers were drawn into any battle because the enemy whined that they were cowards they would be doing a poor job at fighting the war.

    You are a fool if you think the right thing is to engage every possible fight rather than engage in the ones that give you the best chance of attaining the actual victory you care about – in this case it ain’t mythical debate points.

    I sure hope you aren’t in a position in the armed forces where you get to apply your ‘strategies’ with our troops.

  • demsaresatanic

    Silly conclusion, no supporting facts given, the CH media says and the dupes believe.

  • aesthete

    is not the same thing as supporting legislation which is worse than the alternative (i.e., fighting said legislation).

    Expect to hear these garbage rationalizations from conservatives in the event of a Republican President in ’12, folks.

  • greyeagle

    All the analysts have been told to push Romney. They are ignoring Newt, but they were extremely ugly to Perry. They are no longer “Fair and Balanced” and should stop using that slogan. I don’t watch them anymore.

  • Creedo

    Gingrich lost when he lost Florida. All he’s doing is hurting Santorum at this point, NOT Romney. I understand that people want to keep the dream alive, but it is dead – Gingrich is done. His only role at this point is to empower Romney by weakening Santorum. When Santorum voters leave Santorum, they’re not all going to go to Gingrich. Many Santorum voters will just face the inevitable and split to Romney before even considering voting for Gingrich. He’s not an option for a lot of Santorum voters. Like it or not, that’s just the truth – that’s the bed Gingrich has made for himself.

  • Creedo

    Huntsman couldn’t beat Paul in New Hampshire. Why in the world do you believe that if his daddy kept him in the race, he’d be the eventual nominee?

  • demsaresatanic

    Try something new, like mentioning some facts to support your conclusions.

  • SoFiMil

    Even when it doesn’t fit into the topic, he’ll work it in.

  • Creedo

    The most recent PPP poll shows the following results in Washington State (where I live):

    38% Santorum
    27% Romney
    15% Paul
    12% Gingrich (losing to Paul – yeah, what a savior)

    The poll show that if Gingrich were to leave the race, the results would look like this:

    49% Santorum
    28% Romney
    16% Paul

    In Michigan, PPP shows the following results in Michigan:

    37% Santorum
    33% Romney
    15% Paul
    10% Gingrich (losing to Paul, AGAIN – what a loser)

    Take Newt Gingrich out of the race, and the poll shows the following results:

    42% Santorum
    33% Romney
    16% Paul

    In Arizona – and this one is key – the current results are as follows:

    36% Romney
    33% Santorum
    16% Gingrich (Hey! Newt beats Paul somewhere! Rejoice!)
    9% Paul

    The poll shows that if you eliminate Gingrich, the results are a DIFFERENT WINNER:

    43% Santorum
    41% Romney
    9% Paul

    These are the next three contests and if Newt Gingrich had enough honor to live by the standard he set for Santorum and left the race, Santorum would safely win all three and be the presumptive nominee.

    Gingrich is killing the party right now for personal ambition.

  • demsaresatanic

    “the most recent” for Washington at least, today’s numbers are Santorum 36, Paul 31, Romney 27, Gingrich19. see link;
    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/02/23/poll-ron-paul-stacks-up-better-against-obama-than-romney-in-washington-state/
    Didn’t check the others you quote.

    Congrats on using facts to support your conclusions despite the old numbers however, it is much more persuasive.

  • Creedo

    It’s kind of a national trend…

  • WillWong

    hope to the country!

  • youngthegiant

    Santorum, Gingrich, John Kerry, and JFK were never, ever asked whether or not they believed that all sex is sinful (Thomas Aquinas) or whether they believed in the literalness of the transubstantiation doctrine.

    Yet, somehow, Romney will allegedly be asked questions about the current (and former) teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS).

    Meanwhile, Obama gets to have his cake and eat it too. Atheists love him because they understand his secular code. A lot of Christians think that he is one of them so they vote for him. If Romney is to be crucified for his religion, can we at least get the media to pin down Obama on questions like: (1) do you believe that non-Christians will be saved? (2) does one need to attend church regularly to be considered a Christian? (Shhh. Obama doesn’t.) & (3) should the Bible be interpreted literally or metaphorically? (e.g. the flood, the 6-day creation, Jonah in the whale, the immaculate conception, etc.)

    Let’s get Obama on the record for his lack of faith as long as Mitt is being put on the record for his faith in God.

  • youngthegiant

    I don’t see where you get off on calling Romney “anti-constitution”. Are you drinking the same kool-aid as Erick?

  • demsaresatanic

    likely will change after Ariz debate gets filtered in. 2. If Santorum dropped out back when he was in single digits the results would probably show Gingrich beating Romney. 3.Naturally Santorum and Gingrich would benefit if the other dropped out, what then if the remaining one stumbled badly and we are stuck with Romney; you provide no analysis of that possibility. 4. Your premise that Romney wins the nomination unless Newt (or Santorum for that matter) drops out now is mere speculation, poll numbers are not delegates and there are far more delegates yet to be selected than have been selected so far.

  • demsaresatanic

    follow an argument and instead resort to silly attacks upon strawmen. If you were able to draw a distinction between doing the honorable thing and following your own selfish interests you might understand.

  • tomrt

    Too much structural and real baggage like this (‘The Dangers Of Contraception’) and this (Santorum Amendment) that’d be fully exploited by Obama and co in the general to make Rick radio-active and completely un-electable.

    Gingrich, notwithstanding what the current GE polls say (his unfavs are heavily conditioned by the $30 million Romney spent pulverizing Newt dishonestly, which Newt was able to yet overcome when he was only outspent 2-1 in SC, but couldn’t do so when he was outspent 5-1 in FL), is a far safer bet (he just needs to present himself to the public in a nicer way, as he showed he can in the AZ debate, to lower his unfavorables from where they are with independents and swing voters.)

    ‘Gingrich (losing to Paul, AGAIN ? what a loser)’

    That’s not a very good way to persuade either a candidate or a candidate’s supporters to get behind your candidate.

    Besides, Newt is not competing in MI in order to give Santorum a chance to win there. That’s good enough. Be content.

  • acat

    biting my tongue

  • Creedo

    You blast others for not being factual (when they are) but you don’t present facts or a case of any kind – you just attack other Republicans for not liking Newt.

  • Archer

    If you will care to count the number of times I used the word “baggage”, when talking about how Romney’s religion as it will be used in the campaign against him, it was once…as I was summing up and making my point about baggage.

    When I’ve read your posts in the past, even when I’ve disagreed, I’ve made the assumption that you’ve come to your position in a thoughtful manner rather than just trying to score some cheap debating points. If I’m not to be accorded the same courtesy by you, I can live with that.

    Frankly. yes I do have a problem with the Mormon faith. They were holding to a morally repugnant view on racial matters throughout the 20th century as the Republican party was continuing as the party of Lincoln. Its unfortunate that Hoover crashed the economy to move blacks toward FDR and that Eisenhower was never able to follow through with achieving the civil rights reforms that it finally took Kennedy bringing in some democrats to finally push through.

    If history had worked out slightly differently, blacks could very easily have remained in their natural home in the Republican party and Mormon leaders in the mid-20th century could have continued with their Klan-like racial smears against republicans and republicanism.

    As for me personally having a more traditional prejudice against the Mormons as being a weird, distorted version of mainstream Christianity, honestly from the outside all of Christianity all looks a little weird. Catholics think they’re eating the actual body of Jesus. Mormons think Jesus died on the cross then came to North America. Almost all versions of Christianity at some point in Europe thought it was proper to put people to death if they didn’t agree with whatever church happened to be in charge at any particular moment.

    Compared to cannibalism or mass slaughter of innocent people, Mormons thinking Jesus died and went to North America instead of heaven appears to me to be positively benign.

    But you aren’t wanting an honest discussion of what I believe on that or probably any other issue. You’ve obviously have made up your mind about who I am and what I believe. Now doubtless you are going to pigeonhole me as some kind of atheist who has an irrational hatred of anyone who is slightly religious or whatever else floats your boat. In my experience, there’s no need to try to confuse such a catty person with the facts. Enjoy the echos.

  • mirac777

    mentioned in the questions they were asked? Hint: NONE Hint2- The government doesn’t create jobs, it kills them with Marxist, power grabbing over-regulation. Those so-called “moderates” also voted for the undefined hope and change that has us in a whopper of a mess .

    Of course Romney-pimps and moderate nanny-state worshipers also make a habit of calling true conservatives “extremists” all because of … wait for it.. the demands for the frigging government to only spend what it takes in each year! Yes, asking for the debt-spending to stop makes us all “extreme right wing nutjobs” today. How asinine is that?

  • elayman

    who did much worse than Huntsman and they manage to keep his name alive at ever turn. :-) . And, yes, as negatives for Romney have gone way up and support for Paul down since NH I do believe he would run away with the nomination in the race as it currently stands.

  • Martin Knight

    But the fact of the matter is that I’ve stopped expecting perfection from politicians – they are politicians after all. The statement released by McDonnell shows that he is well aware of the blundering of VA GOP’s messaging on this bill and that he’ll have to detoxify the bill;

    ?I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia?s informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.

    Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill?s stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

    Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

    For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

    I have requested other amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill and reflect a better understanding of prevailing medical practices. It is my hope that the members of the General Assembly will act favorably upon these recommendations from our office. We will await their action prior to making any further comments on this matter.

    Either way, I think McDonnell is a viable option for the Presidency if we are forced into a contested convention because, frankly, he’s better than anyone else we have running right now.

  • Martin Knight

    By your logic, the Party nominating him in 1980 was a mistake.

  • Martin Knight

    Reagan lost to Ford in 1976 who went on to lose to Carter. By that logic, the GOP doomed itself by nominating Reagan in 1980.

  • znjs

    Although while he was also my favorite candidate I doubt Huntsman would suddenly catch fire if he rejoined now (especially given his recent 3rd party calls), but if people can keep claiming Perry was unfairly slighted and now would be easily running away with it we can keep bringing up Huntsman’s name.

  • acat

    Have you missed that I’m a libertarian-leaning non-christian conservative, Archer? So much for you reading my posts!

    Regarding history, it’s equally true that if your aunt had been plumbed slightly differently, she would’ve been your uncle … so what? History can’t be re-negotiated, despite the Left, and especially in the age of the internet.

    Yes, I fully expect the Left to make Mormonism a campaign issue if Romney is the nominee … there were at least two if not more “Television Events!” showing some skewed historical anti-Mormon nonsense in 2008, I’m sure they’ll be up for reruns in August, with new ones ready by October. So what?

    If Santorum or Gingrich win the nomination, something equally vile will be said about Catholicism … and it’s got a much longer and bloodier history to mine for non-sequitors.

    To summarize, you’re an idiot or a liar, and while the Left may try to turn Mormonism into an issue, it’s just another stupid Lefty ploy, and there’s no point in spreading it around.

    Mew

    p.s. remember this bit of Lefty stupidity?

  • elayman

    Although my comments were presupposing he hadn’t left the race not to support a re-entry at this point. Following candidates to a third party would be interesting as we are all I think afraid what lies ahead for this election but it would have to be organized to win. At least I hope he is being an honest broker and not making unholy alliances to get a position out of the second Obama administration.

  • SoFiMil

    .

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . .

  • znjs

    I mentioned it as a negative about what Huntsman has done since leaving the race.

  • Scope

    If any of the Republican candidates wins the 12 election, no one who considers themselves to be a conservative will be allowed to make a garbage rationalization that he is better than Obama. If I’ve read the RS posting rules correctly, it is the most conservative in the primary, and the Republican in the general. Then again, no one follows anyone into the voting booth do they aesthete.

  • Finrod

    He thinks pre-natal care causes more people to get abortions. That alone makes him unelectable right there.

  • Finrod

    ..

  • Dave_A

    ntxt

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    what legal recourse would Rick Santorum actually have?

  • Finrod

    Then you’re talking about Bill Clinton.

    Newt at least married the women he had affairs with.

  • bragar

    Ah, she told me to tell you that you’re a friggin idiot. Something to that affect anyway. Like how you’re focusing on the important things in this campaign. Typical of the ignorant.

  • Common_Cents

    80% of America couldn’t even name the President in 76 or 80. Heck much of America cannot name our current VP.

    What’s standard knowledge and analysis on RS is rocket science on the street. :)

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    but if I were, I’d pick one who is pro life. Laura Bush is not. While Calista’s poor decisions certainly affected several families, supporting abortion affects millions. There’s more to being a lady than knowing how to speak properly and dress well.

    Yes, women understand resentment, but we also understand repentance, forgiveness and how one lives moving forward.

    I plan to vote for Gingrich in the AL primary on March 13. Santorum is my 2nd choice. What I won’t do is vote for Romney or Paul in the primary.

  • elayman

    And in any case Jon has disavowed any interest in being a third-party candidate himself. He likely won’t even be able to beat out Ron Paul in the Americans Elect online candidate drafting. Although I think it is entirely reasonable that both Paul and Huntsman could draw as equally from Obama as the Republican nominee.

  • rightland1111

    If you can show me where in the Constitution that we should be involved with cap and trade, health mandates, etc., then I will believe it. The man should have ran as a Democrat. Even though the mandate is a “state” issue…it is still a mandate. He has the propensity to follow along in Obama’s footsteps.

  • demsaresatanic

    between doing the honorable thing and following your own selfish interests, and you don’t even mention that. You are indeed being silly when you don’t even mention the topic of my post, so if the shoe fits wear it.

    Btw, when you do argue from facts I do likewise, and even congratulate you, see my prior reply to you about polls etc.

  • SoFiMil

    “Following third party candidates would be interesting as we are all I think afraid of what lies ahead for this election but it would have to be organized to win.”

    -Elayman, 10:12 am

  • wagthedog

    Maybe numbers will make it easier for you….

    1. Romney’s religion makes a HUGE difference to me (and others), that makes it relevant.

    2. Santorum is the Wimp, not Ron Paul.

    3. Ron Paul is the borderline Lunatic, not Santorum.

    4. I was positive in my comment referring to Newt as the most intelligent Constitutionalist in the room.

  • Martin Knight

    The American Idol crowd can absorb new information – The problem is a surfeit of ignorance, not a lack of intelligence.

    He’ll simply point out what I did and Newt and Rick would be hastening to take it back.

    80% of America couldn?t even name the President in 76 or 80. Heck much of America cannot name our current VP.

    What?s standard knowledge and analysis on RS is rocket science on the street.

    True. Sad … but true.

  • clowngirl

    I don’t have a problem with Romney having run before, but his win percentage hasn’t been good – and the one time he won was against an opponent who had a tough primary, spent much of her money in the primary, had some recent baggage and was pretty light on accomplishments — when he didn’t have to compete in the primary and spent a (for Massachusetts) record amount of his own money.

    And even then he didn’t quite get a majority.

  • clowngirl

    A lot of that just off that first debate on 1/16.

    The 2/22 debate wasn’t as dramatic but the gap between Newt and Santorum’s performance was at least as large.

    The way I see it if Santorum comes in second in MI – then Newt can make the same argument Santorum made about him after Florida. Santorum’s had the chance to be the non-Romney and he couldn’t seal the deal. Now it’s time to give Newt another chance.

    If Romney comes in 2nd then he can argue that he has no rationale for staying in.

    There’s nothing written in stone that says Romney is entitled to a spot as 1 the last 2 (viable) candidates. And his fundraising has slowed — he’s starting to get close to being on the same footing with Newt.

  • Dave_A

    The ‘thing’ that entitles Romney to a ‘spot in the last 2′, is that he has a specific group of supporters, larger than the other 2 candidates, who will stick with him no matter what.

    Santorum and Gingirch’s poll numbers are largely made up of bandwagon-fans, aka the ‘Not Romney Vote’.

    Romney, OTOH, has the exact opposite problem: He has a larger ‘base’ of support than the other candidates, but almost no ‘bandwagon’ support.

    Since Romney will stay above 20% no matter what happens to him, he’ll be in the last 2.

    If either Gingrich or Santorum does poorly on Super Tuesday, they will fall below Ron Paul & then out of the race, with the majority of their support going to the other candidate (although if it’s Santorum who fails, expect Romney to get a bump from ‘Not-Newt/Not-Romney’ voters who find Romney less objectionable)…

  • razor

    John King Q: What’s your favorite color?
    Mitt Romney A: I’LL ANSWER WHAT I WANT! STOP WITH THE GOTCHA QUESTIONS!!1!

    Mitt, always standing up the moderator bullying. That is, when he’s not feebly turning to the moderator to step in and help when Rick Perry’s being mean.

  • clowngirl

    even finish in the teens.

    His support dropped to 12% in Iowa during Newt’s first surge.

    That suggests a much lower floor that what you’re thinking.

    It also suggests that much of what you call Romney’s “base” are people supporting him by default – open to being convinced by another candidate.

  • Finrod

    You’re such a doofus you can’t even spell my name right. Or do I get to call you ‘braggart’ instead?