« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

No tea partiers remain and Newt could lose to Barack

Babe Ruth’s homers were prodigious but Hank Aaron hit more

I well remember the good old days, way back in 2011, when Mitt Romney was lauded for being the great debater among those boys (and Michelle Bachmann) of Summer. Thus is the ephemeral nature of debate moments and home runs; much as was the hope for a tea partier conservative GOP presidential nominee.

Winter and the new year are ushered in by Ruthian shots against Lefty pitchers named Juan and King from the bat of the former Speaker of the House. What conservatives don’t thrill to the sound of the crack of Newt’s bat pummeling false charges of racism and reminders of ancient marital disputes best left behind closed doors?

But ball games are decided by which team scores the most runs, not by which player hit balls the farthest. The Babe hit them a mile. Hank Aaron hit them just far enough and hit more. The Babe was undone by what he did between home runs.

Thus the voters of South Carolina face a similar choice between a heavyweight named Gingrich saddled with baggage, both marital and non-marital, that could distract voters from their Obama-emptied pockets or a steady Aaron-like experienced executive named Romney.

Last week we endorsed the latter; and a less-publicized debate-moment homer from last night illustrates, we think, the wisdom of our choice:

MR. KING: OK. A subset of the jobs conversation among the candidates in this state over the past week, Mr. Speaker, has been from you and from the now-departed Governor Perry pretty sharp criticism of Governor Romney’s tenure as the CEO of Bain Capital. I want you to be specific: What do you think he did wrongthat –

MR. GINGRICH: No –

MR. KING: — makes you question his ability as a president to create jobs?

MR. GINGRICH: I think there are specific cases — Georgetown Steel would be a case here, a company in Gaffney, South Carolina — but specific cases where Bain Capital’s model — which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt — made it less likely to survive. I think the governor ought to explain — because it started because he cited his experience as a key part of his preparation for being president. And so I think the underlying model of that kind of investment, which is very different from venture capital, ought to be explained and those cases ought to be looked at.

Ok, Newt is asked to explain, specifically, what Romney did wrong at Bain, and after several run-on sentences about “models”, the Babe Ruth of debates fouls out while admitting that things “ought to be looked at”. But aren’t those that level charges against another supposed to have already looked at them? Of course.

Plants close all the time for all sorts of reasons, 99.9999999% of which have not been owned by Bain Capital. The plant named Bain made profits (Newt, conservatives consider profits as good) after Mitt Romney took it over and the former CEO was able to wax specific about the thousands of jobs saved or created thanks to Bain.

While we are “looking at cases” involving Mitt Romney’s executive experience, let us also gaze upon the saving of the post-911 Salt Lake City Olympics and the balancing of Massachusetts’ budget.

Yes, the dredging up of attacks from a scorned ex-wife can be despicable, but this former Democrat turned-conservative, due in large part to the class envy and economic ignorance-fueled disdain for entrepreneurs and the false allocation of blame for jobs losses of my former party, finds much more disdainful, Newt’s merit-less attacks against a good businessman  about things that need to be “looked into”.

Newt’s debate home runs tell us that the former Speaker is one of the most articulate expositors of conservative principles alive today, but what does his attack on Bain tell us about him? What does the fact that he is held in contempt by so many of his former colleagues in the House? Why all the silence or worse from his “home” state of Georgia when straining to hear encouraging words? When is Newt scheduled to make another unprincipled U-turn onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to espouse policies that would kill more jobs that did bad Freddie Mac loans?

America is suffering. Yes, the unemployment rate as measured by the preferred MSM metric is now under 9% and if enough people quit looking for work, it could get to zero. The unemployment rate on Mars is also Zero.

Capital is on the sidelines for many reasons, most all of which begin and end with the presence of Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The policies he voted for as Senator with new Democratic  majorities from 2007-08 helped precipitate the Great Recession. The policies he signed into law passed by the super-majorities of his party in 2010-11 made the economy worse. His refusal to cut spending and reduce regulations at the behest of the tea partier-produced Republican majority in the 2011-12 House have kept the so-called “recovery” tepid.

The denial of the re-election of President Obama would kick-start a real recovery. History shows that the Election of 2012 should be the GOP’s to lose.

Why would we take a chance and nominate a man with proven character flaws that got him fired as Speaker and that could alienate voters we need to garner 270 electoral votes? Just because he hits occasional tape measure debate homers? I think not.

A vote for Rick Santorum in my former native state of South Carolina tomorrow, given his improved campaign skills and integrity, including his refusal to defame venture capitalism, would be a principled vote for a man that would most likely defeat Obama.

A vote for Mitt Romney would end the back-and-forth between Republican friends and allow the campaign against the Democrats to begin now. We have had enough vetting of our own dirty laundry.

Let’s return Newt to full-time Chattering Class status where we can enjoy his home runs in safe mode.

It is Mitt that can win the pennant.

Braves pitchers and catchers report on February 19…just saying.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    “Why would we take a chance and nominate a man with proven character flaws that got him fired as Speaker and that could alienate voters we need to garner 270 electoral votes?”

    1. Because he is the most qualified candidate to be president of all available choices

    2. He has a proven record of policy success relative to the salient issues facing this nation…including balancing budgets (and subsequently lowering oil and gas prices) and creating jobs

    3. If marital bliss was the overriding issue important to voters, this wouldn’t be our election to lose. That a strong majority of the country disapproves of Obama’s job performance says the voting electorate wants a problem solver, not Saint Peter.

    Just one man’s opinion…

  • Ender

    that regardless of who comes in first, Newt or Mitt, Santorum will come in 4th, then drop out and endorse Mitt Romney. I think there some issues between Santorum and Newt that will prevent any kind of reconciliation.

    Santorum’s endorsement should boost Romney by a little bit. Also, unless Gingrich wins by 10%+, Florida is still Romney’s to lose.

    Let’s not nominate an incredibly flawed former speaker who will have the highest negatives in a general campaign.

    Romney is the man. That said, Newt is my #2. But I just don’t see him beating Obama.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    Newt is going to have major issues with the general electorate (he already has a huge gender gap even amongst Republicans) and I think it is less likely that he hits those tape measure shots in a debate with Obama in front of a broader audience than he can now “playing to a home crowd” so to speak.

  • http://www.reddit.com/user/pi_over_three/ Pi Over Three

    nt

  • Common_Cents

    He comes across as phony and pandering. Mitt will not attack much at all. He talks big but when it comes down to it, he’d rather make a gentleman’s bet for ten grand, country club style. Very uninspiring. Mitt will have to rely on the “anyone but obama” factor. Giving no inspiration or any reason to vote for him.

    If he is the nominee, I’ll fully support him, but i’ll be very worried.

    Mitt is untested. In baseball analogy, Mitt has not faced major pitching that will throw right at him. We have seen when he gets an inside pitch he gets flustered and jumps back out of the batters box.

    In all these years campaigning you mean he really hasn’t prepared for questions on his taxes and wealth? really? The guy just cannot think on his feet, he is too scripted and robotic. Last night he had a major Perry OOOPS.

    The earlier campaign Mitt gave me some confidence as a backup choice but the last couple debates have scared the heck out of me. I realized the earlier Mitt was never really tested. Mitt has been coddled, is untested and has revealed as having a glass jaw when questioned.

    I hope for our sake he addresses that but not sure he can. It’s who he is and that scares the heck out of me.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I am reminded of the line from Braveheart

    The Scottish nobles (think GOP establishment) can’t figure out how to stand up to Edward III ( think liberal elites and Obama). They squabble, cut deals and undercut the rebel Wallace.

    Robert de Bruce tells his Dad the manipulator about Wallace:

    “He fights!”

    That’s what the Tea Party and conservative grassroots wants. Someone who fights, who doesnt cut n run.

    Gingrich was cheered because he doesnt cower when the media attacks. He fights! He’s not only delivered on conservative agenda items when he was in power, he is talking about doing more if he gets to be President.

    Perfect? No. Flaws? Yes. But an imperfect conservative beats a perfect non-conservative.

    Romney, at best, might be a Robert de Bruce, but he looks to many of us to be a lesser Scottish noble, cutting the ugly deals with the liberal elites so he can get enough power … The Planned Parenthood story is one example of what he had to do. we fear the same on Obamacare etc.

    Steady and predictable? Yes, but in a depressing we-expect-to-be-disappointed way.

    I find that ‘character flaw’ if you will to be a bigger stumbling block than Newt’s personal life. YMMV.

    Bottom line: Who will FIGHT for us?

  • Juggernaut

    plus everyone who sees crime as a more serious reason to so no to Mitt because what happened to Newt is old and personal whereas Mitt is involved in crimes according to prosecutors……………what do you think the media will do with a story of true crime and the Obamabots have the upper hand?

    I can hear Debbie Downer segwaying this into far more than just one company. Found this story on a Newt pac site so perhaps next debate with whom NBC.

    http://www.redstate.com/williamjameson/2012/01/20/mitt-romney-involved-in-medicare-fraud/

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Put electability aside and ask yourself … if it was between Romney and Newt for the next 4 years, who would you pick?

    Then ask yourself … why would you decision change based on a perception of ‘electability’ when determining that is so unpredictable?

  • HaroldHutchison

    Look, I may be a Romney guy, but I also recognize that Good Newt is incredibly impressive and can be a huge asset in smacking down the Left.

    But Bad Newt – be it the guy whose complaints about getting off the back of Air Force One gave Clinton a PR edge in the 1995 budget battles, or sitting next to Pelosi, or slamming the Ryan budget, or channeling Michael Moore on Bain Capital – hurts a lot more than he helps.

    Bad Newt could be a loss like Goldwater – and Goldwater’s loss in 1964 got us the Great Society and put us on the path to the fiscal crisis we are facing now. OH, yeah, and we could see Obama nominate the replacements for Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Ginsburg, and Antonin Scalia.

    We have an election we should run away with – and Newt’s attacks on Bain Capital have already made it harder. Nominating Newt means we lose the ability to draw distinctions with Obama on free-market capitalism vs. socialism.

    My vote will be for Romney.

  • HaroldHutchison

    Simply because he is not as self-destructive, and would probably win by a bigger margin – thus getting more of a mandate than Newt could.

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

    who knew

  • texashistorian

    Goldwater didn’t lose because he was a “Bad Barry” in 1964. There was no way LBJ was going to lose that election even if the safe northeastern moderate Nelson Rockefeller was the nominee. Goldwater was running against JFK’s ghost, and the all the popular public sentiment surrounding the mythology that was Camelot.

    We have to also keep in mind that the Kennedy/Johnson administration of 1960-64 was not regarded as a dismal failure like that of Obama’s. Not only was Goldwater up against the spectre of a beloved President, but a party that did not have the glaring and obvious economic and policy failures that Obama has.

    Whoever our nominee is will far FAR better than Goldwater, and will have a good shot at winning. Obviously who you back is who you back, but we should not buy into the narrative that Romney is the only one who can win. That is absurd on its face, and I think, given his vulnerabilities on some issues, is being revealed as such.

    Yes, Romney can beat Obama, but so can Newt, Santorum, and Gingrich. Much will depend on the next several months and what develops in domestic and foreign affairs. If the O goes has he has gone, any of our guys will be in with a shout.

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

    I’ll be worried no matter who is the nominee. Newt isn’t worry-free!!!

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    You CANNOT predict that.

    Romney could be another Dewey and blow it.
    Gingrich could be Reagan/1980 and win by 10.

    WE DONT KNOW.

    Put the election results predictions aside … Who would make a better President?

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

    smile

  • bluerose75

    Mitt=McCain is the truth and the same pattern is happening. Notice how the moderates in the GOP are telling us once again that only Mitt can be elected and Obama fears him. Sound familiar….time warp back to 2008…same thing the MSM told us McCain with his rebel nature and appeal to the moderates could carry the day for the GOP!! Well we had our clocked cleaned just like the MSM wanted. We have as Rush calls the “spineless moderates” telling conservatives that Newt cannot win because he is polarizing…hmmm sounds like what moderates said about Reagan!! Remember him?? He was NOT the choice of the famous moderates!! They loathed him. He cleaned their clocks, the medias and converted conservative and moderate DEMS!!! How? His ideas, his vision, his common sense and his strength!!

    Mitt resembles Reagan in not one single way! In fact, in the 80s Mitt openly criticized Reagan! Yet he calls himself now a conservative..please! Flip flopper and he cannot debate. He is awful and card board like. Just like McCain he will be a sacrifical lamb that the MSM wants the GOP to nominate to guarantee Obama is re-elected. Sorry but Mitt cannot win with his Romneycare and other positions. He is closer to Obama then any of the remaining candidates.

  • pttx333

    first time I was eligible to vote (age 21 back then). LBJ very successfully nailed the “WAR MONGER” label on that wonderful man, and the idiot voters swallowed it. There was so much fraud with LBJ – that man did not know the definition of morality. He was a snake of the very lowest quality. I hope he is still spinning in his grave. And, no, I don’t give him a pass just cuz he’s dead – still doesn’t change everything he did to others, and that was plenty.

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

    He is not reliable.

  • jakeofalltrades

    And yes, I still favor Romney. But only just.

  • avagreen

    1. Romney flip-flops at every turn.
    2. Tries to pass himself off an an everyday man’s man…….he’s not.
    - still receives millions per year from Bain
    - possible off-shore accounts to avoid taxes, in addition to the 15% he now pays. Common folk can’t/don’t do that.
    - why won’t he release his tax records? (because of the two items above?)

    3. Thin-skinned……we already have one of those in office.
    4. Looks to others to defend his special status and enforce his sense of entitlement:
    - expects low-ball questions during interviews
    -if he doesn’t, gets mad in 1:1 interviews, or appeals to mods to stop questions
    5. No match for Obama during a debate (you guys set the standard here as a reason to reject your best candidate)
    6. Tries to portray himself as having “public” experience, but the only reason this is true is because he’s only won 1 race out of 4 for public office he’s run in, working on #5.
    7. I personally consider him more than a little free with the truth……not someone I want in the most powerful office in the world.

  • acat

    I note again that the Bain business model is rather different from the Main Street business model.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking apart failing companies and selling the parts. There’s also nothing wrong with streamlining a company, shutting down unprofitable operations, and selling the resulting stronger (but smaller) shop.

    As you say, businesses fold daily, most mourned only by their investors. There is, though, a significant difference between this and what Main Street does – which is to take an idea and turn it into a business.

    Further, I continue to question your apparent belief that the Dems will be unsuccessful in making the “class warfare” argument against Wafflin’ Willard. We still appear to be facing Obama, a past master of both class warfare and the Chicago school of dirty tricks. Romney is almost precision-calibrated to be the worst guy to make the case against Barak.

    Mew

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

    jake’, you can do better than “uh” on the subject line! smile

  • acat

    That Gingrich was trying to be a Conservative voice on global warming *before* it was exposed as a rather massive scam?

    C’mon, man. I get that you’ve got your boots in the Romney tank, but this is a pretty weak argument.

    Mew

  • acat

    If the problem is the growth of the D.C. bureaucracy, as I believe it is, Gingrich has a proven history of actually dismantling things where Romney .. doesn’t.

    Yes, Gingrich is unpredictable, he’s got some troubles in his past, and his belief that he’s the smartest guy in the room – while often true – does lead him astray.

    All that said, when both men were given the opportunity to prove they could reduce government, Romney … failed.

    Mew

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

    in pari delicto: equal culpability…non sequitur?

  • jakeofalltrades

    As to character and self-indulgence, you are right: non-sequitur.

  • jakeofalltrades

    off camera.

    lol/jk

  • APA Guy

    Let the best candidate win…and I know Newt will :)

  • APA Guy

    …especially #5. I find it laughable that some on our side are saying “debates don’t matter”. Gee, did they matter to Perry? The single-handedly dropped him from front-runner to polling at 10%…then 4%.

    Kennedy/Nixon…Reagan/Carter…Reagan/Mondale…Clinton/Bush Sr…Obama/McCain…

    Don’t tell me debates don’t matter…they are very often game changers or game clinchers…and in Newt, we have the best there is.

  • APA Guy

    …articulator of conservative policy positions. In Romney we have a watered-down, Eastern liberal who is barely indistinguishable from Obama. Given the choice between Obama and almost Obama, the country will take this Obama. In Newt there is a clear alternative.

  • azaeroprof

    then (insert name here, maybe Rubio???) could be Hank Aaron.

    Mitt Romney is Rod Carew.

    Bases are loaded in the bottom of the 9th. We are down 3 runs. Romney will hit a single if we’re lucky, double if we’re real lucky. We’ll have to hope the runners don’t get thrown out trying to score. At best, we can hope he at least gets on base, no runners get tossed, and we can at least get a decent hitter to follow.

    Maybe it’s just me, but this situation calls for a slugger, not a Punch-and-Judy singles hitter.

  • APA Guy

    Must admit, I kinda like that…

    OK, I like it a lot :)

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Aaron, Carew, George Brett, and the rest of the great ones I watched growing up were consistent. I think Mitt is Steve Garvey. Not really bad, per se. Just badly overrated and unable/ unwilling to deliver the goods when push comes to shove.

    When Chuckles Schumer throws his first brushback pitch, Mittens will retract.

  • arizonajohnson

    I’ve been waiting all my life for an exceptional business man to occupy the White House. Mitt Romney is to Venture Capitalism what Steve Jobs is to computer technology. It would be my hope that Mitt would streamline and shrink government just as he has so many of the businesses that he grew.

    As for Newt, I believe he exemplifies too many character flaws. Bloviator. Takes credit for other’s work. Pious and hypocritical (forgiveness for me, but not for thee), Notwithstanding, I’d eagerly vote for him in a minute over the other remaining candidates.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Romney has a decent shot at winning, I don’t see Newt winning at all now. He has said so many truly monumentally stupid things over the years and you can bet he will do so again.

    He is also just a sleazy narcissist. He has ethics violations, he has lobbied for nearly anyone who wanted to pay him.

    He may be a brilliant guy, an idea man, and conservative, but he is also a megalomaniacal creep.

    The left will make the race entirely about his character, so it will not matter how well he debates the issues.

  • WillWong

    Pelosi would be a downgrade!

    Sorry bad joke! Just can’t resist!

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

    nteal

  • Common_Cents

    Greenville, SC ? Newt 2012 announced today that 100 Tea Party leaders from 25 states have come together to form the Tea Partiers With Newt coalition to help elect Newt and defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama.

  • WillWong

    Larger mandate means nothing in real life….GWB’s first term was a lot better than his second where he won a larger mandate!

  • Common_Cents

    Gingrich screwed over 2 ex wives, Obama screwed over 310,000,000 Americans.

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

    No journalist hosting the debate last night would not have asked a question about such breaking news.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Why would that bother you. Newt has simply realized that the people who moderate and broadcast GOP debates play for the other team.

  • paladin1

    we are on the same page. Nice sticker.

  • WillWong

    Proven record of balancing budgets, welfare reform, cutting taxes
    Best debater …..and debates do matter
    Ability to connect with the base
    Passionate
    Fighter
    Known Baggage
    Surviver….Outspend $$$$ by Mitt and still within striking distance or even ahead depending on who you listen to….
    Prolife

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

    from Right to Left and sometimes back to the right? Seems so.

  • WillWong

    It is within John’s right to ask and it is within Newt’s right to respond the way he did! This is the Big League and listening to John King after the debate sharing his experience with his colleagues, he did not appeared too concerned that his liver was fried on national TV!

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

    Never liked him.. Loved Newt’s comebacks on Juan but I think he was over the top with King. Besides, I just don’t think debate moments are the be-all and end-all of who is the best candidate and in determining who would be the riskiest that could possibly lose. I don’t think Obama can beat Mitt. I could be wrong. I fear the negatives of Newt could easily blow the election.

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

    Its not about the right to be an ass. Its about the propriety of what he said in context. Newt reinforced the nasty Newt history that could turn off too many voters we need in the fall.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    and pointed out the utter hypocrisy of the media’s failure to question Clinton, Edwards, Frank, Weiner, Kennedy(s), [insert liberal Democrat name here] on their “indiscretions.” They are only obsessed with the sex stories if the person has an “R” after his/her name.

    John King and the liberal media have been asking for it for a long time while dishing it out to the rest of us. It was time for payback, and I stood up and cheered when Newt gave it right back.

  • Common_Cents

    Note that the interview hadn’t even been aired yet and was pimped out all day. The interview was flat and Marianne actually defended Newt from the ethics charges. But King didn’t bring that up.

    King knew he was going to get Newtered. King is a big boy. He and Jaun will be proudly displaying their scars from the next President. ;)

  • deVere

    you aren’t doing your man Romney any good with articles like this one.

    Your frequent and excessively partisan posts give me the impression you are on Romney’s payroll.

    First of all, Babe Ruth was a Hall of Fame pitcher for the Red Sox, before he became a Hall of Fame hitter for the Yankees. Nothing against Henry Aaron, who was also a great player, but your assumption that he somehow exceeded Ruth’s accomplishments as a baseball player is just silly. No one ever called the Brave’s stadium “The house that Aaron built”.

    Almost no one is attacking capitalism,, or venture capitalism, or even normal vulture capitalism.. What has been called into question is some of Mitt Romney’s behavior as head of Bain Capital. In particular over-leveraging purchased companies to pay Bain excessive “management fees” has been questioned, particularly when some of those companies subsequently go bankrupt saddling the taxpaying public with millions$ in unemployment insurance and pension guarantee expenses. Now it was all very legal, but the results suggest to me that perhaps some laws need to be fine-tuned. Also questioned has been Romney’s tactic of bait and switch bidding for companies, which the free market now seems to be adjusting to prevent. Nothing illegal there either, just perhaps disreputable.

    And then there is your man Romney’s peculiar difficulties releasing his tax returns. With a quarter billion$ at his disposal, I know Mitt has someone on the job. Probably nothing worse there than a few Cayman Islands accounts, but why appear in the debate like a kid who didn’t do his homework, and doesn’t want to admit it?

    So even if I was leaning toward Romney (due to Gingrich’s almost incredible baggage), if I was in South Carolina tomorrow I’d vote for Gingrich to keep the nomination process undecided. There still plenty of time next week or next month for Romney to satisfy our doubts, and close the deal.

  • paladin1

    It is not just the conservative voters who are sick of the obvious media games and biases; I believe voters will be quite accepting of a candidate who is not a push-over and will fight and defend himself.

  • WillWong

    http://www.newt.org/news/100-tea-party-leaders-come-together-support-newt-gingrich-president

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

    My new bumper sticker: USC Gamecocks defending College World Series Champs, two straight years!

  • circlegranch

    Charles Krauthammer states today in his article in the Washington Post (also posted at www.dailycaller.com) that Perry’s statement, “Are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago?” is the best line of this primary season.

    Charles, where’ve ya been? You had your chances to help boost the Perry campaign but instead, you wait till the day following his departure to throw a compliment?

    I was also struck during the debate last night how many times Perry’s name came up. When both Cain and Bachmann left, that was not the case.

    Romney talked about 10th Amend issues, taking a page from Perry’s playbook. What Rick Perry brought to the table as far as bold ideas, major reforms and decreasing the size of govt and returning power to the states is going to continue to become part of the GOP’s case to oust Obama this fall.

  • paladin1

    is why I enjoy your commentary. Don’t always agree, but you are engagingly interesting and amusing. I like it.

  • circlegranch

    that the GOP puts up. We’re so inclined to conduct this primary race as American Idol or The Bachelor where perfection is required and if a flaw is found, contestants are thrown off like day old bread.

    Whether its Newt or any of the last guys standing that gets the nomination, any and all ‘have issues’. Let’s stop trying to split hairs and nitpick. The best guy left the race yesterday based on record, accomplishment. What’s left is what’s left. Let’s start focusing on ‘issues’ of Barack Obama. Let’s get back to him being our target. We had our chance (or the folks in IA, NH and SC had their chance) and it was blown. It’s got to be about Obama now.

  • WillWong

    Republicans have been too concern with trying to look nice for too long….

    we ended up with the Gang of 14, the gang of 7, the walking across the aisle McCain, Ted Kennedy led No Child Left Behind….

    What Newt did was proper and what the base are looking for….someone who will, and can fight!

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

    Nice try

  • WillWong

    More endorsement for the Reagan Conservative over the Mass Moderate!

    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/michael-reagan-endorses-gingrich/2012/01/20/id/424939

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

    too seriously.

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

    and gone overboard to a standing O!

  • acat

    this is just silly.

    I get you’ve got your boots in Romney’s tank, but .. serious analysis this ain’t.

    Mew

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

    users of energy from Pelosi couches and attacking Paul Ryans as right-wing social engineers.

  • Ender

    but leans republican… Went over the candidates with her. She liked Gingrich’s intellect, and sharp wit, and ideas. She liked Romney’s business background, less-ideological outlook, pragmatism. Then she went over Bain, Romney’s tax rate, tax returns, Newt’s marital history – all stuff she heard of but didn’t focus on until now. She immediately disliked Newt personally and would not seriously consider him.

    I think Newt would have a much bigger gender gap than Romney or pretty much any previous GOP candidate ever would. And there are not enough men to make up the difference.

    I will vote for Newt if he is the nominee, but it will be with the full knowledge that it’s a lost cause.

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

    That is a fact.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    He had a legal classification that exempted him from the draft, just as many others did in those days.

    Did YOU volunteer? I did. That doesn’t mean I’d accuse you of cutting the military.

  • azaeroprof

    A peripheral reference later in the debate would have been reasonable. To start the entire debate with a direct question about a specifically hypercharged allegation was absurd, and King deserved everything he got. I’m just glad I’m not his proctologist!

  • texashistorian

    and that is a good thing- you can’t go against the Obama/Axelrod Chicago style of dirty politicking and name-calling without having the ability AND the stones to swing back. Look what happened to McCain because he refused to fight back. Romney has shown the same sort of inclination thus far. Sure, he’ll criticize Obama, but I have yet to see him really push it as far as it needs to go. He may surprise us, but we need a fighter.

  • conservativeparrothead

    There are a lot of kitchen table issues for those industrial northern midwest suburban mothers that go way beyond his divorces, many of these women voted for Bill Clinton.

    1. Jobs
    2. Gas Prices
    3. Education

    Newt will run an excellent National campaign that will highlight conservative principles on these issues and so why his bold ideas are what this country needs to get going again.

  • Finrod

    The only thing you can rely on with Mitt Romney is that he will change his positions to what he thinks will get him the most support at the time. Mitt has made more U-turns than left-turners in Michigan make.

    The only thing Mitt is reliable as is a weathervane.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . . .

  • conservativeparrothead

    What is surprising, is that the large loan that Bain was forgiven by the FDIC has also not come up, to me, this should of been Newt’s first line when they asked him to give the Fannie/Freddie money back: “I will give that back when Bain pays back the $10 Million forgiven by the Fed”.

  • satchman3

    When Cain’s affairs came out folks were happy to defend Newt because his infidelity was old news and everyone had already factored it into their decision process. Nobody gave Cain a standing O when he attacked the press and I wouldn’t expect one for Newt in a less partisan audience.

    I think we’re about to find out that everyone didn’t already know about it – only political junkies that were engaged in the mid-90′s knew.

    I’m with you GC. I’d much rather defend Bain’s business practices than Newt’s infidelity.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    –no–text–

  • aesthete

    Do you seriously believe that we should have maintained Cold War levels of spending and military commitment in the wake of the USSR’s breakup? If so, why? The end of any war should logically result in a decrease in military spending.

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

    It’s refutation never depended on exposure of emails from its progenitors.

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

    the sound of his own voice

  • benko

    1. Newt knows he will be asked about ex-wives comments. He prepares and does an outstanding job when asked about it last night.

    Mitt knows (or should have) he will be asked about releasing his tax returns. Nevertheless, when asked about it he appears flustered and is booed because he inexplicably does not have an answer ready.

    2. Newt is authentic (like him or not).
    Mitt is obviously phony. The public is tired of phony politicians. This quality comes across loud and clear and is what makes Romney perhaps not electable.

    3. Mitt has no spine. I would be willing to vote for a moderate e.g. Christie with a spine, but not Romney at this critical point in history. Newt has a spine and though far from perfect can get things done.

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

    eontea

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

    between Cold War levels and non-Cold War. But my main underlying point is that the only real cuts in government since Ike were the military budget cuts by Newt-Bill. Domestic spending has never been cut since FDR or longer.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    My bad.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Ha!

  • acat

    global warming troubles.

    In fact, the sheer number of otherwise decent GOP governors who have a global warming skeleton makes my point …I don’t blame Gingrich for trying to get a seat at the table as, at the time, the anti-global-warming folks (including myself) were a very clear minority position.

    Mew

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

    when denouncing Ryan and couching with Pelosi.

  • bluerose75

    Mitt Romney is so stiff and just not an impressive swayer. I find it a joke that you think Romney is a true capitalist. He made money yes through his business dealing but he is a moderate mush and will end up the same as McCain. If you think Romney would run away with an election I have some beach front property in Sedona Arizona that I can sell you! Get real. He has been running for President since 2006 and where has he made any inroads? Yes 2006….he lost to McCain, another person someone like you would have voted for, and here he is taking the same mantle that McCain did. Romney does not sway anyone! He cannot move his poll numbers at all…and if you think the MSM which keeps people like you believing that Mitt would be the person Obama fears most, will leave Mitt alone if he wins the nomination you are clueless!

    Romney is a dud! Like McCain he will get his clocked cleaned. The same MSM and polls showed in 2008 that McCain would be tougher for Obama and we know how that went!

    Newt will not be like Goldwater! Goldwater could not articulate his ideas like Newt and quite frankly Newt has conservative credentials and Mitt does not. Romneycare will sink Romney….Planned Parenthood will sink Romney…He distanced himself from Reagan throughout the 80s and clearly governed in Mass as a LIBERAL!!

    That is no resume to beat Obama…he will NOT inspire the base. When I see elites like Rove, Morris and McCain supporting Mitt and shoving him down our throats…CHECKMATE he is not my man!! He is a moderate at best and while at Bain yes he used the system to make money and power to him! but in his governing he did the opposite!

  • APA Guy

    …then swing to the LEFT when he is in office?

    I think you are making some wild leaps in your assertions. His record as Speaker doesn’t reflect the instances you are referring to, and as I recall he walked back his Ryan comments fairly quickly.

  • APA Guy

    I’d sure like to know what the justification for that assertion would be.

  • APA Guy

    Newt hit him between the eyes…and it’s about time someone exposed the MSM for the hit-job, left-wing artists they are. Not out of line at all.

  • bluerose75

    Ender get a clue! Romney has not prayer in China to beat Obama! I think it is so funny when hear Romney supporters act like he can distinguish himself from Obama. Obama spent 2 years on Obamacare and Romney gave him the blueprint. On that point alone Romney will never carry the base! He refuses to denounce it and he governed from the left! THAT IS A RECORD! I will take what he has done over what he says to get elected. He is not a conservative in any way shape or form! It is the Establishment that wants Romney and that is plain to see! Sorry Establishment equals McCain equals Romney equals four more years for Obama!

    A flawed speaker?? More likely a FLAWED GOVERNOR! And once the onslaught kicks in from Obama Mitt would crumble like a deck of cards!

  • deVere

    The humorous romantic expression “partners in crime” never was so literally true as it was with the Clintons.

  • deVere

    Proving that Texas hick Rick Perry was much smarter about that than Harvard man Romney and brilliant professor Gingrich. Can’t we ever nominate the best man? Sheesh!

  • Common_Cents

    I wonder why nobody asked Edwards about it? Where was Brian Ross investigating? It took the national enquirer to break the story? haha yeah right. They were the only ones who would report it.

    How anyone thinks this is solely about Newt picking on King is ridiculous. The back lash against the biased left wing media has begun, thank you Speaker Gingrich.

    Speaking of CNN, where was the investigation of charles Jaco faking reports?

    Where was the investigation of CNN for covering for Saddam Hussein atrocities in return for access?

    This is not about Gingrich. This is about a pent up backlash, a long time coming from millions of deceived Americans. Newt was just a catalyst.

    The left wing media in the US has blood on its hands of millions across the globe for decades, all in the name of left wing politics.

  • deVere

    nt

  • deVere

    I think he’s a tremendously talented liar; even better than Clinton.
    Didn’t ask for an open marriage? Sure, LOL.

    Maybe he’s authentic about his political ideas, but I’m not even sure about that. “right-wing social engineering” Dede Scozzafava, Pelosi on the couch, Nelson Rockefeller’s camapign manager. It’s possible Newt is really a “Geogia moderate”.

    I want Rick Perry back.

  • acat

    the real question is whether you want the weather vane, the quack, the nanny-statist*, or the horndog.

    Mew

    *because I don’t feel like arguing with J. Sobieski again.

  • wbf

    by John Ziegler at the American Thinker is quite an article:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_myth_of_newt_the_great_debater.html

    Newt would be a disaster.

  • HaroldHutchison

    A bases-loaded single gets two runs, and the tying run at third. A bases-loaded double ties the game. Even a walk will cut the deficit.

    A strikeout does nothing to cut the gap.

    Babe Ruth had 1330 strikeouts over his career, and was the all-time leader in strikeouts from 1934 until his mark was eclipsed in 1964. I don’t waste the outs – I want to get the hits and string them together.

    The all-or-nothing sluggers hit a lot of home runs, but they had a lot more strikeouts than home runs.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    According to Howard Fineman, Gingrich impressed the Gamecocks…

    FINEMAN: Newt Gingrich, with this crowd and with these people here who want a fighter — who like cockfighting, who like the hardscrabble, who like the confrontational approach — that’s what Newt Gingrich gives them. It may be shortsighted of them going down the road, but these people here in this state want to feel like they’ve got a feisty person to go up against Barack Obama. Their hatred of Barack Obama is almost blinding in its intensity, and Newt feeds that

    From Rush Limbaugh here.

  • lineholder

    I was sitting here thinking about how to do a diary of “the Sophisticate and the Hick” that would be a take-off on this scenario, LOL. You know…the uber-elite sophisticate intelligentsia Liberals vs….well, literally anyone who doesn’t buy into their positions, rhetoric and has a rational though of their own.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    there’s talk of the Nascar fans. I’m sure you know that Nascar was invented by a redneck who said to his friend, “That’s a nas car.”

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    If we somehow ended up with a brokered convention. :)

    Somebody needs to take on the media and the left’s framing. Romney will just go along as the media push him off the cliff (like happened to McCain). Newt knows he needs to push back. And if we don’t change the media narrative, we’re dead in the water.

    I just hope we can survive until 2017.

  • lineholder

    I did find Rush’s take about RTW and Haley to be interesting.

    Of course, us ignorant hicks who live in RTW states and cling to our guns and our religion, as our sophisticated, supposedly-a-genuis President has mentioned in the past, wouldn’t have enough sense to know that the Unions are the champions of the common workers! /sarc

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    For some, that may be praise, others a negative …

    Romney is a good businessman, the way Eisenhower was a good General.

    Romney’s a big fan of Ike Eisenhower and considers him a model President.

    Problem: Ike was not conservative, sidelined conservative ideas and ran the country from the middle. Popular? Yes,
    but what Ike did was in effect ‘lock in’ the New Deal as status quo.

    A real conservative would have rolled back the farm subsidies, the 98% top income tax rate, the creeping regulations, the union-shop rules like Davis-Bacon.

    Eisenhower did NONE of that and further expanded Govt.

    Romney good businessman, not conservative, will lock in much of Obama’s below the waterline agenda, including many parts of Obamacare.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    But it’s not an establishment I would have patronized by choice.

    Romney will negotiate us to oblivion. Newt so far is the only one willing to push back rather than accept a losing hand. And we need to take the battle to the enemy’s turf.

    Whether Newt can stay the course remains to be seen.

    Where’s the cavalry when you need them?

  • conservnca

    Are you serious? I can’t tell you how sick this makes me. I went to tea party web sites begging them to endorse Perry. Not a single response. Now a day later they come out with an endorsement of Newt. I have lost so much respect for this whole process. When Perry suspended his campaign yesterday I withdrew my support from the different tea party groups.
    I am reading all these quotes from those who have stayed silent or criticized Perry.Today all they can do is sing his praises. This is such a game being played with our freedoms and our lives.The GOP will lose again.Not because the dems are smarter or that the repubs are stupid(which is such a lie ), we will lose again because we constantly compromise our principles out of fear. The reason the dems always beat us at our own game is because they NEVER compromise what they believe Think about it. They just wait until we flinch.They know we will.When you compromise what is right you become weak, a target. We have been target practice for the left for so long.I thought we finally had a chance to elect someone who wouldn’t flinch. Someone who had a record of standing by what he believed. Not a perfect record, this is politics after all, but a strong record. He got tossed aside like he didn’t even exist ,all for special deals being made. The gop will continue to chase this elusive power they all seem to crave so desperately until they turn the choosing and electing of our country’s leaders back to the people. It can’t work any other way because our constitution ensures that this right to vote is for the people. A house that is divided cannot stand. Boy, isn’t that the truth. When will we as a party stop being so predictable. The dems don’t have to be smarter then us, they just have to sit back and watch us implode.That’s all the strategy they need.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Yes, they cut DoD in the 1990s, and that was the right decision.

    We had too many bases.

    Much as I hate to agree w/ Ron Paul, he is correct that even today we have too many US forces in too many places. There really is no need for troops in Germany and Okinawa 2 generations after wwII and 25 years after the berlin wall fell.

    But you are not correct to say we didnt cut domestic spending. They actually did cut many programs, such as farm subsidies in ‘freedom to farm’. Also, they stopped the rate of growth in overall domestic spending, Newt’s Congress did, and from that balanced the budget.

    Any look at spending charts shows a clear difference in slope in 1994-1999 spending – much lower growth.

    These were good decisions. We need an era like that again. With $3.7 trillion in spending, we could/should have zero growth for 10 years and get government on a serious diet.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    We’re in a street fight, like it or not, but the other side is used to non-resistance. Mitt is still operating under the old paradigm, which went out the window once Obama entered the race in 2007. There was little excuse to miss that the paradigm shift last time around, but no excuse to miss it this time. Accommodation is shorthand for slower death.

  • marktx

    NBC has cancelled next Monday’s debate because Mitt Romney hasn’t agreed to attend. Polls show his campaign in freefall.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    However, let’s remind ourselves that while Newt sat on the couch, in a futile bid to ‘engage’ on this issue …

    Romney sat on fence, agreeing with the conventional liberal wisdom that global warming was an issue that had to be dealt with, etc.

    In the general election, the Dems will accuse Romney of flip-flopping and will press him on this:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/30/democratic-national-committee/mitt-romneys-views-climate-change-have-changed-say/

    “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course. But I believe the world is getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don?t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that. So I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.” – Romney

    “”I believe that climate change is occurring. The reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.”" – Romney

    LibMedia reaction …

    “… we find Romney?s comments on the causes of climate change perplexing, and we would be interested in hearing him answer pointed questions on the matter.”

  • WillWong

    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Chuck-Norris-Endorses-Newt/2012/01/20/id/424962

  • jakeofalltrades

    I’m seeing Romney with double the support of Gingrich in Florida.

  • marktx

    Gingrich has pulled into the lead in South Carolina. But more importantly, Romney has lost over 10% in the gallup national poll in just a week. Unless Romney clears up the tax issue, his campaign will continue to bleed.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    GC, you are right that any journalist from the MSM would have asked that question. Doesnt make it and the whole topic any less demeaning or sleazy.

    I dont recall Lincoln-Douglass parrying back and forth about Mary Todd …

    Newt came loaded to point out that this sleazy dump-a-scandal-3-days-before-an-election media ploy is a perfect example of how the media tries to dictate election winners.

    Mitt? He was RE-asked a question that he should have known would come up.

    He needed to have a much better answer … why NOT take umbrage and DEFEND his life-long achievement as a venture capitalist? Put zingers in there like “I’ve paid all my taxes on time and I’ll pick a treasury secretary who does the same”… why not go on offense, ‘we need to unleash free enterprise, not attack it’ etc.

    These debates are showing that Mitt has some weak spots. it Mitt can survive the gauntlet, he’ll be a better candidate. If not, we’ll have picked a better alternative.

  • Ausonius

    Percentages are 78% to 22% right now.

    On the other hand, it has those percentages in favor of Romney ultimately winning the nomination long term.

    InTrade though is as always highly volatile.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    77-22 odds Gingrich wins but Romney still can win nomination 70-30, that make sense.
    80 shot of winning by Gingrich, means a 2-man race, with Romney still having 60/40 edge.
    But if Romney wins SC, he’ll win FL and get the nomination.

    So Romney odds of winning are .22 + .6*.77 = .70

    If Gingrich odds of winning are 30%, that’s a huge move UP from last week.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I already called SC for Gingrich on another site yesterday. A Romney win seems unlikely.

    It’s a proportional state, though, so the winner really doesn’t matter IMO.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I.e., calling the contest the day before the contest.

  • conservnca

    The reason we had such a huge victory in 2010 is because the people took charge, not the politicians! We wouldn’t compromise on what we wanted from our leaders and if they didn’t comply they were voted out. Two short years later the power structure has shifted back to the politicians. That’s why this primary (which has a long way to go )is already such a mess. If we lose this will be why. obama and his buddies aren’t afraid of Republicans. That should be obvious by everything they are doing. They know the gop leaders won’t do anything about the corruption, and they haven’t. They aren’t afraid of whoever gets the nomination. The only time they feared anything is when the people rose up in the 2010 election. The dems are afraid of we the people. We showed them they had good reason to be in our last election. Already in this race the gop leadership and the media with it’s lack of support or outright tearing down of the candidates who had records of not compromising have successfully narrowed the field to those who will compromise. I am not talking about compromise that sometimes is necessary to accomplish things, I am talking about standing one’s ground on issues that have formed our Republic .Those candidates are gone. For the Ron Paul supporters I already know your response to that statement, but let me just point out Ron Paul does hold views that would compromise our national security. Our Founding Fathers had no problem fighting to keep our freedom and our enemies of today hate our freedom. If the people of this Nation do not rise up again and set the standard of what we want for our lives the politicians will. They already have started by selecting who they want to run in this election. If we will take this primary back no amount of negative media will be able to hurt us(they tried in 2010 and it didn’t work). obama and his crew were afraid of the 2012 election outcome because they had felt the tea party’s influence once before. I am not sure they believe we are still a threat to them. We did our own homework on the candidates in 2010 and didn’t let the media tell us who they were.We have let the media define Perry, Bachman, and Huntsman instead of their records. I wonder who they will choose next. We should be deciding because of their history, not mistakes made in soundbites or in debates.I feel that if we don’t have an even stronger say in this election we will have 4 more years of destruction.If we will stand up and let our voices be heard the right candidate will emerge. Just because you have been running for 6 years, or have been speaker, or have been kind of running most of your career, or believe in the family doesn’t automatically qualify you run this country. We the people have to live with the consequences of elections, so we the people should determine who that is.

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

    just saying

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

    What is your point?

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

    history is history

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

    please

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

    The debt has reached the tipping point.

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

    That is a difference. Not aware of Mitt flopping back to the left. Newt has many times.

  • Ausonius

    When supposed insiders and outsiders switch around at the last minute!

    The original conceit about about InTrade was that insiders with hidden information about a market would tip their hand about the imminent occurrence of an event by betting big near its initiation.

    This has not always been the case: e.g. the market on the execution/capture of Osama bin Laden showed no such activity, meaning that the insiders did not bet on the market either because they do not engage in the activity (likely) or wanted to keep the secrecy of the operation safe.

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

    are the only conservatives elected since Harding (except for maybe JFK)…I weep

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    N/T

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

    Never said that Obama would not be successful with class warfare attacks on Mitt.

    Is Newt a representative of “Main Street” entrepreneurship? Obviously not.

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

    I favor push backs. Loved the debate moment v Juan re false charges of racism. But the specific way Newt went after John King, specifically, was not good imho. and certainly should not be a major reason for making him the GOP nominee.

  • snowshooze

    Better assets, better bottom line, easier financing, more likely to attract Government assistance..
    Entry price might be a bit higher… but if conditions are right…
    payday can be better.

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

    and always have been. Cockstradamus never sets odds because it either rains or it doesn’t. Reality. smile

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

    come on man

    btw, what is the first state that will “MATTER”?

  • Benta_Nordstrom

    I’m so tired of “talking heads” like Laura Ingraham telling us how our candidate needs to drop out. How about her candidate dropping out? Who do we vote for now?…….. Santorum and Gingrich both have poor fiscal records. Perry was a complete package.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Remember: hatred can be its own kind of chemistry.

  • snowshooze

    Well stated.
    The only sure things in life are death and taxes.
    Aside of those… it’s a gamble.

  • carolina

    Newt is the non-Romney candidate that is left standing. Now the tea party folks feel comfortable in supporting him.
    The good news is that Newt has the best economic growth plan by far.
    That is my “single issue”. Growth is the single most important thing we can do to reduce our debt.
    Now…… if Newt would just remember to talk about his growth policies more.

  • jakeofalltrades

    I never said anything about whether a state matters.

  • jakeofalltrades

  • jakeofalltrades

    I cited a Florida poll instead of an SC one to question the notion of a Romney descent in the polls. It’s obvious I forgot.

  • littlehouse18

    nt

  • littlehouse18

    I’m not one to side with the media, but it seems Newt always is indignant at getting tough questions and attacks the questioner. This was not the first time. It was refreshing at first, but now it’s tiresome. Will we get straight answers from him as Prez?

  • lineholder

    he’s more than willing to tell you all he knows and then some. He’s been dubbed “the professor” for exactly that reason.

    He doesn’t like the games that the leftist media types play. I don’t blame him. Neither do I.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    What I meant to say was that if our candidates don’t articulate a counter narrative against the MSM narrative – and push back with it at every opportunity – we’ll just continue to get blown out of the water.

    McClain is a prime example of that failure to counter the media narrative in the 2008 election, and Boehner/McConnell have mostly failed this past year to counter the media as well. And they don’t even realize what happened to them.

    Agree this isn’t sufficient to make the Newt the nominee, but at least he demonstrates some understanding as to the importance of not letting the media frame the narrative. Romney doesn’t, which spells doom in the general. And even if he did manage to win, he’ll let the media paint him into a corner as President.

    Newt may well self-destruct – that depends on how well he can listen to those with wisdom and exercise self-discipline.

    Not the final four I would have picked.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    The old days of “bipartisanship” and “collegiality” are gone, DOA when Obama came to power. You can’t negotiate with totalitarians, which is what those controlling the Democratic Party today are. They don’t “negotiate” in good faith.

    McCain didn’t see this, and Romney doesn’t either, which meas he’ll end up bargaining over the length of rope with which the Democrats will hang him.

    I’m not fully sold on Newt, but at least he shows some awareness of what happens when you let the opposition define the terms of conversation.

  • acat

    Good news? Yeah, fresh out. Sorry.

    Mew

  • WillWong

    It will never gets tiring for me!

  • WillWong

    After excoriating John King, he said twice….”let me be clear!” and went on to said that the story is false!

  • jakeofalltrades

    you are now 5 months closer to death.

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

    and yet his public rhetoric was just as combative back in the 90s as when facing down Juan Williams and John King today. Not seeing a reason to suspect he is more reliable today especially given his Pelosi couch betrayal of all lower income users of energy. Newt is who he is, a tragically flawed egoist, and who has always been no matter what we wish he was as defined solely by a few debate moments.

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

    Admittedly, he didn’t do so in a way designed more to insult the questioner ala Newt’s modus operandi.

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

    I responded to the plain meaning of those words.

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

    China?

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

    now. Newt fights alright. I just wish he would fight his own ego and win occasionally.

  • wbf

    (against his own ego…that is!)

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

    fact
    Did Newt and Bill slow the growth? Yes. But the only spending that has been cut from one year to the next since Ike was the military budget under Bill/Newt.
    Fact

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

    Go to the link in my column just before the excerpt about Bain between King and Newt and it will take you to the transcript and Mitt’s very specific answer on the net jobs history at Bain.

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

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/01/16/2440/

  • Ausonius

    You are quite right of course: gambling has never been my thing either. “The house always wins in the end.”

    And allow me to comment on the idea that InTrade is a “market” of any kind. They may claim to “sell shares” and so on, but ultimately it is a casino of politics.

    Of course, people “play the stock market” with no real intention of actually investing long term in a company: it is simply another form of gambling. Part of America’s problem right now is in fact he fascination with gambling – rather than working and saving money as our hallmark, we have too many suffering the mania for lotteries and so on, reinforced by the governments.

    When Las Vegas was the fastest growing city in America, that said absolutely nothing good about us…and I am not even including Harry Reid in that! :)

  • snowshooze

    Thanks.
    Mark

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

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/south_carolina_gop_cnn_debate_.html

    MR. KING: Huh. So let’s go back — I’m glad you had that opportunity. I do want to go back, see if we can clear this up. The questions about Bain — many have been about the number. You have said 120,000 jobs that you can tie back to decisions you made at Bain Capital. I want you to take your time, sir, and do the math. Do the math in how you get to 100(,000) or 120,000 jobs.

    MR. ROMNEY: I’ll — I’ll do the math, but let me tell you, I know we’re going to get attacked from the left, from Barack Obama, on capitalism. I know that people are going to say, oh, you should only practice it this way or that way, and think they know better than the private market. My view is, capitalism works. Free enterprise works. (Cheers, applause.) And I — and — and I find it — I find it kind of strange, on a stage like this, with Republicans, having to describe how private equity and venture capital work and how they’re successful — (applause) — and how they create jobs. But let me — let me tell you that answer.

    We started a number of businesses; four in particular created 120,000 jobs, as of today. We started them years ago. They’ve grown — grown well beyond the time I was there to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises.

    There are others we’ve been with, some of which have lost jobs. People have evaluated that since — well, since I ran four years ago, when I ran for governor. And those that have been documented to have lost jobs, lost about 10,000 jobs. So 220,000 less 10(,000) means that we created something over a hundred thousand jobs. And there’s some of them, by the way, that — that were businesses we acquired that grew and became more successful, like Domino’s Pizza and a company called Duane Reade and others.

    I’m very proud of the fact that throughout my career, I have worked to try and build enterprises — hopefully to return money to investors. There’s nothing wrong with profit, by the way. That profit — (cheers, applause) — that profit — that profit — that profit went to pension funds, to charities; it went to a wide array of institutions. A lot of people benefited from that.

    And by the way, as enterprises become more profitable, they can hire more people. I’m — I’m someone who believes in free enterprise. I think Adam Smith was right, and I’m going to stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign. I know we’re going to hit it hard from President Obama, but we’re going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong. (Cheers, applause.)

  • jakeofalltrades

    It’s the performance that matters. If Gingrich narrowly beats Romney by like a couple points, I have a hard time calling that a “victory” for Gingrich. A close tie is a close tie – not a victory.

    See the difference now? The plain meaning of “winner” is not “state”, no matter how mighty your powers of conflation.

  • bluerose75

    Listen Mike,,,,you cannot win your argument until you face the fact the Mitt GOVERNED as a moderate to liberal in Mass. He gave that state Romneycare, which Obama used as blueprint for Obamacare(AND YOU TALK ABOUT Newt’s Spending) and where has Romney denouced Romneycare. A MASSIVE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM!! He raised taxes in Mass, he was pro-abortion, appointed left leaning judges, distanced himself from Reagan in the 80s and supported big government.

    You then come on here and lecture about Newt who gave us Welfare Reform, Balanced Budgets, the first GOP majority in the House in decades, capital gain tax cuts and more incurred some increased spending with Clinton. Well sir Romneycare/Obamacare makes that look like peanuts! And do not tell me he will repeal Obamacare…He will not distance himself from Romneycare even now. I have zero faith that Romney would appoint conservative judges and no confidence in him cutting taxes pr spending!

  • jakeofalltrades

    lol

  • Common_Cents

    That’d be a good start and there is no chance Romney will do it.

    To compare a past shutdown to a shutdown today is not a fair comparison and is out of context. We live in much different times. People from all sides cherry pick comparisons taken vastly out of context. That should stop. Candidates should be looked at like stocks, its not always where they’ve been, but where they are going, under current/future anticipated circumstances.

    We need a Georgia Bulldog to take on obama and the DC establishment and the media elite.
    Mr. Nice guy Romney=McCain just won’t get it done. We tried that last time. It’s about time the left gets confronted face to face.

    America is tired of Republicans “taking the high road” and laying down before the left wing media for the slaughter. (Bush, McCain, and nearly every other establishment Republican) Gingrich is just tapping into the pent up frustration of American’s in challenging the biased media and the lying baghdad bob Wasserman Putz’s. That will resonate in the general. Heck, half the diaries and comments at RS are about media bias and the outright lies by the left.

    Romney stated yesterday he doesn’t see a problem w/ the media. I was shocked. He said if he has a specific problem w/ a specific story, he’ll address it. That right there should exclude Romney right there. He has no real fight in him. When Romney is confronted he backs down. He will not take it to Obama face to face.

  • bluerose75

    Sorry Mike..again you are unbelievable in your bias. Romney governed the whole time in Mass from the LEFT!! Give me a break…how can you tell people Newt swung to the left without saying Mitt lived there!!

    Newt did work with Clinton and in some things I did not like but he did not govern from the left and then try to reformulate himself as a Reagan Conservative with not piece of evidence anywhere in Mitt’s record that he did anything conservative. At least Newt can point to a few things..Romney has nothing!

  • jakeofalltrades

    Excellent point.

  • americanexpat

    that your statement conveys, but I must congratulate you on stating it very well!

    I’m tending toward agreement with civil truth–choosing the horndog, but not being at all pleased with the menu.

  • bluerose75

    I can see the Obama Ads…Romney told is it was good for Mass now he claims it is not for the rest of us” Obamacare and Romneycare bought to you by two left wings big government spenders!! Yeah Mike that will sell big time with conservatives for Romney! The ads would be a joke and Romney would look like the flip flopper is his and will say anything to get elected!

  • jakeofalltrades

    Mitt’s tax return question was slammed out of the park btw. Though I’ve discovered Newt supporters disagree, I think the applause of the audience was clear.

    Newt can see all his attacks coming because they all come from the same ethics/adultery angle. Attacks on Mitt come from all over the place and are harder to prep for specifically.

  • Common_Cents

    He should be prepared on the tax stuff and also upcoming, the Cayman accounts stuff. He’s been rich for a couple decades, he’s run for office and held office for many years.

    He got the part right when he said he is wealthy and has had success and won’t apologize for it, that was great. Applause.

    Then waffling on tax stuff, saying “maybe”. Crumbling, scrambling for the answer. Most often its not even the answer, but how you answer, your decisiveness that counts. Romney hemms and hawwws many times on many issues. That conveys indecision and weakness.

    Romney needs to stand up tall and say how fortunate he is in living the American dream. He should proudly show his tax returns to show what rewards people can reap for getting an education and working hard.

  • SoFiMil

    On this aspect, I’m troubled that Romney’ conversion is not sincere.

  • Wayne

    that tea-pary conservatives are absent from the race. I jumped off the MB campaign simply because it became clear to me that she would not get the nomination. Since then I shifted my promotion to Perry and hung in until he dropped out to support Newt. I have NEVER supported the idea of Romney as the nominee, though I am fairly confident he is the desired Republican establishment preferable candidate.

    All of the articulated views in this thread are valid opinions but at some point, you have to stop the bickering and make a choice. Those who want little change in the status quo in Washington should pick Romney. I’m not saying he would be no different than BO, but that he is a moderate and we can all certainly agree on that.

    Newt’s, glaring difference between Romney is the way he answers questions on matters of substance and that he would prefer to keep the focus on those subjects rather than turn our attention away from the very real problems we have to face and if we are going to compete on an uneven global playing field.

    Newt/Perry 2010

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

    That non-military spending has never gone down since Ike is a fact. You don’t have to read my lectures but I’m glad you did even if you do overuse exclamation points in response.

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

    He wants America to forget hit was passed.

  • jakeofalltrades

    But there are 200 pages of those he would have to emotionally prepare for before each debate by practicing in a mirror.

    Gingrich came close to flipping out on John King in an uncontrolled manner during the question. Jaw clenched – jittery turning of head.

    I thought Newt handled it well, of course. He proved he can take the nastiest possible attack you can throw at him. It’s like if Russia and America did a total nuclear exchange, and America shot them at all down. He has proved his own invincibility in debate. As long as he can see it coming.

    I don’t know how Gingrich would handle something less obvious. If the media has any brains, they’ll release crap against Gingrich at the debates or not all. Assuming we’ll have any more debates – it doesn’t seem likely.

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

    in tee

  • tngal

    which is an NBC debate. If they run it without him its just Newt Santorum and Paul. How could Mitt not already agree? Its not like the debate schedule was a big secret.

    NBC is ready.

    “We fully intend to proceed with this long-planned event and we hope and expect all the qualifying candidates will participate,” a spokeswoman said”

    Then again if Romney doesn’t show, NBC has a fall back.

    “While NBC said preparations continue, The Tampa Tribune reported Friday the network sent local affiliates a message saying the debate has been replaced on that evening’s schedule with “Fear Factor” and “Rock Center.”

    No comment about the choice of programming. I’ll leave to other snarkers this morning.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/205503-monday-gop-debate-in-florida-uncertain-without-romney-commitment

  • nocontest

    I can’t add anything to what you have already contributed well presented. Cheers

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

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288768/newt-make-your-mind-about-media-andrew-c-mccarthy

  • nocontest

    because Newt won’t run away from debating Obama. Newt’s glass jaw is looking more fragile in every debate.

  • nocontest

    Mitt is an impostor and should run as an independent where he would at least say what he really thinks.

  • nocontest

    character flaws, made u turns, and is self indulgent? lol
    Give me a break! If a politician or anyone for that matter hasn’t made a u-turn in their life then I don’t want them as my president.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Destroying your target for despicable lack of professionalism, and then, telling him what an awesome job he did in your closing argument, is not a good strategy.

    Did Newt flip-flop?

    That?s what I didn?t get about Newt last night. Sure, his righteous rage at the start of the debate struck a chord with me like it did with many viewers: The country is sinking into an abyss of debt, we have crushing unemployment, the economy?s a train-wreck, Europe is exploding, the Muslim Brotherhood is sweeping the Middle East, and yet CNN decides to begin the night by asking about Newt?s jilted ex-wife? The same CNN that continues to ignore Obama?s background and radical ties? It?s infuriating, and I took satisfaction in watching someone as articulate and cutting as Newt turn the tables on them.

    But Newt?s indignation quickly disappeared. Some of that is to be expected ? it is not normal or helpful for anyone, much less a politician running for president, to exude anger for two hours. I get that. But Newt?s anger seemed to shut off instantly, not linger and gradually fade like most people?s. Then, in starting his closing remarks, Newt made a point of thanking John King and CNN for what he portrayed as their steering of a terrific debate. Then, minutes later, there was Newt again ? not only content to sit for an interview with CNN?s Anderson Cooper but going out of his way to say that ?John? had done a ?great job.?

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

    of one than Newt if one weighs all the evidence of issues, character, etc. Newt was faking outrage at the media. Newt loves the media and has often attacked conservatives to win the love of the press to get on Meet the Press etc. He cannot be trusted to be a responsible leader. Ask Tom Coburn.

    Newt is not The Answer. I wish he were too, but he is not.

    We are having to choose between very flawed candidates not named Paul and in that mix, Newt is third best at best.

    Mitt or Rick are the best choices.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    …even though he knew, based on the information that was later leaked by Elsberg at RAND to the New York Times, that LBJ’s Defense Department already had drawn up plans to dramatically increase the war effort in Southeast Asia– and that both LBJ and Goldwater had been briefed on these efforts.

    But, Goldwater, being too much the gentleman, and not wanting to pull back the curtain too far on America’s intelligence and defense communities, allowed the LBJ narrative to remain in place, rather than risk any damage to our efforts in the region.

    Which, frankly, isn’t something I could EVER envision Newt Gingrich doing. He will give no quarter to Barack Obama, which is probably the biggest drawing card the man has.

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

    last after SC and FL losses. I hope to God Mitt wins SC anyway…smile, but you make good points.

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

    King

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

    He is not a fit executive leader.

  • WillWong

    Didn’t see the interview with Anderson Cooper so couldn’t be sure but it actually a good trait and a sign of maturity to be able to act normally with someone you were upset with moments ago. Don’t know how he did it!

    I suspect that Newt realized it is counter productive to have a sworn enemy with member of the media.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Barack Obama is a walking electoral disaster.

    Every matrix, indicator, historical yardstick points to a landslide, historic wave electoral loss by Barack Obama. Pay no attention to the “Barack Obama vs. ________” polls: They are meaningless right now, because it polls a political contest that doesn’t exist, with candidates, issues and news items we can’t possibly know yet. All we know right now is that Barack Obama is a catastrophe, and he has an actual, verifiable record from which he cannot hide.

    Oh, he’ll try: That’s what the billion dollars is for– to obfuscate, lie and re-direct attention from that record. But, even that will be difficult for Team Obama.

    His fundraising is way off the pace of even George W. Bush at this point in his re-election effort. His supporters are fleeing in droves. Those contributed large sums in the halcyon days of 2008 aren’t digging so deep in their pockets. And, he’s having to advertise much earlier than he thought he would.

    Food costs are up, the housing market remains flat on it’s back. Energy production has ground to halt. Gasoline costs twice as much as it did when Obama was elected. Inflation is on fire. Joblessness will not improve, and this pain will continue to be felt by real people, in real-world terms, even if the Obama Labor Department continues to cook the books.

    The Supreme Court will rule on Obamacare in June, and, regardless of how it is adjudicated, it will be a monumental negative for Obama: If it is ruled “constitutional”, it will create a fury in the electorate we’ve not seen since the Iranian hostage crisis. If it is ruled “unconstitutional” in any sense, it will be a stinging rebuke to a man that has billed himself a “constitutional scholar”, and his prime legislative achievement a sham. It also puts the stinking corpse of Obamacare smack dab back in the middle of the election debate, which will redound horribly against the president, in that 60% of Americans continue to despise the law.

    Obama’s re-elect numbers have been underwater since the end of his first year in office. He is loathed as a President. As a pop-culture icon, he has some electoral worth, but as a leader he is a despised failure. He might be able to win about 170 electoral votes, but that’s the top end. He is toast. Take it to the bank.

    Plus, the world is in rampant turmoil by virtue of the ascendency of a global air-head socialism and virulent, unchecked Islamism. Something will break, the likes of which we cannot envision at the moment. And, being a weak, indecisive, blathering technocrat, Obama will dither and worry his response, and by looking like Lovey Howell on Gilligan’s Island, he will make whoever our nominee is look positively Churchillian by contrast.

    Oh, sure, come late October, the polls will say that Obama is cruising to victory. Then, about two or three days before the election, reality will creep in, and the defeat of Obama will be crushing. The mainstream entertainments and the news media will paint our nominee –whoever it is– as a racist, bigoted, lover of profit and hater of the poor. They will be called every form of extremist and hater. They will be called stupid, simplistic, amoral, vengeful, and so on. They will publish non-stop photo-shopped pictures of our nominee as cunning, ugly monsters.

    And then, the American people will rise up, throw him and his ilk out of office, and we can return once again to being Americans engaged in the normal business of, well, being Americans.

  • wbf

    Romney has a very good team in place. He has the support of Connie Mack a popular congressman running for Bill Nelson’s senate seat and Rep. John Mica. and the new Attorney General Pam Bondi Jeb Bush will endorse Romeny also before the Florida primary.

    In other news:
    I read that Rep. Dan Benishek of Michigan who formerly endorsed Cain has now endorsed Romney.

    Three other representatives from Texas who formerly supported Perry are now coming out for Romney…Kay Granger, Pete Olson, and Mike Conaway.

    http://race42012.com/category/endorsements-of-2008-presidential-candidates/

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

    up his game a bit.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    If you really believe that Obama is dead incumbent walking, so to speak, and will lose badly, the Intrade site has him at 50% re-election probability, and you

    I tend to agree with you. Obama is weak, and Gingrich, Romney or Santorum could beat him …
    if it was a level playing field, they’d romp on him and it would be a landslide.

    BUT … MSM bias is worth 15 points.

  • bluerose75

    Keep cheerleading Mike….it is not working. Mitt has no game. Why can you not see he has been around since 2006..yes 2006 when he began running for 2008. He ignited no one. In Iowa with all his millions he essentially pulled the same amount of votes. He has NO UPSIDE….he is not going to convince anyone he is conservative and you keep coming here acting like he is. You will not address his governance in Mass. Yet you harp on Gingrich’s governance. It is a joke! You can keep burying your head in the sand all you want. Romney is not going to do anything. He is not a conservative and cannot win any general election. He cannot create a pseudo reality that you live in.

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

    his governance in MA, as I did in this column and the two others since NH voted. You may not like the way I address it or the inconvenient facts that destroy your desired meme, but there we are.

    Newt was fired by conservatives in the House.

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

    Maybe one day we will be able to dress Newt up and take him out in public as he continues to mature…smile

  • carolynr

    nt

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    But, reality trumps the media. And, Intrade relies on existing models of TODAY, not in the distant days of November. Again, it’s meaningless.

    The pain, the discord, the sourness, the antipathy in the nation in real, and palpable, This can’t, and won’t, be papered over.

    I would give President Obama an extra 5% for the easily fooled drones that can be swayed by the old media approach. But no more. So, that brings him up from 38% to 42%.

    He’s still toast. Don’t worry.

  • acat

    Get serious.

    Mew

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Mike, you hit upon the germ of Newt’s entire act: when faced with a specific question he conjures up a snow storm of trivia, factoids, irrelevant names and dates, half-truths, fabrications, and once the questioner is blinded he makes his escape.

    It bears repeating that voters have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and political theater. Newt Gingrich is the Shakespeare of political theater. The Gingrich surge is mostly emotional. Newt is throwing red meat to the angry crowd, but emotions have a tendency to fade. Just ask…Newt Gingrich.

    People voting in SC for Newt today have no idea that he wrote an entire book urging conservatives to fight man made global warming.

    People voting in SC for Newt today have no idea that he was for health care mandates for more than 20 years.

    People voting in SC for Newt today have no idea that his favorite presidents are Woodrow Wilson the guy who re-segregated the military and that icon of conservatism FDR.

    People voting in SC for Newt today have no idea that he has been for big government solutions his entire career.

    People voting in SC for Newt today have no idea that he is a Washington insider who started his career making 10K a years and left congress worth 7.5 million dollars. Most of it from influence and access pedaling.

    Voters in SC want blood and Newt is willing to give it to them.

  • lineholder

    implemented a socialized health care program that would require continuation of tax increases into infinity to come even close to sustaining the program.

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

    fact

  • lineholder

    shifting of fiscal responsibility from state to federal level would be a necessity to sustain Romneycare.

    Also fact, GC

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

    agreed

  • WillWong

    In terms of their governsnce/legislation record such as spending cuts, tax increase/cut, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, job creation, big/small government, etc?

    Seems to me Newt should be ranked right at the top and Mitt at the bottom.

  • lineholder

    where Romneycare is concerned, the evidence was already rolling in that this type of healthcare system can only be sustained via one of the three mechanisms that I mentioned above when Romneycare was being considered in Massachusetts. (And on a federal level, there are only two mechanisms that exist, i.e. rationing of care or increase of taxes, dependent on events that take place, global economy, and how wisely governement administrators use the funds provided for this task)

    Did Romney look at that evidence, and in light of what was being presented, attempt to take his case to the people of the state to provide them with accurate information pertaining to the negative long-term consequences that would arise due to implementation of a socialized health care system? Did he even try to be honest with them in this respect? Did he try to present other options or alternatives? Did he question the “science” as being what was truly and genuinely in the best interest of the people he had been elected to serve? Wasn’t it part of his responsibility at the time to act in a way that would protect and preserve the financial interest of the people of Massachusetts as well as the social interest?

    I’m not finding any thing that says he ever attempted to be honest about this in regards to full disclosure of both the good and the bad. He’s always painted a rose-colored image of it,and for all intents and purposes, still hides behind that rose-colored image.

    No offense, but isn’t that close to the same thing Obama has been doing with O-care?

    Also, there’s no way to say that the increase in taxes that came about in Massachusetts to support Romneycare after he left office is due to entirely and completely to federal regulatory measures.

    The key point is that the socialized health care model is FAULTY, GC. It always has been. That’s why nation after nation that has gone full-throttle after a single-payer socialized health care system find themselves up to their necks and sinking in the burden of debt that it places of government, and then ends up having to dig as hard they can go to find means and methods of getting out from under that burden.

  • wbf

    is that the Romney team is well established in Florida and they have enlisted the best possible people to help them. How do I know? I live in Tallahassee and one of our friends has a son who is truly in the know for Republican state politics. The Perry team sought him out but he refused and went to work for Romney.

    We supported Gov. Perry. Now he is no longer running. I would never even consider voting for Gingrich. I feel very disappointed in the field of candidates. That said I will vote for Romney over Obama.

  • carolynr

    I know the demographics of FL very, very well. His support will come out of Naples up through Tampa, South Florida and possibly Orlando.

    I talk to people in FL just about every day…he might have a good team…but these drips are going to kill him coming through the press via Obama

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    I’m not saying that push back has to be abrasive – indeed the stiletto is more effective than the machete.

    But there has to be a clear rejection of the way that the media is framing the matter and advancing an alternative narrative. I haven’t been aware of Mitt doing on any regular basis.

    I’m tired of our leaders snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they let the media control the message.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Really?

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Much will depend on whom Newt picks to be his team from this point forward – and whether he can avoid taking the ball back after he finishes the hand-off.

    Newt’s biggest obstacle is himself – and we have 47 states to go yet.

    I’m not a happy camper. It’s hard to see a good outcome short of a deus ex machina intervention.

  • carolynr

    Obama Administration, through unions…are targeting FL voters with this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/labor-jumps-into-gop-primary-fray/2012/01/20/gIQAeGBOEQ_blog.html

    FL already has been screwed out of some of the Medicare $$ and when they read this…they will feel worse.

  • aesthete

    I’d love to have a perfect, or non-appalling, candidate for President. That’s not going to happen. The following is true:

    1) Mitt Romney’s proposed spending cuts as President are incredibly weak. He is running on a platform of preserving the status quo on entitlement, has promised either the same or greater levels of spending on SS, Medicare, and “defense”, and is very vague about what he will cut from discretionary spending.

    2) Newt Gingrich’s proposed spending cuts are much stronger — specific reforms to entitlements being the centerpiece.

    3) Newt is very volatile in temperament. Mitt is not. Both have flip-flopped and lurched to various positions in their time as politicians.

    4) Mitt Romney’s tenure as MA gov was on the whole, unsatisfactory. One year of cuts, followed by years of increasing government spending, increased fees, and RomneyCare.

    5) Both have a few good points: Newt has the Contract with America period, and Mitt has that very first year. Unlike Mittens, Newt can credibly claim that things went downhill after he left — not that I entirely agree with that, but it’s more credible than Romney claiming the same about his successor, when he signed three large budgets into law in addition to RomneyCare.

    There are no Tea Party candidates, or conservatives, in the running. Whoever is President in 2012 deserves tremendous scorn and opposition from conservatives and Tea Partiers in order to get this country’s government where it needs to be. It sucks, but that’s just the way it is.

  • wbf

    except for the county I live in which is Leon County. Last election cycle I was thrilled to vote for Steve Southerland. He is from Pensacola. District 2 is the largest in the state, I think, in square miles that includes many counties. Southerland won but I don’t believe he carried Leon County. If he did it was close. Alan Boyd had been our representative for 14 years!!! 2010 was the first time this district had elected a Republican!! Steve Southerland is proving to be a true conservative.

    carolynr, you really are opposed to Romney. I understand that.

    I am opposed to Gingrich. I still like you and know we both have the best interests of America at heart.

    I just leave you and the elections with God. I will vote my conscious and you will do the same. We will both live with the results and rally on the other side of the election.

  • wbf

    nt

  • runner12

    I have yet to decide on who I will vote for in the primaries. Frankly, none of them really excite me and each one has a cargo full of baggage that could hurt them in the general.

    For me, it will be a case of the lesser of two evils. So here is my “baggage” breakdown -

    Santorum: No personal baggage, but his fiscal conservatism is non-existent and he does not have a history of shrinking government. On the contrary, he has a history of growing it. This hurts him with the base. On the positive side, he does have a history of standing on principles when it comes to social issues. In today’s climate, that takes courage. I just wish he would transfer some of that courage to reducing the debt and shrinking government.

    Romney: RomneyCare. Abortion Flip-flop. Self-described progressive. Enough said. Additionally, he has the problem of Bain Capital. Whether or not you think this is a legitimate attacking point is irrelevant. The fact that it will be an attacking point is the issue. So far Romney has done a very poor job of defending this attack line. Romney personifies slick politician. His only positive is that he may very well have a good shot at beating Obama.

    Gingrich: Mega-personal baggage. He has a history of being an egomaniac. I think a truly humble apology regarding his past dealings with women would go a long way. So far I have not seen this. On the plus side, he is brilliant. He has a history of reducing debt and entitlements. Within the field that is left, I think he would be the most likely to shrink government and reduce debt. He has consistently been pro-life. But can he beat Obama with his personal baggage?

    Sigh. I wish people would have rallied behind Perry. His only baggage was his poor debate performances, and that was fixable. I know a brokered convention is a pipe dream, but one can only hope that maybe this year it isn’t.

  • runner12

    GC, I might not totally agree with you on this diary and/or your support for Mittens. But I think that this is an issue with Gingrich that cannot be ignored. In other words, thank you for bringing it up.

  • tjms

    the media/pundits have made sure all that is left are the less desireables. Not one of the candidates that are lefrt are the first choice of conservatives. Had enough of being spoon fed our candidates yet? I have.

  • romansdaughter

    I am uninspired by any of them and I don’t even think Mitt can beat Obama. I am starting to think like my Dad, that we are going to get another 4 years of Obama. My thought is that Mitt can’t seem to handle criticism now very well and he certainly won’t be handled very well in the General against Obama…you can guarantee it. Yep, Perry could at least go up against Obama on his record. I just don’t see a good outcome but I hope my Dad and I are wrong.

  • wbf

    That little “Really?” hanging out there could be intimidating.

    But it has no effect on me.

    NightTwister, have a great day!!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Good to know you’re working for the other side.

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

    Good to know you’re one.

    Go back to your Workers of the World meeting, Obama lover.

  • wbf

    gang up on me because I won’t vote for Gingrich.

    Call me any name you want…”Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!!”

    Honestly, I am too old for this. Believe me though, I am NO Obama lover.

  • WillWong

    One of the strangest decision and inconsistent Santorum made was to endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey which ultimately gave Obamacare its 60th vote! I find that endorsement inconsistent with his pro life stance!

  • acat

    Your argument by half-truth, GC, is not convincing.

    Mew

  • acat

    Some even have “rainy day funds”.

    Why should I applaud someone who set his State up for failure?

    Mew

  • acat

    I’ve carefully never written an actual diary, let alone “blogged”.

    Show me, by the way, where Gingrich’s company laid people off.

    I will remind you, GC, that it’s not the one who hits hardest who wins, it’s the one who can absorb the most damage and keep swinging.

    It’s been proven to my satisfaction that Obama and Romney both have glass jaws… Gingrich, though, has eaten the liver of everyone who’s landed a glove on him.

    Do the math.

    Mew

  • acat

    Can Romney hit Obama on healthcare?
    Can Romney hit Obama on jobs?
    Can Romney hit Obama on taxes?

    Mew

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

    You don’t want to beat him. You’ll stand aside and let him win while men stand up for America to defeat him.

  • runner12

    I have come to realize that I have underestimated the media class. I always knew that the Left-wing outlets were biased and that they relish destroying conservatives. My surprise came when outlets like Fox News and other conservative media types blatantly shilled for some candidates while completely ignoring others (Perry).

    I am certain that not all of the bias was driven by nefarious intentions. I think that many just desperately want to beat Obama. I have no problem with that. But when you begin to act like you know better than “we the people” and slant your news coverage to attain your own ends, you are on a mighty slippery slope. Using the Left’s tactics to further your viewsis sinking to their level.

    If this country is going to change for the better, we need to support the new media with all we have. We will need all of the firepower we can get to loosen the old media’s grip.

    And contrary to GC’s assertion, the Tea Party is not dead. Discouraged maybe, but not dead.

  • runner12

    I cannot fathom why Santorum endorsed Specter over Toomey. It makes me question his willingness to fight for the change we need in this country.

  • andystone

    Mitt lost 2 out of 3 elections, and he’s supposed to be the reliable, sure bet guy? Whereas Newt was behind the winning Contract With America strategy. And let’s not even go to signature accomplishments.

  • wbf

    and I appreciate your work here at Red State. I respect your energy and devotion to America.

    Thank you for you comments and may God bless you and your family.

  • Martin Knight

    Anyone who is so conservative that he is voting for Obama pretty much screams that he is not to be taken seriously.

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

    I will say that having nice things said about me *does* disarm me a bit.

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

    The idea that Newt is so much better than Romney on the issues and reliability over time and that Romney is so much worse a debater that we should overlook Newt’s non-marital character problems and recent flip-flops on Ryan’s budget as rt wing social enginering and Couch Peolsi, is absurd. Newt is more flawed than Romney and too great a risk imho.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    ~no~text~

  • wbf

    But it does not change my attitude towards him.

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

    und t

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

    knew!

  • pttx333

    was a gentleman and a patriot. LBJ was neither – he was interested only in himself. I agree with you re Newt. Though Newt has gigantic warts, he is not shy about nailing someone to the wall. The last thing we need is a squish and that he isn’t.

    I’m still trying to get through the process of losing the true 3-legged stool named Rick Perry and haven’t a clue as to what I’ll do. I do know who I will NOT vote for under any circumstances – Ron Paul. We live in very dangerous times, and my fear is that b.o. will win re-election. Perhaps I will have a better handle on my choice down the road – right now I’m not enthused about anyone on the stage.

    It was nice speaking about Goldwater – I was so proud when I voted for him. Had to go against my very conservative parents (blue-dog dems) at the time – you would have thought I had grown 3 heads when they learned I was voting for a (gasp!) Republican. That is the way it was in Texas then. Little did they know that Goldwater was the one closest to their beliefs.

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

    You forget Mitt’s domination of most of the debates early on. Also, see my archives for the articles on the campaign over the last 10 days and going back to the first debate. You can’t read enough DeVine columns!

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

    smiles

  • andystone

    and progressively more poorly as they thin out. How does that bode for a 1-on-1 with Obama, you think?

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

    after tea party traumas…more later

  • romansdaughter

    Is your arthritis doing better? I, myself have no enthusiasm for any of the candidates that are left. I right now don’t think I am even going to vote in the primaries, just in the general where I will try to stop Obama from getting a 2nd term. You will need to fill me in on news of Gov. Perry and fighting the good fight there in Texas. I sent an email to Texasroots but my email account was acting up so don’t know if she received it. Keep up the good fight!

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

    thx ‘est

  • bluerose75

    You just crying like a baby because you thought like so many other arrogant moderates that Mitt would wrap up the nomination and coronation in SC and you realize that will not be the case. So now you belittle SC and its voters because they are not going down the Establishment clueless lane like yourself. So you move the goal posts Mike? I guess that is convenient. You continue to fail to realize you moderates are not going to shove another Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing down the conservatives faces. You perfect world is coming apart so change the game plan Mike…after Florida what will be the next state you can move to for Mitt? Mitt will not carry the South, he is a liberal and you cannot stand the fact that he is being exposed as one….like McCain.

  • pttx333

    Arthritis is still acting up so wil post only a few things – it is slow going.

    Yes, hon, I still feel as if I’ve been run over by a 18-wheeler and am not inclined to look at things just yet. I am so happy, though, to have our guy back at home – haven’t heard anything about him yet. I do imagine he is taking some time to rest and relax. He is not done on the national stage, though, and will now have a bigger voice simply because everyone knows who he is, IMHO.

    Talked to ‘roots last night. What a sweetie! Did she send you another email address? She did send me one to be used now. Try again, dear, I’m sure she will get back to you!

    I’ll be around but just not as much until I am better. Later, my friend …

  • bluerose75

    Nick is you want to lecture about big government call Southwest and buy a one way ticket to Romneyville. He governed as a liberal, never met a big program he did not approve, raised taxes, appointed left leaning judges and disliked Reagan. Now people like you, I know you hate to look at Mitt’s record, but at his miraculous epiphany conversion to conservatism is fooling no true conservative. If it did, with all his money, this would have been over! People would have rallied behind him. The truth is both Mitt and Newt have had left leaning problems, the difference is Mitt has nowhere his RECORD of any conservative principles, legislation or beliefs. He has attempted, like many moderates, to praise Reagan and his ideals, only to hope to fool people from looking at his/her actual record.

    Newt has had his problems with left ideas as well but Mitt governed and lived on the left and his blantant attempt to never denounce Romneycare and his left governance means he cannot be trusted!

  • WillWong

    And you already touched on the reasons why.

    Romney is their guy. Romney owns Clear Channel and Clear Channel owns the radio station which runs the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, as well as Foxnews. So in a sense, if Romney is the preferred guy for Foxnews, it is kind of hard for guys like Huckabee, Hannity, Palin, etc to endorse someone else besides Romney.

    I was watching Foxnews today on the SC primary and you can tell them guys like Cavuto, were kind of critical of Newt and trying to talk up Santorum and still pushing the inevitability of Romney. Just pathetic!

    You get a sense that there wasn’t enough room for Fox News and Glen Beck as well!

  • David123

    He doesn’t have baggage.

    He’s always been a consistent pro-life conservative. You know where he stands.

    He combines most of Newt’s and Mitt’s positives without their negatives.

    Rick will fire-up the GOP base and attract some of the Democrat base.

    Newt will fire-up the GOP base and the Democrat base.

    Mitt won’t fire up anyone.

  • Wayne

    I would follow his lead! It’s time to decide and move, not flounder with hand ringing over who we will pick. Every Perry supporter should follow his lead and pick up the torch. I am, so so you!

  • Wayne

    as a culture we are not dependent on Fox News or any other media outlet in our search for the truth. As you see media transparent leanings, so do others. It is true that I am not getting behind the candidate of my choice, but the one I was behind now stands behind Newt. Let’s not quibble over facts that will not change our primary goal in this election and that is to insure that OB is a one term President. The changes in the core of the Party is a long time goal of true conservatives and it’s not going to change in this election. It’s a first step, then the next!

    I’m for Newt! Not because he’s a “non-Romney”, but because of the candidates left, he is the one I believe that can lead an effective and ultimately successful campaign against a worthy opponent. I will also vote for Romney in the general if I have no choice, but not without a fight!

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

    I accept the message of so many South Carolinians that Newt is acceptable despite his flaws. While I think Newt is not that much worse than Mitt, so Mitt is not so much better than Newt that a vote for Newt is not acceptable.

    Gamecock is humbled. We still want Mitt, but think he ought to have to perform NOW and that if Newt beats him at this level and remains steady for all the months till Election Day, then I will be happy too.

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

    did well on Bain in the last debate o at least don’t think it worth mentioning, you and I may be the only ones in America that think this!…

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

    Mitt is not so much better than Newt that a vote for Newt is not justified. I am humbled today.

  • Wayne

    nt

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

    must earn the right to face Obama now, in full view of the public going forward.

    The Humble Crow:

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/01/20/2472/

    http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2012/01/21/south-carolina-teaches-gamecock-a-lesson-newt-is-acceptable/mike-gamecock-devine

  • jmag

    I hate to argue this point, because it wasn’t your primary one:

    “There really is no need for troops in Germany and Okinawa 2 generations after wwII and 25 years after the berlin wall fell.”

    I tend to disagree — China and Russia are still in close proximity to those bases, and I suspect that they behave differently towards their neighbors now than they would if those bases were not there. Pulling out of those bases may make short-term financial sense, but you could very quickly find yourself waking up in a very different world.

    While Obama and Paul may not have the same vision for the future of America, they seem to view the current state of America through the same lens.

  • GordonTaylor

    As Eric pointed out, since Ronald Reagan, has won the nomination without winning South Carolina. However, each of those nominee’s had also won either Iowa or New Hampshire.

    So, we’re plowing a new row here and it simply seems to me that it’s still a toss-up.

    I’m with you Mike, Newt is a weakness if he is chosen to run against Obama. I think Mitt will persevere and be our nominee in November.

  • batmastersen

    as a ky gop and softy rp supporter i will vote anyone that wins gop except newt

  • WillWong

    And your humility to accept defeat today….there will be many more battles….may the best man win!

  • SoFiMil

    How can someone who clains to be convert to standard conservative principles (i.e. , protection of life, small government, Reaganism, fiscal prudence, etc.) *still* strongly support MA’s health care plan?

  • acat

    It is possible to achieve a balanced budget without tax increases.

    Romney didn’t even try.

    Mew

  • jakeofalltrades

    :P

  • acat

    The trouble isn’t that Romney’s a bad debater, it’s that he’s a lousy candidate. He doesn’t appeal to anyone.

    Heck, go read the exit polling on Willard

    Romney wins the 1%-ers*…. and not much else.

    The point is, Romney’s a lousy candidate who will have trouble reaching out to the demographic category that used to be called “Reagan Democrats”.

    If the economy improves** then we have a Clinton scenario, otherwise, we have a Carter. In either case, the Reagan Democrat demographic will decide the election.

    I’d rather have someone who can reach out to them… as well as someone who has won a national campaign before.

    Mew

    * Yes, I know there’s more than one per hundred GOP voters who make 200k/yr or more, went to college, and don’t think religion matters. I blame #OWS for not understanding how to do math.

    ** There are signs – some like “unemployment” obviously lying, others .. perhaps not ..

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

    more later

  • carolynr

    I’ve lived in FL for over 35 years. I’ve sold RE throughout the state…I know the Demographics…My daughter graduated from FL State. Yes is it Conservative…the problem is that Romney IS NOT. My guy was Perry. He’s out. I can’t go Santorum because of his spending record and hypocrisy. Paul is too whacky on Foreign Affairs. Romney is Obama…so that leaves me with a “hope and prayer”…and I mean that literally with Gingrich. And no…I don’t want a brokered Convention wherein Jeb Bush gets nominated without the will of the people…but just the delegates…that’s just like the super committee.

    So…that is why I say the Panhandle will not go Romney…because he is NOT CONSERVATIVE AND THEY ARE.

  • aj_0000

    He doesn’t hit home runs, at all. He can only get to home plate if the pitcher walks four in a row, which is basically what the “establishment” has been doing for him. As soon as the training wheels of rehearsed lines and establishment power fall off, he’s flat on his face. The guy is a Potemkin candidate.

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

    nteee

  • courdeleon02

    Just look at his leadership record. His own House members i.e. the Republican members tosed him out of office and he did leave in disgrace and paid a huge fine for ethical violations. This is a huge issue when your own freinds and neighbors look upon you as a crook. Newt’s quick on the trigger mentality makes him dangerous in the area of foreign affairs. In last nights debate even Ron Paul indicated that when Newt was in charge it was chaos in the House, a theme echoed by Rick Santorum and Susan Molinari who served under Newt. Newt has a nerv trying to claim credit for some of the good things that did happen during the Clinton years. He was not the President at that time and he was not the one accountable. He compromised with Clinton and many conservatives did not like his backroom deals with slick Willy.The nomination of Gingrich would be political suicide for the Republican Party and you can bet that the Obamabots would love him as their target.