« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Bad Night for Newt Gingrich

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2012 at 10:18 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I never thought I would see the day, but it looked an awful lot like Newt finished fourth out of the four candidates in tonight’s debate. For the first time during this primary season, Newt paid a price each and every time he went after Romney personally, who looked unusually aggressive and actually managed a passable impersonation of a human being. After the second time, he attempted to follow Santorum’s lead by saying that the tax return question was a distraction, and in a bizarre twist, Newt actually got his liver eaten by a moderator when Wolf Blitzer nailed him for having been the one who made an issue out of the tax returns.

Newt managed to look at least better during the second half of the debate but he did so mainly by staying in the weeds and making several unsubtle appeals to Paul voters. Even then he was overshadowed by Santorum (who has had back-to-back strong debate performances) and even Ron Paul, who a) was clearly on his medication and b) having conceded a last-place finish in Florida, was committed to having some fun at the other candidate’s expense.

In the last three days, Newt has watched a 7-point Florida lead evaporate into a 7-point deficit to Mitt Romney. He needed a bump from tonight’s debate in order to mount a challenge to Romney in Florida and hold his momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Instead, voters saw Romney displaying a killer instinct for perhaps the first time during the campaign, and Newt clearly overshadowed even on style points by both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

If Mitt Romney ends up winning the nomination, we may end up looking back at tonight as the night the tide finally turned in his favor for good.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikelindell2

    Yeah sadly it wasn’t his best night. I’m sure having almost literally the entire Republican establishment declaring a jihad on him couldn’t have helped him. He’s so much better than Romney, I just pray some miracle will happen that will stop Romney from winning Florida and almost certainly securing nomination. Then we can watch him run far left in the general election, lose to Obama by a point or two, and we’ll have only the establishment to blame.

    • lightspeed

      is if Santorum drops out now and endorses Newt, ala Rick Perry. I don’t see that happenning. As such, I expect to see a slight Santorum bounce. Romney will tick down a few points as will Newt. Expect Newt to throw the kitchen sink at Romney over the next few days. Too late to make much difference though.

      • mikelindell2

        Yes Santorum getting out is only shot. I’m sure some deal has been struck between him and Romney/establishment to stay in. There’s no other reason why he would still be in, he has no money to compete and is trailing big in polls. He had a good debate tonight, but it won’t matter much other than to take a few votes from Newt.

        • lightspeed

          but it won’t help Newt. He seems to really dislike Newt, though, so I don’t see him bowing out. Maybe he did enough damage to Mitt on Romneycare to keep Newt in the running, but I doubt it. Short of a bombshell revelation about Romney in the next few days, I think Romney wins Florida, maybe by a significant amount. Sigh.

          • redsox9687

            santorum was the one who absolutely destroyed romney on health care tonight, not newt…

          • lightspeed

            and out of money. He has no chance of winning or even coming second in Florida. He won the debate in my opinion. Doesn’t matter. The only question is will it be Newt or Mitt. Probably Mitt.

    • deVere

      No need for anyone to hyperventilate about it.

      If Romney wins Florida he is just back in the game.

      A majority of the Republican Party still dislikes him..

      • mikelindell2

        Then comes NV which 1/3 mormon and will go for romney especially if he wins FL. then there are romney-friendly states like michigan, maine, etc. I don’t believe there’s a debate until Feb 22 so lesser chance for newt redemption any time soon.

      • lquist1

        the others, cause if he lost it, his campaign may implode. But I have to say tonight’s debate gives me second thoughts about supporting Newt. I’ll never back Romney, but I’m starting to wonder if Newt shouldn’t be the one dropping out and backing Santorum. I know, Rick’s got no money, but there’s like 5 weeks till Super Tuesday, and those states’ delegates are proportional. Don’t you think the anti-Romney forces would get together and fund the last viable candidate standing, even if it was Santorum? I don’t know, just something to think about.

      • Elpasoan

        if Romney wins FL. Looking at the details of how each states primary works, just about every factor is not favoring Newt and heavily favoring Romney. In most states, delegates are proportionate so if you win you may get a small handful more delegates than the 2nd place guy. In a very few states they are totally or near totally winner-take-all and those states will have a lot more influence in changing the numbers. Those states just about all favor Romney. FL, AZ, UT, CT, DE. Romney should get all 49 delegates from VA. CA is also done in such a way that Romney will get a great majority of the delegates. Almost all states have some superdelegates which will heavily favor Romney (Republican insiders). So states delegates are totally nonbinding and have no specific rules for how delegates have to vote (MO, IL others) they can all vote Romney (republican insiders). Newt could do best in the South and these states are very much proportionate and no candidate will make major gains in delegates. Romney will do very well in caucus states with money and organization.

        I think it is just about over now and if Romney wins FL, just about totally over assuming no major disaster.

        I also think that Romney is clearly the most electable in November. I know there are those here that don’t want to believe that, but it is so obviously true IMO.

        • aj_0000

          What Romney and the GOP establishment have done to anoint him the nominee has been upfront and public. Conservatives now see exactly what’s going on. The Beltway insiders are trying to destroy the Tea Party movement and assert their control over the Republican Party. “We will tell you who your nominee will be, and you’ll sit down, shut up and take it”. Nope. Not gonna happen.

          • Elpasoan

            More than 40 years ago the nominee was decided almost entirely by the party leaders and not by the people. At some point it was decided that we would have primaries and caucuses that would allow the people to have more of a say. As part of those negotiations, it was agreed that the party leaders would still have some power in the process, but to a much lesser degree. It was a compromise. So there are superdelegates in most states and there are some states where delegates are nonbinding and have no specific rules on how they vote. This accounts for about 10% of delegates so in situations were it is close (which it almost never is), the party leaders will have control over the process. There are also rules where delegates are no longer bound after the 3rd ballot in the case of a brokered convention. Nowhere in the constitution does it say how parties should choose there nominees. I think it is good for the process for the leaders of a party to have some control over the process. In this particular case, the fact that Newt is basically disliked or not trusted by 80% of his Republican colleagues makes him very unlikely to ever be the Republican nominee and be the leader of the party.

            I’m a Romney supporter although I don’t agree with him on everything. I think he is the most electable against Obama and is not nearly as moderate as some of his detractors want to make him. I think he is a much better candidate than McCain and 2008 was a much different year than 2012. I expect Romney to be the 45th President. I for one am surprised that those that dislike Romney have jumped on the Newt bandwaggon and not sided with Santorum, who I think is a much more viable and electable candidate.

          • writescribe

            in your assessment of the situation. However, and this is not meant to be disrespectful, but what is the Tea Party going to do about it? Pout? Throw a hissy-fit?

            Believe me, I’m no Romney supporter, but the energy involved in all this bravado talk should have been applied earlier to discerning and supporting a true conservative candidate. The Tea Party has been put on the defensive and has never gone on offense during this nominating process.

        • romansdaughter

          What a joke! Debates don’t show you how you are going to lead a country or anything else. Debates are kind of like the Roman colliseum where people drool over who gets killed in a few minute sound bites. It’s so stupid. Everyone got on the ban wagon for Newt just cause ” he was a great debator”. Now suddenly he isn’t such a great debator. Ho Hum What a joke the Presidency is, if all he needs is to be a great debator. Why don’t we just stick with Obama, I guess everyone thought he was pretty good at debates?

    • score333

      Anyone that challenged the “exceptional” Establishment Republicans got trashed if Santorum was up he would be trashed.

      If you treat a Party’s Base that way, Like Chuck Norris says YOU LOSE.
      What Republican Party now.

      • mikelindell2

        True, but it seems Newt really got worse than anyone. I guess there were grudges from long ago showing themselves as well. For example, HW Bush and Bob Dole still have bad blood toward newt because he fought against them in ’90 when they wanted to/did raise taxes.

        • avgjo

          you’re doing something right.

          • formotioncreative

            becomes a plus in Florida. Being from San Diego, I understand Gov. Perry’s reasons for giving in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. Border states have a dilemma due to lack of resources to stop illegal immigration, therefore need to figure out the best way to get people to be self-reliant and earn citizenship. The question is: What are they learning in college?

            The ‘grandma’ conversation was okay to make a brief point but not worth bickering over. What I would like to hear more of, is the problem with anti-American and pro-socialist or Marxist teaching in the colleges and universities where students from states and foreign countries are being educated. A San Diego radio station was covering a story about Republican students at San Diego State who have implemented a process by which they can rate professors according to the amount of bias in their curriculum. This caused one professor to realize his bias and he’s now changed his approach.

            The point being, when we have foreign students, legal or not, who have no understanding of the making of America and American Exceptionalism, being taught to be activists for a collectivist society; that’s where the trouble really gets serious. I would imagine that Gingrich would have an excellent grasp on this problem and I’d like to hear him address it. In other words, when the conversation is about immigrants, he needs to assure conservatives that he will encourage more of the kind of action being taken by Republican students at San Diego State. It’s grassroots and doesn’t need any help from the government, just a leader who will call out the problem.

    • becky5

      I wonder if it ever occurs to the Republican establishment that they are at war with their very own base voters, and what that really means.

      I wonder if they even realize how far off-track they have gone. The people should pull the party, not the other way around.

      We cannot let Romney win. We’ll lose the general and the GOP as a party will be dead.

      • mikelindell2

        Yes I don’t see any way Mitt could beat Obama. Gingrich’s strengths aren’t just debates as some say, but also his record would be very impressive to contrast with Obama’s. I feel independents would be attracted to a candidate who has solved problems we face today in the past, working with a Democrat. Romney vs Obama will be close, but alas Obama will edge him out. I think Romney will hurt the whole ticket too, he will solidify in people’s minds Republicans are the party of the “1%.” Or if a miracle happens and Romney squeaks it out, his presidency will not work to solve anything. He is the most politically calculating man ever, and would never dare do something as controversial as cutting spending or regulation.

        • Elpasoan

          1% is a made up Democratic campaign tactic. A great majority of voters don’t care about 1%/99%. They care about having a leader they can believe in and can articulate their concerns. Excessive class warfare arguments are going to turn off many voters. Weather it’s Mitt or someone else as the Republican nominee, the bases are charged because Obama is polarizing. This election will come down to independent voters in swing states. A majority of voters want to replace Obama, they just need someone that does not scare them and that is competent and understands their concerns. But the election will mostly be about Obama and Romney will win. Don’t overthink it or believe in some kind of reverse psychology such as “they will vote for Obama if they don’t get a real conservative.”

          • In The Hook

            If Obama wants to make this an Occupy Wall Street election, I encourage him to do so. The Dems already read the riot act about the GOP being the “party of the rich” so it doesn’t matter who we nominate in that regard.

            Obama would be wise to use the Occupy message to gin up base support and then switch to a Bush ’04-style campaign when the general starts to heat up. Running an Occupy campaign would be very, very risky indeed because the general public is as sour on OWS as it is on the Tea Party. Probably moreso actually given OWS’s ridiculous antics.

            So by all means, have Obama run an Occupy campaign while we run one focused on Obama’s record. Elpasoan is dead on the money here: This campaign has to be a referendum.. If the economy worsens or muddles through and it’s a referendum, we win. If the economy improves or Obama makes the election about our candidate the way Bush made 2004 about Kerry, we lose. It’s as simple as that.

          • mikelindell2

            I hope you’re right but polls show Obama’s class resentment is working, especially with non-Republicans. Also, they will paint Romney as someone who has taken every side of every issue, and chronic flip-floppers/the totally insincere never do well. I’m sure the media will do extensive reporting on all of the stranger rituals of Mormonism as well in an attempt to thoroughly alienate him from voters.

  • writescribe

    but I think, as someone else put it, Newt has been revealed as a stage actor, not a debater. He like to think of himself as a grand figure, but he is just an applause/cheer opportunist. I suppose it feeds into his narcissism.

    The crowd was allowed to be expressive today so I wonder what Newt’s excuse will be for a very abject performance.

    • redsox9687

      it looks like he gets a little on the “dumbstruck” side when he can’t just pin his problems on the media….

    • usedtobelib

      seem an apt descriptor.

      I liked the Rich Lowry column yesterday comparing the personalities of Bill Clinton and Newt. The only difference–Clinton was able to charm more effectively. True enough, however, narcissism has its roots in feelings of low self-worth and the only way the narcissist can feel good, if only fleetingly, is to get people to love him (Clinton) or respect him (Newt) or cheer him (both). They are needy and when they don’t get what they want from others, the love, the applause, they turn bitter very quickly. Newt doesn’t hide that as well as Clinton did.

      Barry O. is a narcissist too, of course.

  • rogershru2

    He made me laugh our loud half a dozen times. I laughed even more at your comment that he was on his meds.

    I voted early for Newt yesterday and would do so again, but you’re right he was the worst tonight. He should back off mitt and promote his ideas while attacking Obama. That’s when he is best.

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com punditpawn

    No one can survive the media, the opposition party, half of your own party, and the other candidates pounding on you like Gingrich had happen to himself today.

    He’ll bounce back, he just racked up another $5 Million from his donor guy.

  • dimondintherough

    Where was he tonight? Of all the nights he needed to show up ready to fight and articulate what a fraud Romney is, and he for some unknown reason decided not to. I love Newt and hope a miracle can still happen but for the life of me, I can’t understand why he did not show up fired up, pissed off and just take it to Romney. For goodness sake he even passed on a chance to drill him and came off looking weak….this is not the same Newt we know and saw in SC.

    Please, can someone with some inside knowledge explain why he took this path?

    I know he was fired up at a rally this morning, why not tonight????

    • carolina

      That was very obvious. Newt was more likely to be booed than cheered if he attacked Romney.
      The brief interview with Romney also told the story: he basically said that he had been agressive and he carried the audience. [go back and listen to it - it was a canned statement, planned in advance] Of course he did, he owned most of the audience (which he knew he would before the debate started). The establishment is NOT stupid. They were NOT going to allow another experience like SC.

      Paul had some supporters there.
      I could here some enthousiastic Newt supporters – barely – from WAY in the back of the room. If you review the debate, you will hear this also, if you listen for it.
      The FL GOP controlled 900 of the seats = all the ones in the front.

      • sethellis

        You can’t always rely on the audience to give you the debate. Some audiences have favored Romney, and some haven’t.

      • redsox9687

        it was a lousy debate tonight for newt and with blitzer there instead of john king he wasn’t given any “bash the media” opportunities so he had nothing. if all you can do to defend him is to just claim that “romney must have just stacked the audience so that no one would applaud newt,” that’s a little sad…

    • aj_0000

      CNN wants Romney to win. Blitzer’s moderating was intended for that effect. He asked questions that invited the other candidates to attack Gingrich, kept the focus on the negative back and forth between the candidates, and then asked fluff questions to fill out the time once his job was done.

      The entire purpose was to help Romney run out the clock and prevent Gingrich from gaining any ground. He screwed up when he let Santorum through on health care, and Romney’s response could hurt him more than people yet realize.

      • fightnright

        will be exactly the same as the one Newt might have to face in the fall (minus the audience reax, IIRC).

        The Newt supporters who have claimed that they support him primarily because he is the one to take it all the way against Obama in debate must realize that if Newt *was* set up to fail here and couldn’t rise above it, he’s not as invincible as they expected Newt would be when things get tough.

        With so much in the media deck stacked against Republicans, and needing every advantage we can garner, I’m appreciating more and more that there have been so many opportunities for all of our guys to perfect their attacks.

        Newt better get humble after last night, and come to grips with the reality that even he has to discipline himself (for once), and buckle down on continuously evolving reviews of rhetorical strategy and tactics .

  • aj_0000

    In November if Romney is the nominee. That’s not an idle threat by one voter, it’s also a prediction based on history and observation. Moderates will despise Romney as Gordon Gecko incarnate by the time the media is through with him.

    The lack of turnout could be fatal for Romney in places like VA and NC, where he does not appeal to conservatives, but the black vote will almost certainly turn out in huge numbers for Obama even if unemployment rises 10 points between now and election day. That’s what happened last time with McCain. Romney is more liberal than McCain.

    • Bill S

      Not one more word about staying home if Romney is nominated. We have tolerated your idiocy on this point for quite long enough. This site has two key goals: electing conservatives and electing Republicans. When a Republican is in the race against a Democrat, we support the Republican.

      If you can’t deal with that simple concept, do not post here again. If you can keep your yap shut about people staying home in the case of a Romney nomination, you are welcome to stay.

      • mikelindell2

        Like it or not, many will stay home. Most don’t see Romney as being a conservative or even a republican. It won’t matter though, they’ll use the “1%”and “without any conviction” taglines against him so effectively it will alienate independents to such a degree no amount of republican turnout could change it.

        • Bill S

          The guy has repeatedly stated that “I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!11!” and that drumbeat, combined with this, is a promotion of the concept.

          I really don’t care what “people will do”. We do not promote the tactic of not voting for the Republican.

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

            nt…

          • quill67

            I tried to find the original quote without luck. So now I am doubting Reagan’s claim because Romney says he never voted for a Democrat when there was a choice.

          • aj_0000

            If it is actually the policy of this site to ban anyone who doesn’t unthinkingly support the Republican Party, then you are, by definition part of the establishment. Like most of the rest of the “conservative media”, I guess you only exist to keep conservatives from leaving the reservation. When the chips are down, you show everybody where your bread is buttered.

            You might be aware that the number of people identifying as independents is increasing dramatically, and the parties are losing membership. Having a policy that only allows conservatives who will support the Republicans no matter what they do is a sure way to guarantee low readership. But I’m sure you can tap into some donations from folks like Mitt Romney to make up for the fact that nobody visits your site. Kind of like an NEA for phony conservative establishment tools.

            Go ahead and ban me if you want. Just proves this site isn’t worth my time.

          • jakeofalltrades

            He’s been nothing but nerve-grating since he started here. And he just called us all tools.

          • gekster

            You’ve played moby since you have been here.
            We are in a primary.
            This is how it goes.
            It’s been that way since I can remember, and that’s since 68.
            It is conservative in the primary, Republican in the general.
            If this site is not worth your time, do us a favor and crawl back in your Moms basement.
            It is posters like you who give credence to others who want an IQ test for posting privileges.
            Now to quote the great WC Fields, “Go away little boy, ya bother us”.

          • RealQuiet

            n/t

    • acat

      It was the moderates who decided that, after they foisted Candidate McCain on us, that they’d stay home.

      Simply proven – compare which counties – not States, counties – McCain won vs. Bush.

      The losses are all in moderate areas.

      Do please go peddle your lies elsewhere.

      Mew

      • mboyle1988

        People on this site really have interesting ideas, but, unfortunately, they don’t stand up to facts. Then again, DKE people have similar ideas. People like to think their team lost the election because “the base stayed home”. That gets pedaled about 2010, 2008, 2006 etc. In reality, political polarization is a great predictor of likelihood to vote. That means that the most liberal and most conservative Americans always vote, no matter who the nominee is. Minorities and less politically polarized individuals vote less often and might not vote at all. Elections are determined by about 15% of the population who are truly open to voting for either party.

        Moderates may not excite the base, in which case the campaign may suffer from a lack of volunteers, which are needed to identify right leaning but less politically active people and to convince moderates to vote for the nominee.

      • usedtobelib

        contest, but after he called a suspension to his campaign because of the economic crisis in WA, and when he and Obama sat there at the table, all eyes on McCain, who afterall, suggested they go there, he SAID NOTHING! He showed no knowledge of the problem wasn’t able to speak to it, couldn’t even muster up some words of encouragement for a country that was scared—that is where John McCain lost the Presidency.

        Had he shown any leadership, no one would have “stayed home.”

        • acat

          One that, it seems to this cat, is repeated most often by the same people who stayed home in 2008 and 2006 …

          Mew

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        He just turned out to be less talented politically than Obama. Simple as that. If the Pats beat the Giants next week, maybe it ain’t the crowds’ fault or the refs’ fault … maybe Brady is just a better passer than Eli.

        • acat

          do change the election.

          Points for the football reference, though.

          Mew

          • lapert

            Yep, the analogy is ,ore like the voters are the ball being tossed around every which way – can’ blame it for the bounces it takes.

            And when the Giants beat the Pats (again) it may be because Coughlin is the better coach – and by analogy McCain should focus on whoever was calling the plays.

      • cfogel1973

        Because conservatives couldn’t possibly live in those counties. Just because a county may be purple doesn’t mean there is no conservatives there lol. That is like saying there are no liberals there.

        With your claim you want to explain away this:
        http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/wisconsin

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wisconsin_Presidential_Election_Results_by_County,_2008.svg

        Where did all those Conservatives in those once blue counties come from to turn those counties red?

        • acat

          Wisconsin is a purple State.

          There are conservatives, there are liberals, but what tips it is the middle.

          This is in contrast to one of the West Texas or rural Pennsylvania districts that went for Dole, or one of the urban Chicago districts that went for Kerry.

          The point being, the majority of those “conservatives” you’re pointing at .. aren’t. Not ideologically, and not likely long-term.

          They’re voters, they’re impure, and they’re quite likely to stay home if our candidate doesn’t have some attraction that, so far, Romney hasn’t shown.

          Mew

          • cfogel1973

            Sure the middle can tip but I nor you could define who is middle and who is not. If you go by what conservative means to Romney: Married, businessman, warm body would classify quite a bit of the nation. Problem is the nation has nothing in common with Mitt Romney even if he tries to proclaim them conservative with his low hurdle to conservatism.

            I don’t think one can define political affiliations of an entire electorate. To profoundly claim that the middle swings elections can be correct but not getting the conservative base to vote can swing elections as well.

    • deVere

      Romney would carry NC and probably VA, but might have trouble in PA, FL, OH, and especially CO. His harsh immigration rhetoric will not play well in the general election; Newt has the edge on that issue.

  • texastory63

    I really don’t understand the animosity to Senator Santorum on this site. He is articulate and a conservative. He is right on both the health care mandate and tarp. With Perry out of the race I believe he is the best choice.

    • acat

      That means he’s a social conservative, opposes abortion and stem cell research, opposes gay marriage, etc.

      But.

      Santorum has a long history of voting for every big-government solution to come along. Every. Single. One.

      He’s not got any record of fiscal conservatism, and has never articulated a small-government argument in the debates – it’s all tinkering-with-the-behemoth, not reducing its’ influence, as though a behemoth run by the right guy is any kind of improvement.

      That’s the problem with Santorum.

      Mew

      • snowshooze

        This isn’t looking pretty.

      • neum432

        Santorum was just being a good republican and went along with all of the GWB economic agenda. This criticism of Santorum could also be made against Gingrich.

        I think Newt would love to take his turn at driving the big government monster. All of these candidates have flaws. But Santorum is kinda like a vanilla candidate. With all the garbage flying back and forth between Mitt and Newt, I am starting to crave some vanilla.

        • acat

          You’ll see the clear difference.

          Santorum never met a problem that government couldn’t solve.

          Mew

          • neum432

            get me that guy!

          • acat

            Unfortunately, while the dead and undead are allowed to vote, they apparently can’t get on the ballot.

            In the end, we have to pick one of the current ones.

            Mew

          • snowshooze

            I’d be happy with his DOG right now.

          • Common_Cents

            Just put some sunglasses on him.

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

            by handlers

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

            and a lot of other folks who go by the ‘conservative’ label.

          • acat

            Show me Santorum’s superior voting record, when compared to, say, DeMint or Coburn or even Orrin Hatch.

            Mew

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

        N/T

        • aesthete

          who *isn’t* pro-lunar base? :)

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

            :-)

          • acat

            Eh?

          • texasref

            Check the etymology before you get mad at me :-)

          • acat

            (Cheshire grin)

          • aesthete

            You’re all right.

            Also, I’m pretty sure that the support of lunar bases is just Newt saying that he wants to trade his life on Earth for one with a newer, younger celestial body… a, uh, harsh mistress, if you get my drift…

          • WillWong

            About 42 years ago. That’s 4 decades plus change….surely enough time to developed the technology to make that happen! Don’t understand why it is such a looney idea!

          • sethellis

            I think the point is that it just wouldn’t be an effective use of resources. There’s a lot of other challenges that nasa can take on that would be more productive and won’t break the bank. Ie docking with an asteroid. The only real justification Gingrich has is that it sounds cool.

          • submariner45

            I though Gingrich was some “super gladiator” at debates. This is the second debate where Mitt schooled the omnipotent Newt.

            Next time don’t get suckered by a con artist who just screams out bumper sticker slogans. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for even flirting with the ridiculous idea of nominating Newt Gingrich for President.

          • lineholder

            Romney is a moderate who likes the same kind of big-government programs that the progressive Liberals like. He isn’t a Conservative.

            So does that mean Conservatives should be ashamed of flirting with the idea of nominatingRomney as well? Or does that element of shame only apply to candidates other than Romney?

          • tea4me

            Speaking of moons…is it a full one tonight?

          • texasref

            OMG Mittens did good in a debate! He’s a lock! Election’s over!

            Give me a break lol

            Keep the faith, tea4me.

          • formotioncreative

            Rush opened this morning talking about Romney’s, it’s not worth getting angry over, comment. The previous thread to this one addresses that. Obamacare not worth a whole lot of passion?….hmmm. It was key to Romney’s biggest weakness.

          • gbenton

            If Santorum had money, he could run ads to rub Romney’s nose in it… maybe Newt will.

            Now that Rush is talking about it… 20 million or so folks are gonna get to mull it over.

            Because this is the ONLY election in which Republicans have as hot to repeal Obamacare, if Romney loses the nomination it may be because he was uniquely unable to take that fight to Obama… a real Achilles Heel.

          • avgjo

            20? Don’t kid yourself. Mitt looked just as childish, just as petulant and more sensitive than Gingrich.

            Hey, he may win. The GOP and the conservative wing of the MSM seems hell-bent on forcing him down our throats. Just don’t act surprised when he loses in November.

          • formotioncreative

            angry about.” Did anyone else see Santorum’s face when Romney responded with this (not sure if that’s the exact quote, but very close)? I can’t recall exactly what the subject was, but at the time, thought that it was definitely important and worthy of some level of anger or at least, passion; Romney was showing disconnect.

          • gbenton

            and while Santorum didn’t come back as well as I’d have liked (he should have said the American people are piping mad at Obamacare and the SC has yet to rule on whether it’s constitutional…), Romney gained points by pointing out ‘anger’, but at the cost of being tone deaf on the issue.

            Mitt’s ‘angry’ comment, I think, has the potential to become his version of Perry’s ‘heartless’ comment. When the base is hopping mad, being dismissive of the anger on the key issue of Obamacare is tremendously tone deaf. But then, this is Mitt we’re talking about.

            Whatever damage Romney did to Gingrich in this debate, he got flanked by Santorum and out-charmed by Paul.

            Wierd night.

            Gingrich needed to build on SC debate and instead got lost in the weeds, as the post pointed out. I thought his closing answer of why he’d be best for POTUS was best…

          • formotioncreative

            comment this morning! Thank you gbenton for elaborating so effectively. What was it Santorum responded with? Something like “We can’t afford to loose this issue.” In other words, with Romney, it’s off the table.

          • gbenton

            which was also important… but he let the anger thing stick.

            The first question he got after off stage by CNN went to the issue… the exchange stood out.

            The meme with Perry became that he was ‘stupid’, BUSH III, soft of immigration, etc., so his ‘oops’ and ‘heartless’ moments reinforced that and stuck.

            With Santorum, his meme appears to be the angry, whiny, evangelical statist thing… so ‘angry’ in Mitts words could stick BUT it also exposes Mitt’s Romneycare problem at the same time.

            Similarly, when Newt went after Romney on owning funds in Fannie/Freddie, he appeared to hit Romeny, but then got hit back because he has the same kind of investments – he may not have said ‘oops’, but it sure came across when Romney returned the volley with a stiff backhand. Kinda like Wolf Blitzer’s push back on Newt over the Swiss bank account thing.

            Overall… it’s a field without a clear strong contender because they each have weaknesses and are knifing each other in the soft spots.

            Each had their moment int he sun last night… but each left with wounds (and I’m not talking abut Paul because he committed Sepuku with his foreign policy stuff many debates ago).

          • JSobieski

            this planet is simply too depressing.

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

            he needs to go to our 57th state.

          • aesthete

            And make sure Joe Biden is driving the shuttle.

          • paladin1

            n/t

          • jakeofalltrades

            But… what happened to the New Zealand option?

          • JSobieski

            nt

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

      It is clear why Santorum was attacked earlier on. When Redstate was in its PerryState mode, he was a threat to Perry’s chances. So Erick Erickson and others put some stuff together about bad things Santorum did, including stooping to a vote on felon voting.

      Santorum was a blue-state senator who bent to his consitutency from time to time, yet managed a solid 85% ACU rating and was a leader on a number of issues. So I wrote a diary after Iowa to show some balance:

      http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-yes-he-is-a-true-conservative/

      Now while there are definite bones to pick in Snatorum’s long voting record, I have been perplexed with the willingness to attack Santorum as some non-conservative in the current field, as if he is somehow especially ‘statist’ (that Paultard swearword – gee, we are ALL statists, even Ron Paul), when his real record is solidly conservative on many fronts. Most particularly, Santorum is in my estimation CLEARLY more conservative than Newt and Mitt.

      Santorum
      - against TARP
      - consistently against AGW and cap-n-trade
      - against embyonic stem-cell research funding
      - for Paul Ryan’s roadmap, supported cut,cap and balance and the balanced budget amendment that limits spending to 18% of GDP

      Newt
      - for TARP
      - once was for cap-n-trade, sat w/ Pelosi
      - lobbied for embryonic stem-cell research funding
      - criticized Paul Ryan’s roadmap last May, never fully embraced cut-cap-and-balance

      Bottom-line is that you can criticize Santorum, but you cant call him non-conservative, when he is smack dab in the middle of what most conservatives believe.

    • usedtobelib

      his views on gays, not just on gay marriage, but on gays, in general. He seems not to understand the science and independents and dems, the ones we need, see his views on that issue as symbolic of a larger character trait–intolerance. Just sayin’…that is how he is seen. I think it’s not so much all substance, but his style, one which voters interpret as an aggressive “I am morally superior to you” style, and they don’t like it.

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

        The anti-religious bigots that Gingrich likes to talk about, the hype secularist leftists who want to abolish traditional values … they hate Santorum for standing up. gay groups spent millions in 2006 defeating him, so there would be one less strong voice in the Senate in defense of marriage.

        Santorum has taken his share of hits from the leftwing activists because he dared be outspoken in favor of traditional marriage and on other issues like life. There is this matter of courage, having courage of convictions. As conservatives, we know that a fighter beats a non-fighter and helps us win difficult battles. Santorum has shown courage and his reward is that he has all the right enemies.

        • aesthete

          Mostly the same crowd that lines up to oppose any Republican nominee.

          In addition, he tends to be opposed by libertarians and several prominent fiscal conservatives, as well. Good or bad, that’s the state of Santorum’s enemies.

      • avgjo

        I presume you mean the science that affirms homosexuality is a genetic trait? Is there a credible, conclusive study done by scientists with no agenda or financial incentive to arrive at a certain conclusion? I ask, because at the moment, I’m not aware of any.

    • aj_0000

      But he’s polling at the bottom of the pack, and splitting votes with Gingrich, who is tied with Romney for the lead. I wasn’t hostile to Perry either, but he did the right thing by dropping out and endorsing Newt.

  • Whacker77

    I’m hardly a supporter of Newt, but I was hoping he would have a strong performance tonight and use to win win Florida. I wanted Newt to win Florida because I wanted the race to continue for some time and because I hoped a Newt win might finally scare a better candidate into the race.

    Unfortunately, Mitt pretty well owned Newt tonight and he’s probably going to coast to a win in Florida and to the nomination. I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for Mitt, but I’m tired of voting for candidates for whom I must hold my nose. Mitt might pick someone exciting for VP, but who really cares. We vote on the top of the ticket.

    Mitt seems like a fine person and he has become a better debator and candidate, but he’s going to eaten alive for the next nine months by the Obama machine. Goodness knows Mitt has given them plenty of information to do so.

    We had a historic chance this year to defeat an incumbant and install large majorities in both chambers, but no good candidates decided to run. Instead, we’re going to run a tin can who has generates no real excitement and will ultimately lose.

    It’s a disappointing night.

    • snowshooze

      For certain.

      • Whacker77

        I guess the best we have to hope for at this point is that Newt keeps it close in Florida and wins a few states on Super Tuesday. We also need to hope Ron Paul performs well in the caucuses. If this happens, a contested convention is still possible. Although totally unlikely, a new candidate who we all like could emerge.

    • fightnright

      and I thought he performed pretty well, but he and/or his script-writers still don’t seem to get it. Mitt spits out a laundry list of choppy, dry talking points from his agenda and succeeds only in sounding like an agitated parrot on a time-clock. Newt rises above the talking points and effortlessly manages to map nearly all of his responses onto the fabric of the Grand Ideas of conservatism. Surely lovers of our political philosophy are moved and want to go along with him for the ride.

      They both looked small and spiteful when on personal attack – that was from the beginning the theme that brought down Santorum.

      But my take was that Newt did very well tonight. No visceral home runs, but as usual his love of conservative principles shone through.

      • fightnright

        messed up – my post was meant to be freestanding – not a response to the folks above. sorry!

        • daveoconnor

          I really hope no Dems read your post. LOL!

          • fightnright

            n/t

      • likeaglove

        I heard he hired Michelle Bachmann’s debate coach. That could explain his improved performance. Say what you will about Bachmann, but she managed to do well in a number of debates. If the debate coach can turn stoic, plastic Mitt into fiery, intense Mitt, he could be labeled a political MVP. Heck, maybe he (the debate coach) should run for president.

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

        … of course I watched only the second half and missed some fireworks.

        I was pleased with the great answers given on religious belief and at the end on why they can beat Obama.

        Have faith. We’ve had a process where the negatives have all been brought up.

        Getting back to the solid plans to get America working again… all candidates have a good plan.

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

      caused the Great Recession. Seriously…smile

  • snowshooze

    This is just about completely hopeless.
    Almost enough for me to just quit paying attention to this entire pile of goo.

  • Common_Cents

    No other candidate could have survived the onslaught in IA, Gingrich did. No other candidate could survive the attacks from all sides recently, but Gingrich will hang in there.

    Today was all out attack on Gingrich. Blitz would stay on topics that nailed Gingrich, when Newt got a little Newtmentum, Blitz would move on to a new question. It was blatant. Afterwards Blitz even bragged to Cooper about keeping on Gingrich for the romney attack question as well.

    Now they are pumping up Santorum to keep him from quitting and giving support to Gingrich.. Wow.

    Gingrich supposedly had the largest staff in SC of all candidates and nobody gave him credit for that. Supposedly he has the largest paid staff in FL as well. But this does not fit the media narrative. Gingrich could be stronger in FL than anyone gives him credit for.

    I predict Newt will win FL in a squeaker.

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

      that see the Mitt v Newt battle and want to vote for the eventual winner.

      • snowshooze

        After that… well…Newt has at least as big a problem as the rest of us.

    • WillWong

      Newt have had worst moments…..like in May 2011 when his entire staff walked out and the $3M of unanswered negative ads in Iowa. If he can pull this off, I think it will make believers of many!

    • clowngirl

      And a lot of questions that should’ve been asked of Romney were not.

      For example I would like to see Romney asked why he’s continually bringing up the Democrats’ bogus ethics charges against Newt when Newt was exonerated

      Particularly when it was a clearly a purely partisan exercise in trying to blunt the effectiveness of extraordinary Republican leader and (effectively) smear him in the press (Ok, I don’t expect a liberal moderator to ask it quite like that)

      Thought it was ridiculous to dwell on tax return and refer to a remark Newt made clearly just making fun of Romney by saying it takes someone who makes $20 million a year without working, a Cayman Islands and Swiss Bank Account, etc., etc. as a “serious charge”

      It wasn’t a “charge” and didn’t need to be brought up.

      The ethics charges rhetoric has been very disingenuous on Romney’s part and should’ve been brought up.

      thought there were 2 thinly veiled attacks:

      Bringing up Freddy Mac and asking Romney the first question about it — Wolfe Blitzer had to know that Romney would love to drudge up Newt’s work for them and try and drag out the exchange as much as possible.

      Asking about who would make the best first lady. Do they normally ask this? I can’t remember ever hearing it asked in a debate before – in any Presidential election.

      The subtext seemed to be pretty clear: “Do we really want Newt’s former mistress as first lady of the United States?”

      I also think Newt will win Florida.

      Don’t agree with this idea that Newt came in last or even had a bad debate,

      Ron Paul came off as a guy who doesn’t think he has any chance of winning or even finishing well in Florida and so is just having fun. He gave a good response on healthcare but perhaps his looniest response yet on talking to dictators without pre-conditions.

      (Actually I thought it was smart of Newt to be the only candidate to resist the urge to look at Ron Paul in a manner that clearly said “You sir, are insane” and, instead, to simply look forward when Paul was off the reservation and find areas of agreement when he made sense. )

      Santorum is beating a dead horse with his individual mandate stuff — particularly throwing it in off topic after the others had been being positive, he hit a bit of a jarring note.

      But did think he did some damage to Romney as the exchange continued.

      Watching Santorum — on the one hand he’s going negative when nobody is attacking him. It seems – on one level – like a cheap shot. But on another level — I have to admit it’s kinda smart. Romney and Newt have 2 choices — they can treat this as a 2 way race and only go after each other but be subjected to unrelenting fire from Santorum who can say that he’s the more bold contrast and the more consistent conservative without being called out on his own impure moments.

      Or they can attack him and risk both raising his stature and alienating his supporters.

      Think Newt is doing the right thing by not attacking Santorum — assuming he can pull off a win in Florida he should definitely be trying to woo his supporters.

      Torn about Santorum. Would like to see him drop out for Newt’s benefit (And, IMO the common conservative good) but, at the same time, would probably respect him a bit less if he did drop out now when he hasn’t fully tested his potential to become viable.

    • usedtobelib

      Do you know how many people have been rubbed the wrong way by Newt over the years? Do you know how his pettiness has left them cold?

      He’s the Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds of WA. Now, you can say, well, hey, those were great ball players, and they were, but baseball is, in large part, an individual sport. One can contribute to a victory by playing as an individual.

      Not so a President and a Presidency.

      THEY HATE HIM…and for good reasons, I am afraid.

  • usedtobelib

    ” Newt comes off bad when he’s mad; Mitt comes off good when he’s mad. Santorum’s always mad so with him it doesn’t count”…

  • septembergurl

    1. Paul

    2. Santorum

    3. Romney

    4. Wolfie

    5-10. Newt was there?

    • snowshooze

      And I am out of beer.

  • clowngirl

    For debating purposes they have something of an ideal set up. They get pretty much equal time and yet they don’t face any attacks.

    I actually thought Newt came off very well and did a good job highlighting his credentials in a way voters are likely to find compelling.

    Thought mentioning that Michael Reagan endorsed and is campaigning with him and that Nancy Reagan spoke of him and his Congressional majority taking up the torch that President Reagan took from Goldwater and not saying much else – was an extremely effective way to answer all these sudden attacks saying he wasn’t really so close to Reagan.

    Also thought he was effective in calling out Mitt Romney on his negative out of context ad.

    Apparently his grand kids always tell him to get “shorter”, “simpler” and that seems to really be working for him.

    When Romney talks it’s hard not to tune out because at least 80-90% of the time you’ve heard it before and often it’s half filler.

    Did think Romney gave a good answer on Israel and was surprised that he had a sense to not try and compete w/ Gingrich for the “Reagan mantle”

    Thought he sounded 100% full of it when claiming (again) not to know what’s in his ads (not even a super PAC ad, one from his official campaign) if he doesn’t know he should. The practice of pretending he has no control over things and dodging responsibility has become a pattern with Romney and it doesn’t look Presidential.

    And I don’t really agree that Romney looked more human — he was maybe not quite as annoying as usual – but he still has these over the top moments of mugging like a third rate ham actor – and I don’t buy this look he does when he’s trying to look hurt.

    So he was more animated but so much of it came off as amazingly fake.

    Also- in light of a certain photograph of Romney smiling while posing with hundred dollar bills – it would seem prudent to avoid things like vigorously nodding in cocky and enthusiastic agreement when Gingrich said that comparing his investments to Romney’s is like comparing a mouse to an elephant.

    Also thought he REALLY looked flustered when Santorum was attacking him on RomneyCare.

    But I admit to favoring Newt – just as you (Mr. Wolfe) wrote that you’d sooner take Romney over a legislator (unless I’m thinking of someone else – was it you that wrote “Still the Governors”) and to find his case by far the most compelling.

    Thought Santorum came off as way too negative — not giving enough positive reasons TO vote for him (though I did think he did some damage to Romney – probably to Newt’s benefit) he does come off as knowing his stuff but bringing up and exaggerating Newt’s past support for the individual mandate in every debate is really getting old.

    Also – back to Newt- I don’t see it as pandering to find honest areas of partial common ground w/ Ron Paul – that’s what the eventual nominee should be doing.

    • carolina

      Newt supporters won’t turn against him because of this debate.
      Romney is still ‘plastic’.
      The undecided folks are likely still undecided.
      Tea Party support for Newt could be the deciding factor……..

  • sethellis

    I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion about the key moments from this debate for years to come, but I feel like Gingrich’s weakest moment was the first lady question. Was it just me or did he basically say “all the candidate’s wives are great and I’m not going to necessarily say that mine would be better than any of the others”?

    If I said that in a debate my wife would slap me on the way off stage, and wouldn’t talk to me for a week.

    • The Grognard

      With all the hubbub about Newt’s ex-wives, I think he was trying to be extra, extra careful with this question. Its was a BS question put out there by Blitzer in the first place, and it was obvious that it was intended to make Newt uncomfortable given that he went to Paul for the first response. Paul’s answer showed this clearly when he stated he’d been married to his wife for 50+ years.

      This (personal baggage) is the biggest Achilles heal for Newt IMO. Its hard to carry the family values image when the candidate is on his 3rd marriage.

      I agree with you that Newt went too far trying to split the difference and say that all of the wives of the candidates would make fine First Ladies, but I think he knows that the subject of marriage is one he wants/needs to stay away from.

      • clowngirl

        It was a sneaky way of opening up the potential for a line of attack on Callista — not by actually attacking her but by suggesting that discussing the merits or faults of potential first ladies is now fair game.

        Unless a candidate’s wife is making controversial statements or wanting to take a super active role (a la Hillary Clinton) a wife who would take a more traditional role doesn’t need to be vetted and scrutinized.

        For the other candidates it was a fluff question and/or a chance to attack Newt (which IMO Ron Paul and Romney were both doing)

        Newt needed to protect his wife and in being gracious about the other wives and not saying Callista is better — didn’t buy into the pretext that the first ladies should be compared or that any of them would be less than good — I’d say he did what he needed to do.

        Actually, I think that question really backfired on Mitt Romney (which probably says something about my strong anti-Romney bias but)when he was talking about his wife having survived both MS AND breast cancer — two really serious diseases at least one of which can be very much stress related — all I could think was ” Mitt Romney must be incredibly hard to live with. He’s practically killing his wife”

        I think there’s actually some adage that if you want to know the quality of a man — look at his wife’s health. That doesn’t reflect well on Newt for his first marriages but we already knew he wasn’t a great husband then. It would reflect poorly on Romney in the present tense.

        T

    • txpat

      If he told everyone that she a classy lady and bring grace to the white house.
      He would have been blasted about his relationship with her while married to wife #2. I would guess he didn’t want draw any undo attention to her, or cause her any discomfort.

  • joayn

    Because New Hampshire doesn’t really count, he’s determined to win Florida by any means necessary. Loved the way Santorum took Mitt to the mat regarding Masscare. Made an excellent case against Mitt vs Obama. Santorum does exceptionally well when he let’s his lawyer out.

    Santorum was the winner tonight,

    • usedtobelib

      for Romney, yet that was not so.

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

      If we could ensure that we would two GOP senators, I would favor Lunar statehood.

  • usedtobelib

    any debate, either this primary season or in the general. I don’t suppose, however, that will happen.

  • hobiecat

    The blood will be on the hands of the RNC. Romney is a POS as was McCain, Dole etc They killed Perry and now Newt. We Need a Revolution

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

      I was for Pawlenty, Cain and Perry before they failed.

      • snowshooze

        Really.
        I suppose it is completely nuts to think he might unsuspend. But if this doesn’t do it, nothing will.

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

          it will mean that the GOP imploded. Newt is making Mitt better.

        • CarolT

          Shooze-Erick and others know what we do not. I read it here last week that the Perrys would have to go into debt. I wanted Rick to run and supported his campaign with with I could afford.
          I felt sick when Rick suspended his campaign, he ran because we were looking for one conservative Gov w/a good record. Rick would have to gain major $$ and another call for him to get back in,
          Unless we have a miracle, we are going to have MItt and I do not think he will win against Obama.

    • mboyle1988

      Perry killed Perry. Plain and simple. You cannot be nominated president of the United States, leader of the free world, if you cannot name ONE SCOTUS justice and you can’t remember the departments you want to cut. Perry came across as undisciplined, uninformed and unintelligent. It’s his own fault.

      “The Establishment” doesn’t have much power over the process. I’m not even sure who the Establishment is, to be honest. I think it’s typically used as a panacea of ills by those who like to whine about how life isn’t fair. Gingrich is a bad candidate. He was ridiculed on these boards as recently as September for being what he is, a Big Government Republican with no moral compass to speak of. This board has embraced him solely because there is an irrational hatred of Mitt Romney, and Gingrich emerged about a week ago as the last hope of beating Romney.

      • deVere

        fixed it.

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

        -5- on this sentiment.

        We are way overdoing the whole “establishment vs people” meme. We the Republican party electorate, decide, as primary voters. We and the establishment are in this together in a sense. They dont decide, voters decide.

        There is among some Paulite supporters, irrational conspiracy mongering about controlling the elections. Hogwash. If candidates lose, its because they didnt connect with voters.

    • usedtobelib

      enough of a man to understand that.

  • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

    tired and beaten up. Consider that when your own Party, fellow conservatives (even if only on paper) take to the national media and pummel you from all sides, that has to wear you down and demoralize you, no matter how strong you are. Politics is rough and dirty, we all know that. And some Republicans are delighting in the payback even though it took them 20 years to achieve it.

    Unless Romney for some reason implodes, or Gingrich can stage another unbelievable comeback, Romney’s going to take FL and so goes the nomination.

    Can Romney beat Obama? Despite the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, despite the Cayman’s and Bain, yes, I think he can. He was the most human I’ve seen him tonight. Ann must be working on him.

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

      colony on Saudi Arabia and then the Moon….Muslim Outreach mission?

    • likeaglove

      I mentioned this in another comment above, but someone said he hired Michelle Bachmann’s debate coach. That could account for the renewed vim and vigor of Mittbot (now Mittbot v 2.0). If that was the difference, he should lock that debate coach in the Mittmobile and give him some Bain stock to keep him on board. Mitt was markedly improved in this debate.

  • alredadams

    Once in forever has Romney risen above 30%. Even if he improves that number greatly there is a minimum 20% of the base who will do exactly as they did with McCain, stay home. If 20% of the base stays home OBAMA WINS!

    Hello, Karl your boy is going to lose. Santurom is a one trick pony who may be able to snooker in the national but he will never finish the primary.

    So, you can pick your loser or you ride the wild mouse. He talks a lot but if you look at what he did while in congress it was quite conservative. Ask Nancy.

  • tea4me

    Romney doesn’t know what’s in an ad he endorsed.
    Romney got skewered by Santorum on Romneycare
    Romney doesn’t think anyone should get angry about this.

    Yea…right.

    It was a bad night for Gingrich.

  • WillWong

    Being positioned between Santorum and Romney, I swear there were times when Newt seemed bewildered by the lobs between Santorum and Romney! But there os really no other option! Can you imagine Santorum right next to Romney!

  • texasref

    if Romney loses Florida, the race goes on to Super Tuesday, but if Romney wins Florida, that’s all she wrote?

    Newt just beat Mitt by over 12.6 points in South Carolina. Sheldon’s additional $5M will help. It’s closer than we think.

    If Newt is within 6 points then it’s on to Super Tuesday we go. If Newt manages a victory in FLORIDA, then Mitt is THROUGH. Expectations are through the roof for Romney, not Gingrich.

    I’ll concede to Romney if Newt loses Florida by 7 points or more. Otherwise, game on!

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

      … so it turns into a clean sweep of races in early feb if he keeps up the mo’.

      OTOH, the momentum has shifted so much, you may be right to question whether it would be over. Delegate-wise its the 1st inning.

      • pmb88

        It would depend how Romney wins florida. If the difference between romney and gingrich is below 10, it shows that the race is close and the that the inevitability of Mitt will become less likely.

        This is politics. The currents change so dramatically that a candidate can do well one day and bad the next.

  • tea4me

    No one else may have cared. But you can be all those latinos in Fla did when Romney doesn’t back off of granny being deported.

    And as nuts as it may sound to some…those who live around NASA definitely do like what Gingrich said.

    It was Romney who imploded tonight. One three major levels I listed above. Strange how so few seem to recognize this.

    • likeaglove

      Wow. We must’ve watched different debates. Newt sounded ridiculous in the exchange on illegal immigration. He kept going back to the same old canard about deporting grandma and grandpa. That’s the kind of nonsense we hear from Democrats. It’s appalling that a Republican would throw out such a ludicrous charge.

      At what point did ENFORCE THE FREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS become the radical position? If we elect Newt, we will get amnesty. Without saying that word, he all but stated as much in an interview this week with the Univision guy. That will be the death of the GOP.

      • tea4me

        Guess you did watch a different debate. Your hyperbole not withstanding…only the hard core want to deport every illegal. And only those who live in fantasy land think it could or would ever happen. Gingrich’s policy is perfectly rational…and will appeal to hispanic Republicans.

        • likeaglove

          “only the hard core want to deport every illegal.”

          You definitely didn’t watch this debate, because Romney SPECIFICALLY stated that he wouldn’t do this. You make it impossible for them to get a job — to get benefits. Many will go home on their own. They paid to get here. They can pay to get home. If you don’t think it can happen, ask the states that have passed stringent anti-illegal laws. I’ve read story after story after story in the pathetic MSM about poor John Q. Illegal packing up his car and moving to another state or moving back to his home country. I could give you a hundred articles proving this, but you’ve probably heard of Google. Educate yourself about it.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            do with those who did not self-deport? Being here in Alabama (and I support our law), I can attest to the fact that some have left our state, but they haven’t necessarily left the country. So what would you and Romney do to those who remain? There’s bound to be a few grandmas and grandpas in that group. Romney never answered that question, and I’d like to know.

          • likeaglove

            You keep tightening the screws. Pass more laws that make them feel unwelcome. Crack down further on businesses. Make some CEOs who refuse the follow the law do the perp walk. Start billing Mexico or other countries for services we pay out. Do the max of whatever you can pass into law. Do some workplace sweeps. Start going after no-match workers (those who use invalid SSNs). When the numbers are manageable and you’re sure of some that are still illegal, arrest them at their homes and deport them. At that point, the number will be much more manageable.

            That’s what I would do. Simply enforcing fully would be a good start. That’s something we haven’t yet tried. We know that NOT enforcing the law doesn’t work (go figure).

            Yes, some are leaving the country, but some are leaving for sanctuary (or more hospitable) states. That’s why we need a president who will enforce the laws using Justice and Homeland Security. Obama is suing states like Alabama because he claims they shouldn’t have immigration policies. However, he turns a blind eye to sanctuary states and cities. We need a president who will go enforce the laws across all countries. The states can only do so much.

            One other note: I would also work to improve our existing guest worker programs (not to greatly expand them, but to make them easier to use and remove any impediment to businesses who claim they’re too difficult to follow).

            There’s a TON that a president can do on this issue. We just haven’t had one who was willing to stand up to the interests that want cheap, illegal labor and future voters (Dems).

          • likeaglove

            “enforce the laws all across the country” — not “all countries”.

        • texasref

          nt

          • likeaglove

            “Jobs and Growth…
            for illegal aliens”

            Apparently, breaking the law is the path to success under Newt’s plan.

            Is nobody LISTENING to the guy?

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

        and in so doing has exposed the fact that he really is an insider DC person, because he is peddling the same bologna we got from GWB, amnesty supporters, etc.

        We the grassroots think its wrong and bad policy.

        “At what point did ENFORCE THE FREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS become the radical position? If we elect Newt, we will get amnesty. ”

        I agree. the 1986 amnesty was rampant with fraud. Surely once you declare an amnesty for anyone who has been here 20 years, we will suddenly find millions of people who were here since 1990.

        I find it to Gingrich’s detriment not his merit that he engaged in his-pandering and other forms of pandering in his campaigning.

        • tea4me

          What part of giving legal residence (not citizenship) to those deemed worthy by their own community becomes amnesty? There’s no freakin’ way we’re ever going to deport 10s of millions of people.

          And I am the grass roots. Gingrich played the winning hand with the 2nd largest republican constituency in the state.

          • likeaglove

            Newt’s TRUE position:

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/25/romney-gingrich-flip-flopper-self-deportation/

            “Fighting to curry favor with Florida?s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants”

            Also…

            “he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants who join the military or to those who have been in the U.S. between 20 and 25 years.”

            Oops. His “25 years” has now changed to “between 20 and 25 years.” What a turncoat.

            It’s not just “Grandma and Grandpa” who will be rewarded for the illegal behavior by Newt. Basically, everyone gets to stay. They get to keep their jobs (many of which could be done by unemployed Americans and legal immigrants — very few of them are picking fruits and vegetables)). They can continue pumping out kids who grow up to be the future of the Democratic Party.

            That’s a slap in the face to those who respect our laws and follow the rules. We already allow more LEGAL immigrants than any country in the world. And we allow more LEGAL immigrants from Mexico than from any other country. That’s enough. If someone doesn’t respect our laws, they should forfeit any benefits and be cut off in every possible way. If you think giving them amnesty (or Newt’s version of amnesty) will bring them into the GOP fold, you’re delusional. John McCain kissed illegal hindquarters with reckless abandon for years. He spit in the face of conservatives who disagreed. Did that win over Hispanics? No. He was trounced.

            Open your eyes.

        • likeaglove

          I can’t believe people aren’t calling Gingrich out on this. If we legalize 11 million (or 30 million or whatever) poor, uneducated illegals, the GOP is done. Done.

          Below is one of my favorite moments in Senate history. If only Jim DeMint was running for president…

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBije4ZNSd8

          • tea4me

            Just like the GOP was done after Reagan did it.

            Get out the NAZI like trains with boxcars full of illegals in it…being shipped south. That’s how to save the GOP.

            ridiculous

          • tea4me

            that’s the freakin’ answer! All the rest is pie in the sky

          • likeaglove

            He’s going to be the death of the GOP via his plan on illegal immigration. If you want that, then fine. I don’t.

            And don’t give me the Nazi nonsense. Grow up. That’s the kind of crap that is spouted on Daily Kos.

            As I said in another post, we already have the most generous LEGAL immigration system in the world. We have nothing to apologize for. It’s time to start enforcing our immigration laws and cut off the illegals. Newt won’t do that. He’ll stab us in the back on this issue the first chance he gets.

          • tea4me

            We’re DONE! The sky is falling! The GOP will never win another election!
            Seems to be working at least on a segment of Republican voters.

            Unless of course we can rid ourselves of every illegal in this country…we can’t be saved.

            LMAO!

          • tea4me

            …is you believe Romney is going to get it done for us.

          • tea4me

            Wasn’t Romney the governor there?

          • likeaglove

            You tell me how giving amnesty to millions of poor, uneducated illegals is going to save the GOP. McCain thought it would. He thought he was currying favor with the Hispanic community and that their fellow voting Hispanics would trip over themselves in their eagerness to get to the polls to to vote for McCain.

            How did that work out for him?

            (crickets)

            That’s what I thought.

          • tea4me

            NONE of the candidates have even given a sniff of a suggestion of giving amnesty to millions of poor, uneducated illigals. Only in your mind is this happening

          • tea4me

            You’re comparing a national electorate of predominantly Mexican democrats to a Florida constituency of Cuban republican.

            You simply lack rationality.

          • likeaglove

            You clearly HAVEN’T read it yet. No one will leave under Newt’s plan. They will be rewarded with some type of legal status for their blatant contempt for our laws.

            Spin it however you want, but that’s amnesty.

          • tea4me

            That’s your first mistake.

            But for arguments sake, let’s say you’re right. Every illegal gets amnesty. You find this a priority over Romney…who is on record for saying he won’t fully repeal Obamacare? And YOU think that’s the better trade off? That’s delusional! Now were stuck with millions upon millions of illegals, and we’re paying for their government provided free health care too. Officially!!!

          • likeaglove

            The article is from the Washington Times, not the New York Times. I didn’t realize that you CAN’T READ.

            W – a – s – h – i – n – g – t – o – n

            Not

            N – e – w Y – o – r – k

            There are literacy programs that you help you with your condition. At least very least, you can buy those hooked on phonics tapes. Maybe they can help you. Start with the section on the major American cities.

            Even if you’re struggling with reading, I’m assuming (hoping?) your ears work. If so, you can simply LISTEN TO NEWT’S OWN WORDS. Watch the video. The URL is listed above and can be found on this thing we call YouTube on the World Wide Web.

          • tea4me

            All the same to you liberal lovers

          • tea4me

            It’s the bane of the GOP. They live in this fantasy world where they develop fabricated projections of amnesty on Gingrich…while they fully ignore what truely IS reality. Which is Romney gave us OBAMACARE! And he’s STILL unapologetic for it.

            Their grand delusions compell them to blame Gingrich…but in truth…it’s these Mittwits who are destroying the GOP.

          • tea4me

            It’s the bane of the GOP. They live in this fantasy world where they develop fabricated projections of amnesty on Gingrich…while they fully ignore what truely IS reality. Which is Romney gave us OBAMACARE! And he’s STILL unapologetic for it.

            Their grand delusions compell them to blame Gingrich…but in truth…it’s these Mittwits who are destroying the GOP.

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

            The numbers who got amnesty was 4X the estimate because rampant fraud was used to get documentation.

            That will happen here as well. The ’20 year residence’ requirement is easy to assert and almost impossible to disprove. (Someone came here 12 years ago, they can just pretend they came 20 years ago and get amnesty. bingo.)

            Amnesty creates more fraud, more illegal immigration (for the wave that can now expect the next amnesty) etc.

            ONCE you have asserted a ‘no deportation, no prosecution’ policy, you have ALREADY given amnesty, you have ALREADY opened the borders.

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

            “Just like the GOP was done after Reagan did it.”

            Yes, the GOP in California was utterly destroyed once Clinton/Gore’s citizenship drive in 1996 put them over the top and added a million democrats. That same immigrant wave also caused many of the previous californians to LEAVE the state, making CA even more of a blue state.

            It’s GONE.

            Have another amnesty and we will lose Texas, Arizona, and Florida …. POOF, there goes the electability for any conservative Republican at the national level. Mitt Romney will be considered a right-winger in the political environment thus created.
            This is why Democrats are salivating for it.

            Why do people like you engage in nonsensical and hysterical BS about ‘nazi’ when all we are suggesting is to enforce the laws that are one the books?
            Is it really so wrong to enforce the law and send people to their home country if they are not here legally? What’s wrong with enforcing the law?

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    You deserve some sort of medal, I think.

    Anyways, I heard Santorum really took it to Romney on Romneycare. Good for him, but I wish it had come sooner. MUCH sooner. Wish Pawlenty had that kind of spine months ago. I wasn’t a big Pawlenty guy, but he had a golden opportunity way back then.

  • targus

    Romney will be the nominee unquestionably by the 1st of March. Now basing the big last debate of a state on who wins the state’s GOP primary in the latest trends, this time Florida’s primary will be won by Romney. Romney will have this “renewed” going forward. February is unequivocally noted to be Romney’s month anyways– absolutely no question like Maine and especially Michigan and some western states that Romney has been working for months that Gingrich has been doing very little there to date. By the time Super Tuesday comes in early March, Romney will have tons of mommentum and Gingrich will not be able to catch up. As of tonight, with a “okay” performance from Gingrich with Romney dominating him; the tide has now “permanently” changed for Romney’s GOP nomination. Tonight was Gingrich had to make a move, and he didn’t. Tactically, he failed on a strong debate, but stood his own regardless. So Romney has it now. Romney’s debate trainer that he now hired is indeed helping him and giving Gingrich a new challenge. I was even wondering what was going to happen even if Gingrich won Florida, since Romney has February in his pocket — but “this proves” Romney has it wrapped up tonight!

    • deVere

      No need for anyone to hyperventilate about it.

      Romney got blown out in South Carolina. If Romney wins Florida he is just back in the game.

      A majority of the Republican Party still dislikes Mitt Romney. We’d rather get a root canal than vote for Mitt.

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

        elects two Democrat senators.

      • avgjo

        Reading here, there and everywhere, I see much emotion and little reason. This is nice. Thank you, deVere.

    • lineholder

      with his comments about how top-down gov’t-mandated health insurance “isn’t worth getting angry about” Someone will probably have this up and running in some sort of ad by tomorrow. We’ll have to see what kind of impact it has.

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

        Newt is not much more reliable to cut government than Mitt. That’s the problem .

        • JSobieski

          in the sense that Romney has no interest in cutting anything. Romney will be a place holder President at best,

          Unfortunately, willingness to cut/take on bureaucracies is the ONLY advantage Newt has over Romney. Newt’s willingness to say anything is causing him to quickly catch up with Romney in terms of flip flops, although Romney is doing what he can stay the leader on that point.

          The willingness of both Romney and Newt to say things that are pretty much lies means that in debates with Obama, they will be crucified.

          Both have shown they are quite flexible in their principles, and willing to say anything at any time.

          I am officially switching from Newt to brokered convention. I am officially neutral, except that I am against all four candidates.

          • aesthete

            In keeping with my unbroken tradition of supporting losing candidates in the Republican primary…

          • JSobieski

            that way Perry would win, and Romney would go down in flames.

            I haven’t picked a primary winner since . . . . EVER

          • texastaxpayer

            Thompson and Perry are just my most recent disappointments. Persevere, the way I look at it one of three things is bound to happen.
            1. The “Conservatives” get their heads out of their but and actually support one of our own.
            2. Texas secession releases me from the stupidity of my cousins.
            3. Death frees me from the hell that is American politics.

            I am praying for one, working towards two and hoping I don’t have to wait for three.

          • JSobieski

            In 1992 I voted for operation chaos—I voted for Tsongas over Clinton in the D primary.

            In 1988, I was 4 weeks too young to vote.

          • aesthete

            Too young to vote in ’96.

            In make-believe world, I would love to see a Greater Republic of Texas secede peacefully from the rest of the US.

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

            Love Forbes.

            Of course, I was a Dem party man from 1984-2000 when I voted for all the Dems in the general and have been a GOP party man in voting for the Republicans from 2004-2010.

          • gbenton

            and it’s haunted me ever since. I was young and didn’t know anything beyond Bush’s violation of ‘no new taxes’ was unforgivable to me.

            Thereafter, everyone I liked lost.

            Kemp – I liked his supply side position, didn’t know much else.

            Forbes – Flat tax and I loved his column in Forbes

            Thompson in 08, yeah.

            So now I really feel like I owe Perry an apology for donating to his campaign… I think I’m cursed. I’d ad an ‘lol’ if I actually thought it was funny.

            GO Mitt? ha ha

          • texastaxpayer

            Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836.
            The Republic of Texas joined the union becoming the 28th state in 1845.
            January 1861 Texas seceeds as an independent republic.
            March 2nd 1861 Texas joins the confederacy.
            Although a state of peace was declared as existing between the United States and the other Southern States on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson did not issue a similar proclamation of peace between the U.S. and Texas until August 20, 1866.
            President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas on March 30, 1870.

            My point here is that “make believe” is a phrase that should be reserved to describe obama and his economic policies. I and many other Texans are working on petition drives to place independance on the ballot should Obama be reelected in the fall. You maybe surprised how quickly this becomes reality should the GOP fail to defeat obama.

          • dajeeps

            I voted Jack Kemp in ’88 (although he had already dropped out but was still on the ballot – couldn’t bring myself to vote Bush)
            I voted McCain in 2000 because he was the only one making a point out of controlling spending – which is what I wanted.
            And I voted McCain again in 2008 because the choice was him or Romney. Thompson was long gone, and so was Hunter.

            So I guess you could say my record is 1 for 4 in primaries, and my primary vote is 0-4 in the general.

            I think you all are on to something — maybe I should change my support to Romney instead so I can jinx him.

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

            you can probably see small measurements better than I (But business has picked up and I may soon be able to get new bifocals with money saved from giving up the Le Seuer peas for the generic brand, but I digress).

            Newt would do BIG things, but how that nets out in the size and scope of government vs Mitt’s likely very slow growth, I’m not impressed with. But yes, the possible upside is with Newt.

            This has come to down to character to me I guess, given the many negatives for both from a tea partier standpoint, but I think my conservatism has “matured” to be more receptive to “the possible” given the state of average American voters.

            I like Mitt but think its equally defensible to hate him and love or hate Newt.

            I do think Newt’s image and character are unduly risky given his negatives on policy.

            Now, if Brokered Convention became viable, it would probably mean that none of our candidates did a good job and that would bode ill. We need for one of these two (surely Santorum is toast) to come on and win big imho.

            But, if….I would want Paul Ryan.

          • JSobieski

            Given that axiom, we will not even get a reduction in the rate of spending increases unless Congress forces it on the President.

            This is what is known as the “long fade”

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

            eeent

          • aesthete

            is that these are not minute differences in the area of spending. Entitlements make up the majority of government spending, and discretionary spending less than 1/5. We have one candidate on record saying that he will not support entitlement reform, and endorsing only the principle of the Ryan plan, with none of the specifics. This candidate has no demonstrated ability of taking on drivers of growth, and no intention of doing anything about any sector of spending except some very marginal changes to discretionary spending. This candidate’s name is Mitt Romney. On the other hand, we have a candidate who’s been talking about entitlement reform for at least 20 years, and who has an actual record of reforming large government programs. This candidate is on record as a supporter of entitlement reform, and has plans to that effect. This candidate’s name is Newt Gingrich.

            If you don’t believe or support Gingrich? That’s fine, I don’t support him, either. If you actually think that Romney will try to cut entitlements despite a record and statements to the contrary, then that’s unrealistic, but fine. To say that there is essentially no difference between the two on spending and the debt crisis, however, is highly disingenuous: Newt is ready and willing to deal with 4 times as much of government spending as Romney, and more than 10 times the projected growth in government spending as Romney. That’s not a minor difference.

          • http://www.RightFace.us dkolonia

            These days people want Newt to have a “Newt moment” every stupid debate! That is not realistic. Reagan had “one” moment in NH and that was all he needed. Now we expect Newt to do that every debate. He did ok, which I know is not what we expect from him. We expect more. But everyone being so down on him is silly and dumb. He held his own…just missed some shots he could have scored on. Romney showed he can stand up more than we thought. He stepped up his game when he needed to.

          • JSobieski

            he won’t even say the word “Ryan” in a general election.

            I think Obama is more likely to address Medicare (by means testing it) than Romney is to do anything regarding Medicare

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

            Coburn et al…call me crazy.

          • romansdaughter

            I don’t trust either and will not vote for them in the primaries. I will pull the lever in the General just cause I can’t stand Obama but that is it. It does not mean that I think either Newt or Mitt are great. They are terrible candidates as far as I am concerned. So enjoy!

          • circlegranch

            and hand out his literature outside of early polling locations. The Daily Caller is carrying the story. www.dailycaller.com

            Reminds us of paid campaign workers in 2008……….

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

            the shame

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

            Especially ones that have more money than grassroots support.

            There was a local race where a candidate did that, I was working polls (for another race), and found out this candidate paid an exorbitant amount for hired workers, most of whom didnt know how to do politics since they were hired via a TEMP AGENCY, for every single polling location. It must have run thousands of dollars ….

            The candidate won 2-to-1.

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

            Can we all stop pretending that either one of these guys is head and shoulders above the other? Please. Yet, we have to make a choice. But by making a choice, those that make the opposite choice then attribute love and devotion of the choice to the other!

            They both suck! Picking one doesn’t mean that we think our choice doesn’t suck!

            Got it everyone…

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

            nteeee

          • acat

            And yes, they both suck.

            I prefer Romney’s executive experience to Newt’s legislative.

            I prefer Gingrich’s election record (including a nationwide win) to Romney’s pathetic loss to McCain. (and Romney’s inability to improve on his 2008 numbers scare me too)

            I trust Gingrich to shake up D.C. more than I trust Romney to streamline it.

            Mew

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

            psst…san
            to
            rum

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

            It’s like when I was given the choice between Huckabee and McCain, (by which time mcCain had it ‘in the bag’) … and I chose … “The articulate black man who can save America … Alan Keyes.”

            Pure protest vote.

            I can’t quite bring myself to be held responsible for inevitable Hindenberg of a general election fiasco that Newt will entail, and he is also is a total failure/wrong on immigration and has some other deviations of concern, but he would be a better conservative President than Romney.

            I was on the Newt bandwagon, but the combo of Newt’s ‘heartless’ comments and learning more about his other pandering has, in combo with his clear electability issues / baggage responses (like when I found out his last Thursday response was not honest), turned me off. I’m off the bandwagon.

            So I am jumping off that choice, and found peace and detachment in knowing that if I vote Santorum, I have a 1% chance of getting a better candidate, and a 99% chance of not being responsible for the candidate we do get and the head-banging-against-wall results that will ensue.

            This may frustrate some in the stop-Romney camp, and I’ll just respond that I think Santorum is worth stopping Romney with, but I’m not sure Newt is.

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

            This may frustrate some in the stop-Romney camp, and I?ll just respond that I think Santorum is worth stopping Romney with, but I?m not sure Newt is.

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

            More on how I get to a comfort with picking a guy who almost certainly cant win, I think other conservatives should be thinking the same:

            I wont vote RonPaul and I dont need to give Romney my vote as I cant support the guy who authored Romneycare, and I want a more conservative agenda than Romney offers.

            I’m looking for a conservative not-Romney and have bounced around a bit Pawlenty- undecided – Perry – undecided – Cain – undecided – Newt – undecided – Santorum – undecided – Newt – now back to Santorum …

            Texas picks late in the process. For all I know, I may have to rejigger that decision sometime between now and primary, and since I’ve done it a dozen times,
            I’m sure I can handle a few more shifts.

            While initially excited about the rise of Newt and his ability to challenge Romney, on his first and second rise, a serious look exposes quite a few flaws that give pause.

            More fundamentally, I’ve come to conclude that former Sen Rick Santorum is both more electable, more conservative, and would make a better leader than Newt.
            Santorum is more consistent, reliable, conservative and less prone to the baggage that makes Newt a disaster electorally with women, independents. Also, character does matter, and Santorum is a man of better character than Newt. I dont take away Newt’s accomplishments and great ideas in some areas, but once you go down the path of rationalizing behavior that you dont want to defend … well, I dont want the GOP to be accurately called a party of hypocrites, lets put it that way.

            I had been induced to put that aside as ‘only Newt could defeat Romney’ but I’m thinking these past few days (a) that’s not so and (b) not sure I care that much between Newt or Romney. It’s like they are both somewhat damaged goods in different ways.

            I dont want to compromise or hold my nose, I do that enough in november. I’m okay with picking a good candidate who cant win rather than picking the compromise ‘ that can win’, and have only minor discomfort on Santorum (SOPA), more issues wrt Gingrich. So, Santorum – for now.

            I’m in Texas, which picks late enough to ‘miss’ the real contest, so this may be all moot.

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

            then Cain, then Perry…but before I could go to Newt, he went after Bain. Still thinking if I should switch now from Mitt to Rick…

          • tngal

            Who moved my cheese is a classic spencer johnson book dealing with change and this year we’ve been through the wringer. The candidates change their positions, the election dates change, states change the game (VA), the debates are changing everything. There was hope the Tea Party was really going to effect some change this political season. And then there’s a whiff of a possible big change with a brokered convention. You’re doing better than many of GC. Some are still stuck on 4.

            1.Change Happens. (They Keep Moving The Cheese)
            2.Anticipate Change. (Get Ready For The Cheese To Move)
            3.Monitor Change. (Smell the Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old.)
            4.Adapt To Change Quickly. (The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese.)
            5.Change. (Move With The Cheese)
            6.Enjoy Change. (Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese)

        • lineholder

          Romney messed up tonight. Romneycare is based on the same socialized health care model on which O-care was established. O-care isn’t popular by any stretch of the imagination. And Romney comes at from an angle that it “isn’t worth getting angry over”?

          Someone will use it between now and Tuesday. We can pretty well count on that.

          • Wayne

            less sensationalism from the people that visit this site. One debate does not make the difference between winning and losing as Newt has proved time and again. I changed the channel when I realized that it was going to degenerate and had better things to do with my time.

            These people live on the national stage, they are not in any way like you and I. They’re just doing their best to convince us that they are. Clearly the political process in this country is more like a game show than a serious debate of the issues that are shaping our lives. And, one of the primary reasons more people of substance shun the limelight.

            I’m for Newt to the end. If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him, but only because I will have no choice then. Paul is the guy that keeps throwing the Constitution at us and we just shrug him off as a kook for the trouble. Romney is a progressive and yes you could make the same argument about Newt. Santorum will not beat Obama. Of the four on the stance only Newt and Romney have a chance to be the next President. If the choice of picking one or the other is going to be based on who has the best chance of beating Obama, I do not believe that we would be better off with Romney and Newt could beat Obama with a united party and conservatives behind him.

            If you’re a Romney supporter just say so and be done with it. This cannibalism of conservatives by other conservatives is sickening and does not bode well for the next 4 years. We’re going to drive away the independents and we will get precisely what we deserve.

            I just had to get that off my chest!

          • tea4me

            …is too many make their opinions on style rather than substance. Newt had an off night tonight. But no one can disect the debate points presented and determine Romney was the winner. He openly lied about not knowing of an attack ad he endorsed. Romney care got exposed like never before. HE thinks we shouldn’t get angry about it. And he somehow comes out the winner?

            This simply isn’t rational thinking. Of course if the voters fall for this meme…I guess it becomes reality.

            I’m one teaparty conservative who isn’t falling for it though.

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

            substance

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

            Newt is a self destruct machine and those putting their hopes in him are to be pitied.

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

            the deal.

          • WillWong

            Here is an alternative view!

            http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Florida-debate-primary/2012/01/27/id/425797

          • snowshooze

            Which is difficult to believe as Romney is the definition of uninspiring.

          • lineholder

            than I could have possibly imagined in a hundred years.

            When I made the comment above about someone using Romney’s statement that it “isn’t worth getting angry about”, I was thinking more along the lines of one of the other R candidates in this race. You know…images of the march on DC, the backroom deals that the Dems had to pull to get this boondoogle “deemed passed” into law, Nancy Pelosi saying “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”, IPAB and death panels….that sort of the thing.

            I didn’t even consider the kind of angle that the left might have or how they would use anything Romney said. I probably should have, and usually I’m a bit quicker on the uptake, but I wasn’t thinking about that part of it at the time.

            But today, NPR has come out with an article about how Romney has provided THE best defense for an individual mandate. Obama is quoting him on the campaign trail, using his comments about “free riders” on the system to justify O-care and to justify the mandate.

            Everything we’ve been fighting for is being marginalized right in front of eyes. The entire “right-wing extremists” spiel that the left has been using is likely to be taken with greater credibility now.

            Romney was so concerned about justifying his own actions in implementing a socialized health care model in Massachusetts that he didn’t stop to think about how what he was saying would fortify and strengthen the left’s position in implementing O-care in the first place.

            And now we have to break ground on this issue all over again instead riding a head-wind of public support behind us to dig up this hideous piece of legislation from the roots.

            I’m not a happy Conservative at the moment, Mike.

          • texastaxpayer

            I have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is only interested in his own ambitions with utter disregard for the ramifications of the tactics he uses to obtain them. From the very beginning Romney has distanced himself from a life long record that would suggest he is at best a moderate in his attempts clothe himself as a conservative. His PAC ads has been proven dishonest. Fact checks on many of his debate claims have been proven dishonest. He holds everyone and anyone else he can to fault for anything that can be remotely criticized in his background or record. The democratic legislature is to blame for his liberal policies. A blind trust manages his investments. He doesn’t know how much or even where his money is someone else manages that. So don’t expect Romney to care that he just handed Obama a loaded gun for the general election.

            “But Mitt Romney a conservative and member of your own party not only agreed with my plan but endorsed the individual mandate.” Is a line Obama is no doubt practising in his mirror right now.

            I think like so many of his questionable to say it lightly business practices demonstrate this is a character flaw in Mitt Romney. He only cares about himself and his ambitions. He will say anything, literally make it up on the spot if he has to to win the argument. Such as his claim he never did business with federal agencies like Medicare in the last debate. That was an outright lie. Research Damon Corporation and you will find that Mitt has quite a history of business dealings with both Medicare and Medicaid. I am sure Gamecock has another capitalism and freak market principles defence for this. I eagerly await it BTW. The bottom line, Romney only cares about today and how to get what he wants now. Tomorrow he will figure out what lies and overtures he needs to perform to get what he wants then. It is truly a sad day for us all that this man has so many people following him. I fear we are surely lost.
            P.S.
            Newts Pac put out some information regarding Mitt and his Damon days. It can be found here.
            http://www.mittsbloodmoney.com/

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

            via either a tax or mandate.

          • lineholder

            What we’ve had for years on end was creeping socialism. Obama has moved us much closer to becoming a hard-core socialistic society.

            Conservatives woke up, rallied together in opposition to O-care, fighting against the taxes of it…the imposition on our freedoms and liberties…the undermining of our Constitution…the interjection of the will government over the will of we the people. And we’ve had a plurality of public support on our side.

            Now, Obama has had what is being defined as the perfect defense for an individual mandate handed to him on a silver platter by Mitt Romney. He’s using to make it look like what the Dems did in all their back-alley unconstitutional big-government-over-reach procedural maneuvers was indeed in the best interest of the American people…that it was a noble and honorable thing to do. And that the American people should be grateful to them (and him) for doing it. And how the high and mighty members of the intelligentsia who really and truly understand the full magnitude of these grand policy schemes work (such as himself and Mr. Romney) really do know better how to define these for us, blah, blah, blah. Nose in the air and self-satisfied, smug look on his face the entire time.

            If he succeeds in convincing the American people that this is true, then the outcome is likely to be that we get Obama for a second term and America as we know it is gone.

            Oh, yeah, I’m angry at Romney right now. I’m so angry with him that I could (figuratively speaking) spit nails at the speed of a machine gun.

            Conservatives need to shift focus back to the economic issues and they need to go at it for all they are worth. Show how the types of policy positions and regulatory measures that have been and are being put into place by this admin (and will continue to be put into place at an accelerated rate if Obama wins a second term) have suppressed our economy, will continue to suppress our economy, and ultimately will cause us to go the way of Greece economically.

            I’m out of here for a while. I’m going to spend a few days working on recall for Walker’s campaign. At least what anger I’m experiencing at the moment will be channeled into something productive.

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

            cover and at what price or for free is what will destroy the private health ins industry and even if the mandate to buy a policy is declared unconstitutional or repealed, if the coverage mandates remain, we have solved nearly nothing.

            Because all the mandate is, is a tax by another name. I am against new taxes and/or fines and mandates. I want fundamental reform to get govt out of health care except for the truly needy, poor elderly etc.

          • lineholder

            All due to O-care. I’m not joking. It is exactly that bad.

            I could go into explanations and provide a butt-load of references to show that this true. But my heart just isn’t it today. Sorry.

            Over and out.

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

            save the references…they are in my previous columns!

      • usedtobelib

        I thought it was a perfect response to Rick Santorum’s ANGRY MAN persona. If there’s one real defect in his presentation, it’s not his passion, but his anger.

        He always angry and people don’t find that attractive in a President. It gives them no hope.

        Of course, the party our of power is angry so I realize that Santorum does indeed score with some voters, but not enough.

        Actually, I’ve watched Santorum enough to believe that were I to know him, I’d probably like him, but as a leader, he’s much too angry and emotional.

        • lineholder

          Paint Santorum as the “angry man” all you like. He actually did a relatively good job at presenting the facts about the consequences of socialized health care plans like Romneycare and Obamacare.

          Romney messed up tonight. People aren’t exactly excited about living within a national socialized health care system. As a matter of fact, the polls still show that a plurality of people are against it.

          How do you think they’re going to respond to hearing Romney say it “isn’t something worth getting angry about”?

          • gbenton

            Seems to me in the general that the more affable, optimistic, and charismatic candidate wins… Certainly this was true of Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41 is harder to sell, but definitely Reagan… JFK… and that’s as far as I can go.

            So Mitt’s ‘not worth getting angry’ comment taps into that – but… Mitt’s plastic, easily flustered, demeanor makes an uneasy fit with the affable, likeable guy you’d have a beer with test.

            What Santorum should have done, IMHO, is shout out to the country’s outrage at HOW Obamacare was passed and the audacity of the individual mandate, the over reach, and the lack of focus on jobs while Obama took the first two years to battle for health care while the economy burned.

            if he made himself the champion for the PEOPLE’s Anger, that would have deflected any ding from Mitt’s back hand.

            So… rise above the appearance of anger, yet be the champion of the country’s anger at failed government.

            Paul came off likeable… that’s what everyone commented on here… there is a lesson in that. Reagan did that masterfully. He knew how to express ‘government is the problem, not the solution’ and be all grandfatherly.

            The problem with this field is none of the candidates have that ‘beerable’ demeanor… and Obama can fake it at times.

            Newt pulled it off in the early debates… but he seems to have a hard time with the friendly fire and requires a way to bash the media,etc.

            Hey, if Mitt is the inevitable nominee, something I’ve dreaded all along, at least I’m encouraged by last night’s performance that he can be coached into a reasonable facsimile of a human being who could face off against a teleprompter free Obama in a debate.

            IMHO, Santorum drew blood with his breakdown of how Romneycare and Obamacare leave Mitt in a poor position to take on Obama, as Ben pointed out in The Transom this morning.

        • bluerose75

          You claim Santorum looked angry!! Laughable when he has to sit up on stage with Mitt who clearly is lying through his conceived phoniness over Romneycare. Here is a man like Rick who clearly sees the hypocritical and dubious nature of Mitt. Mitt claims by 3 to 1 people in Mass like his Romneycare but on Day 1 as President he will repeal Obamacare which is built off Romneycare!! I mean it is a joke!! How can Mitt supporters ignore this hypocrisy?? Simple they gloss over all his true liberal beliefs. There is NO WAY Mitt can defemnd himself in a debate with Obama on this issue. I can see the ads, the public perception and the dishonesty. Did Mitt really think his answer….I am different now and Obamacare cannot work on national level but okay in Mass would sell??

          Most people do not want Obamacare yet the true author of it Romney is hiding in the hills!!

          Santorum did the courageous and smart thing by pointing out the phoniness of the this deceiver in the suit!!

          Romney acted childish all night…he looked like he needed some Bran to clear out all the crap that is stored up in 2 or 3 or 4 personalities and positions!

          Good Job Rick!! And I also was not happy with Newt over any support for a mandate in the past!

          Watch out Rick…the Establishment in DC will do anything to hurt you over attacking Romney for his support for Romneycare!

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

            The Establishment can’t stop people from showing up to vote for tea partiers.

          • texastaxpayer

            Surely as an attorney you have some notion of how this works.

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

            We have hard task and it will take time.

          • texastaxpayer

            :)

          • jakeofalltrades

            And some never had it to begin with.

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

            soon after my conservative epiphany 10 years ago, I set a goal to become a conservative columnist in the MSM, to combat the lies of the left and am also a Precinct Committeeman. Work. Quit crying.

          • aj_0000

            Has been for the establishment and its surrogates (unfortunately including Fox News) to destroy anyone who is not Romney, while leaving Romney alone. They dig up and focus on whatever negatives they can find until that candidate is wrecked. Romney has never been subjected to that treatment. All of his opponents have.

          • aj_0000

            Which is why he’s still standing. And Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

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

            simply defend against the substantive claims of the attacks. What matters is the truth about our preferred candidates, and not that a certain group opposes them.. Its ok for people to be for or against certain candidates and for them to advance that desire in their work. That us tea partier conservatives don’t have as many people on TV and that they “should” and that its the fault of something called the establishment is not an argument. It is an excuse that puts the onus on those that disagree with us on the issues and that have jobs in certain positions. Want to hear more arguments for a Perry or Newt in the media? Get jobs in the media from the ground up and buy or start media.

            The best argument I have heard yet against both Newt and Mitt was last night by Santorum. Rick would be the most reliable to beat Obama on the issue of ObamaCare and to actually repeal it. Given Santorum’s better overall conservative record and current positions than Newt or Mitt, don’t us Romney (me) and Newt (you?) supporters need to reconsider before Florida? I think so and I am thinking and praying on this.

          • aj_0000

            I don’t live in Florida. So it doesn’t matter. Newt Gingrich has a long record of accomplishment. Despite all of the crap and outright lies thrown at his record, he has accomplished more for conservatism than anyone except Ronald Reagan. There is no better candidate in this election, and I’ve felt that way from the beginning. I’ve always had reservations about his electability, but the fact of the matter is, he has run an excellent campaign, and he has shown that he fight when necessary without going off the rails.

            Romney, on the other hand, has shown himself to be a dirty campaigner who solely uses negative attacks (mostly by surrogates) to clear the field, because he cannot run on his record in a Republican primary and win.

            Santorum is a decent guy, and his motives appear to be sincere. But he’s not on Newt’s level.

          • JSobieski

            I think Michigan is Romney’s for the taking however. In addition to his roots here, Michigan Republicans are precisely the kind of squishy triangulator types that generally love Romney.

          • trickamsterdam

            No, but once they got a candidate that wasn’t ignorant or tongue-tied, they flat out started to lie about him..

            Newt was never a conservative, Romney is (they actually say this) even though Newt has a lifetime ACU rating of 90% and Romney is a one-term right of center governor whose priciple achievement is RomneyCare.

            Newt was a failed Speaker (I guess compared to this one? Who gives Obama 2 trillion w/out strings and then literally says he got 98% of what he wanted?) even though we had balanced budgets and moved Clinton to the right, not the reverse. And even though part of why they had the majority, in the first place, was Newt.

            Newt never like Reagan, even though Nancy handed him the torch, and literally at nearly that exact time Romney was saying “Hey, I was an independent in the 80s, not part of that Reagan/Bush”.

            Romney defends Roe v Wade for literally 30 years, Newt has one slip about Paul Ryan in an interview, apologizes the next day, but somehow it’s the gospel truth of how he feels, but we believe Romney changed about a legal ruling because he saw a sonogram..

            I like your message of empowerment, but you underestimate the power of the media, and the power of money…now let me tell you this and remember it:

            Romney out-spends his opponents 4 – 1 and has 75% of the conservative media on his side and still struggles…what’s gonna happen when Obama is out-spending him 4-1 and has 75% of the MSM on his side?

            There’s still time for a brokered convention, if Newt can win or at least come razor close and people can suck it up and do things like vote for Paul in VA (think of it as Churchill and FDR allying w/ Stalin, except Ron Paul has a way better sense of humor, and Stalin never wanted to legalize weed).

            As for me, I’ve gone from thinking we could (and have) done a lot worse than Romney, to actually despising the man. He is a filthy, revolting liar and while I’ll pull the lever in the booth for him (like going to the bathroom, it is something disgusting you do in private) I’m not sending him one nickel and I usually give at least a few hundred.

            There’s still time to put the android back in the box, and ship him somewhere. The warranty’s not expired yet. But…SOON.

            BROKERED. CONVENTION. NOW. OR. OBAMA. AGAIN. SOON.

          • aesthete

            Conservatives work in excess to elect moderates, and party is fine with this and never tells them that this is against their interests. Now that they are talking about working hard for a brokered convention, party interests are concern trolling and discussing the infeasibility of the venture.

          • JSobieski

            …because the political energy of the tea party was meant to be dissipated without purpose?

            …because this is all part of “The Matrix” and we are all just pods serving as an energy source of AI machines?

            …because ideas that are fundamentally flawed at the federal level absolutely kick @$$ when implemented at the state level?

            …because resistance is futile?

            …because the train to Mad Max has already left the station?

          • JSobieski

            …because breaking the record of money spent per vote received is exactly the kind of financial efficiency we want to see in Washington

          • aesthete

            nt

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

            Santorum.. My choice of Mitt was based on him vs Newt and assuming that the tea partier agenda could be that of the GOP nominee was no longer possible. But Santorum may be so much more reliable now on many issues….more above and more later in a column but conversations and challenges with and by one at my pub of late require that my next one be:

            Why the poor should vote Republican.

          • aesthete

            It’s doubtful that either one will win outright. As of today, the only two candidates registered in all the states are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

            IMO, the best hope for a non-Romney/Paul is voting for Newt in all the states where he’s registered, and voting for Paul in all other states: that is the best chance for a brokered convention, IMO. It is a long shot, admittedly, but an attempt must be made if we’re to press the importance of our issues and to continue the conservative Reconquista of the Republican party.

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

            This phony claim about Newt and Santorum being off ’5 states’ or ‘most states’ or ‘cant get hundreds of delegates’ is getting alot of play among Ron Paul supporters. I’ve seen this bogus claim on more than one Ron Paul forum …

            It isnt true. Santorum made it on Illinois, and claims he is on 49 states, all but Virginia.

            Newt missed missouri and virginia. that’s it.

            Aesthete, tell your Paulbot friends they are engaging in false hopes.

          • aesthete

            Seeing as how those throngs of nefarious “Paulbot friends” you’ve concocted for me reside entirely in your imagination, I’d think you would have easier access to them than I would. :)

            As for the substantial point you made — candidates being registered in all the states — thank you for correcting my errant view. I would note, however, that both Newt and Santorum’s troubles getting on many state ballots so late is indicative of a lack of organization that could be fatal to their campaigns, considering that it is hatred for Romney/Paul and what they respectively stand for, rather than great love for Newt or Santorum, that is propelling their candidacy’s successes.

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

            No, YOU try going on there and informing them of obvious facts that their conspiratorial minds want to repel; it’s like kicking a fire ant hill. Fun only the first time. Thick skulls and thin skins are hard to inform.

            “hatred for Romney/Paul and what they respectively stand for, rather than great love for Newt or Santorum, that is propelling their candidacy?s successes.”

            Thanks for the most insanely stupid thing I’ve read all day. As if Santorum and newt dont have some incredibly great positive agenda ideas (they do), and wont be perfectly FINE if RonPaul campaign just up and disappeared (they would).
            Good night.

          • aesthete

            I’ll believe my lying eyes and lying ears, my observation of quick-shifting support on the part of self-described Tea Partiers and conservatives in polls, the general of conservative activist and political sites, and the anecdotal comments from my friends, all of which tell me that there is no great enthusiasm for any of our Presidential contenders. I bet the majority of people on Allahpundit, RedState, and Hot Air would back me up on this count.

            If that’s the most insanely stupid thing you’ve heard all day, you must not have watched any recaps of the debate.

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

            and have soft support in a fluid race, doesnt mean their candidacies (or support) are based on ‘hatred’.

            You are saying bizarre, ugly, meanspirited and demeaning things with no real basis in fact.

          • aesthete

            Good. Being a more curmudgeonly poster on RS was one of my New Years’ resolutions, after all :P

          • JSobieski

            We just came off of a mid-term election that was grounded in a grass roots conservative movement.

            After 2010, to end up here in 2012 with what we have is tremendously disappointing.

            The volatility of the race is based on something, and it isn’t the conclusion that all of our candidates are so awesome that people just can’t make up their minds.

            This may be our last chance to prevent a permanent shift to the left, and to end up with these three candidates (I am not saying the drop outs besides Perry were better) is a big let down.

            “Is this really the best we have?” is the refrain I hear from everyone I talk to from our side. The only satisfied folks I talk to are Obama supporters.

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

            smile

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

            But I think I could only advocate voting for Paul in certain states if I thought that Mitt was so bad on the issues that it is worth to take the risk of not having a nominee earn the nomination thru 50% + 1 votes from voters because the likely BC nominee would be a true tea partier. Still a close call but that is mainly from a personal standpoint of wanting to hang on to just a little idealism of voting for who one really believes. Not sure my conscious could deal with a vote for Paul!

          • JSobieski

            for 4 years in exchange for the world going to hell for 4 years.

            Too much of the world is freeloading off of us in the first place. The Europeans, South Koreans, and everyone else will just need to stand up or get run over.

            Liberals will see how their theories are utter crap in practice.

            Paul is so old that he would be replaced in 4 years anyway, and then the West would be far more appreciate of American patriotism.

          • aesthete

            A “time out” would definitely be beneficial for us, if not the rest of the world. Plus, one of the unintended benefits of Obama’s horrible foreign policy at the beginning of his term was that Pacific nations were beginning to form anti-China blocs — which will be necessary in containing China in the future, if it should come to that.

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

            but then to bring in a Ron Paul (‘ski, how dare you you draw me in to two impossible hypotheticals at once, a BC and a Paul presidency!) that would invite aggression….no way.

          • aesthete

            that I’ve given up on principled voting. Gingrich is unstable and has a simply abysmal personal life, Santorum is too big-government, anti-liberty, anti-immigration, and too late a convert to responsible governance, and Paul is both wrong on foreign policy and consorts with questionable elements on the broad-right periphery. I won’t restate the many and sundry reasons I’m opposed to Mitt Romney.

            IMO, the enormous pressure from the Tea Party/grassroots that would be brought to bear in the event of a brokered convention, as well as the common element between Gingrich and Paul — a mutually-reciprocated hatred from established powers in Washington, as well as a (very broad) commitment to entitlement reform — make the possible list of BC candidates more likely to be acceptable to the base. I’m honestly not sure what Santorum would do with his delegates if push came to shove on a BC, but his record as a Senator was indicative of fealty to established power brokers on the Hill. I would trust Gingrich to go for the BC route more than Santorum, simply because he’s that much of a vindictive jerk — whereas Santorum, IMO, would be more amenable to being talked out of it by the powers-that-be.

            Bonus question: would the powers-that-be prefer a BC, or not? I’m inclined to think no, but it’s an important question to ponder, since everyone is assuming that they wouldn’t be amenable to the prospect.

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

            “anti-immigrant” now. Puleeze. that is bizarre and inaccurate, the kind of short-hand that Marco Rubio correctly stated this week was despicable and offensive when used against Romney. It is likewise offensive here as well. Leftists use that term against conservative who just want to enforce the law.

            he supports LEGAL immigration:
            On January 13, 2011, Sen. Santorum said, “America needs to look for people who want to come here and be Americans and want to contribute to this country. And I’m not saying we bring over all the rocket scientists into this country, we need a variety of different people and skills, but we need to look at it from that perspective. Not just economically — that’s part of it.”
            Source: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Candidates-in-SC-Try-to-Convince-Local-GOP-Leaders/10737427095/

            During the November 22, 2011 GOP presidential debate, Sen. Santorum was asked his opinion regarding high-skilled immigration. He replied with the following ambiguous response: “Well, as the son of a legal immigrant to this country, I strongly believe in legal immigration and believe we are that shining city on the hill, that our future — if you look at all of the jobs that are being created in our economy today, a huge percentage of them come from the legal immigrants of this county — country who have innovated, who created great products, who created great companies and employed lots of people.”
            Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.06.html

            Santorum opposes amnesty:

            * During his time in the United States Senate, Sen. Santorum consistently voted against amnesties for illegal aliens (despite voting for the small amnesty for Cubans and Nicaraguans in 1997), earning an A+ grade in that category.
            * Sen. Santorum earned an A+ on stopping amnesties while in Congress. And he has challenged his own Catholic Church leaders as well as other candidates for supporting the legalization of millions of people who have broken immigration laws.
            https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/rick-santorum.html

            On his 2006 Senate reelection website, Sen. Santorum wrote: “Giving blanket amnesty, approving guest worker programs masked as amnesty, or charging nominal fines to become an American citizen mocks and demeans the sacrifices of legal immigrants. Illegally crossing our border and breaking our immigration laws must carry real and serious consequences.”
            Source: http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20060711215552/http://www.ricksantorum.com/Issues/Read.aspx?ID=6

            Santorum is supportive of E-verify, and wants to fix legal immigration to reduce chain migration but allow more skilled / employment immigration.

            Unless you are an open borders fanatic,his position is not only acceptable but what the country needs to be getting back on track and fixing the broken immigration system.

            The other cracks (“anti-liberty”) are likewise bizarre and wrong.

          • aesthete

            supports incredibly stringent enforcement of current (broken) immigration law, and supports no form of bureaucratic reform of any of the civil bureaucracies involved in the immigration process to make it easier or more efficient for us or said immigrants.

            He may not hate immigrants or hold any personal animus towards them — as a son of Italian immigrants, I should hope he doesn’t! — but all of his stated policies make it more difficult and less likely for prospective immigrants to come over here. There is a reason that he has received plaudits from Tom Tancredo and Mark Krikorean, and it’s not because either of them suddenly started believing that immigration is the key to the US’ future success. If you agree with those gentlemen, great. I don’t — I think we need a flexible and efficient market of labor, that current immigration law makes it very difficult to achieve this, that we will need lots of legal immigration to make up for and prevent new illegals, and that immigrants and a culture receptive to same are what makes America great, not nativist rubbish of the sort peddled by Krikorean and indulged by some in the party.

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

            “He may not hate immigrants or hold any personal animus towards them”

            More accurately ..

            He DOES not hate immigrants or hold any personal animus towards them, as you have shown zero evidence for that, and assertions that suggests he does are inflammatory and defamatory.

            “supports incredibly stringent enforcement of current (broken) immigration law”

            “incredibly stringent”? Really? Not just ‘stringent’. Like would you oppose ‘incredibly stringent’ enforcement of rape law? shoplifting? or white collar crime? He supports enforcement. period. our NON-enforced immigration law needs enforcement. Obviously. It’s the most broken law we have.

            I can assure you of one thing – 70% of Americans WANT the immigration laws we have properly enforced. Santorum’s position if its that, is quite popular.

            “, and supports no form of bureaucratic reform of any of the civil bureaucracies involved in the immigration process to make it easier or more efficient for us or said immigrants.”

            Chain migration is clogging the system, and he wants to reduce and streamline that. He supports private alternatives to e-verify. Enforcement will clean up our broken system as well. Your statement makes no sense because the many levels of review is what makes the system clogged up. As does the 90+ different visas, but the ‘open borders’ amnesty proposals do NOTHING to fix legal immigration and, as they did in 1986 and after, will certainly make the system MORE broken, by overloading it with millions of applicants for adjustments, many of them based on fraud.

            If you are wanting skilled legal immigrants to work for you, you should OPPOSE these amnesty ideas, as they will just destroy the workability of the legal immigration system. It will melt down.

            “I think we need a flexible and efficient market of labor, that current immigration law makes it very difficult to achieve this”

            that is because chain migration takes up the majority of the immigration slots … and we limit employment visas to compensate. End chain migration and you can fix that…

            “, that we will need lots of legal immigration to make up for and prevent new illegals,”

            We allow 1 million legal immigrants to come into the country each year. It is bogus and false to claim you need MORE immigration when we are the most generous nation on earch when it comes to legal immigration. These levels are MORE than adequate for an economy barely producing 1 million jobs per year and with 24 million unemployed, under-employed and out-of-workforce adults. If you want MORE employment-based immigration, you should be supporting Santorum not defaming him, since his indications are in favor of that shift.

            Your defamation of immigration policy expert Krikorian as a ‘nativist’ is duly noted. Just because you don’t agree with someone, you dont HAVE to use the language of leftwing PC to defame or tarnish them. Yeah, if you freak out with that kind of inflammatory language you just might be an open borders pro-amnesty fanatic after all.

          • aesthete

            Mark Krikorian’s entire existence at CIS and National Review has been to promote massive changes in our economy, immigration law, and society with the express purpose of dramatically lowering immigration. He has promoted discouragement of inexpensive, labor-intensive forms of work in all sectors of the economy, a bill which times out immigration (with the exception of ~10K asylum-seekers), subsidies for research into capital-intensive processes, and an immigration reform admitting only immediate family and ~25K skilled immigrants (far less than we’re currently admitting), with basically no recourse for all other immigrants. He makes sweeping generalizations about immigrant groups — such as Southeast Asian immigrant groups being unpatriotic, or Hispanic immigrants being violent, as cultural characteristics — based on cherry-picked data. All of that is Nativism 101. If you like all that stuff, that’s fine — you’re not necessarily a racist, but you are a nativist — and so is Krikorian.

            “It is bogus and false to claim you need MORE immigration when we are the most generous nation on earch when it comes to legal immigration.”

            [Citation needed]

            The form and number of immigrants needed is a function of what the labor market looks like, not our relative generosity. For the record, we are around the middle of the pack in the OECD nations in terms of per-capita immigration — our northern neighbor is beating us on that front, as are others in the Western world. If an immigrant can find employment, then that immigrant is value-adding and should be allowed to continue his employment in the US, all else being equal. If for whatever reason, this immigrant must leave (because he is an illegal, for instance) and the labor market otherwise remains unchanged, we should allow a legal immigrant to take this fellow’s place, as the previous immigrant was quite clearly providing a benefit to his employer.

            “If you are wanting skilled legal immigrants to work for you”

            I want skilled and unskilled immigrants alike to work for me, if they do a better job than their American counterparts.

            “These levels are MORE than adequate for an economy barely producing 1 million jobs per year and with 24 million unemployed”

            There isn’t a set number of jobs that an economy can produce, and mutually-beneficial, voluntary exchanges (like an employer hiring an immigrant) create jobs that would not otherwise exist. People also aren’t fungible to the extent that seems to be implied here: many of those unemployed are unwilling or unable to work the jobs that immigrants are currently working at the wages that would be offered and the productivity level that would be demanded. Tennessee is currently experiencing some of the problems associated with locking a large part of its labor force out of a market that found their services useful.

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

            just saying

    • clintonformccain

      Virginia?

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    regardless of who wins, the nominee will be better for the experience of coming under fire.

    • JSobieski

      as substantially as the quality and substance of the debates falls further and further into the toilet

      Topics that are almost never addressed anymore
      What would you cut?
      Entitlement reform?
      How to reduce regulatory burdens?

  • Adjoran

    and scrupulously avoided attacking any opponent. Since then, he won two debates largely on two separate moments: his takedown of Juan Williams and his rebuke of John King (using what he now admits was a lie, that he had offered witnesses to ABC to counter his ex).

    Other than that, there has not been ANY indication that he would “mop the floor with Obama” at all. If anything, he looks like a likely debate loser when the seriousness of the real thing sets in, his complaints will be made to appear as angry evasions by the moderators then.

    The entire sad story is this: the conservative base isn’t satisfied with Romney’s conservative credentials, many don’t trust him at all. The spikes of support for one after another of the “Not Romney” candidates demonstrates this as Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich (not to dismiss Santorum in Iowa) each surged in turn, only to fade under scrutiny.

    Were it not so, Gingrich would never be considered a serious candidate. Like Cain, he was surprised to find himself in or near the top tier. Both sincerely wanted to help the country and advance their ideas, but also to hype book sales and speaking fees going forward with free debate advertising.

    Cain sank under the weight of a few allegations of inappropriate conduct and possibly one affair, through which he remained married to his wife. Gingrich prospers with many more affairs, two of which led to him abandoning wives for new ones. (If you haven’t heard of the others, don’t worry: if he wins the nomination, you WILL).

    None of which makes sense in any rational universe. Beam me up, Scottie – no intelligent life down here.

  • formotioncreative

    http://www.naplesnews.com/photos/galleries/2012/jan/24/newt-gingrich-naples/218345/#section_header

  • bluerose75

    It is now known that Mitt packed the audience with his supporters in JAX which just happens to be the city where Romney’s Florida election headquarters is based. What a surprise…back the house with bias supporters, try to act tough and then win on showmanship….lets see that with a neutral audience Mitt?

    Rush slammed Romneycare today and it was just pathetic when Greta just a few moments ago at that clueless Pam Bondi on trying to decipher the difference between Romnaycare and Obamacare. She tried in vein like Romney to say one is state vs national. Greta made clear though that Romneycare increased health care premiuns, did receive federal subsidies and that a mandate is a mandate. Bondi, who admitted right before she went on with Greta had a call from Mitt, was a joke.

    Greta nailed her as well when she mentioned Bill McCollum, the ex-Attorney General for Florida, and the man who filed the lawsuit against Obama over Obamacare for its unconstitutionality, is Newt’s Co-Chair for his Florida campaign. Bondi is no more than trying to further her political career and she was exposed. She has been asked by Mitt to sit on his council for healthcare. What a joke!

    Good job Rush!! Please keep exposing the frauds in the Romney Campaign!

  • bluerose75

    Checkout breaking story on Newsmax, the Fraud in Chief, denied earlier that Bain Capital did not any work with Medicare and Medicaid. Oops Mitt but your Bain Capital’s Damon Corp pleaded guilty and paid over 119 million dollars in fines due to the fraud committed by Damon Corp controlled by Bain Capital!! The largest ever at the time in Mass. Another lie and distortion by a man that will say or do anything to get elected. Boy he is Obama’s twin!!

    • lineholder

      out on this called “Blood Money”. I watched it this evening. It was posted at the website of a radio station in Florida. Here’s the site address if you’re interested

      http://www.wbobradio.com/2012/01/27/romney-attacked-over-medicare-settlement-2/

      And here’s the one-minute trailer ad for the documentary

      • snowshooze

        Old news, but I love it put to the little screen…