January 18th, 2012

Does Newt really think…

he’d do any better against Obama?

And if so, why? Multiple “yes’s” and “no’s” are allowed here:

—because Newt’s a non-flip-floppy conservative?
—because of Newt’s persuasive abilities?
—because Newt’s such a charismatic guy?
—because of Newt’s stellar record as a legislator?
—because of Newt’s personal integrity?
—because of Newt’s humility?
—because of Newt’s financial history?

86 Responses to “Does Newt really think…”

  1. gcotharn Says:

    —because Newt’s a non-flip-floppy conservative?

    —because of Newt’s persuasive abilities?

    —because Newt’s such a charismatic guy?

    —because of Newt’s stellar record as a legislator?

    —because of Newt’s personal integrity?

    —because of Newt’s humility?
    Not relevant

    —because of Newt’s financial history?
    Is this as reference to Newt’s book deal?

  2. Pat Says:

    We have Mitt Romneycare, Rick Earmarks, Newt Crazysmart, Ron NukeIsrael, or Rick Stumblemouth. Most of them beat Obamination, but not by much.

    Mitt’s problem is that he will be labelled as a rich Wall Street banker and the left has already started battlefield preparation to make that label tick. OWS is the unions’ contribution.

    He also has Romneycare, and he still refuses to disavow it. That takes a huge weapon off the table. All Obama has to do is say Obamacare is bsed on Romnycare, and Romney is playing defense.

    Newt is better on both issues, but not by much. Plus, he has baggage. On the other hand, he has already been demonized by the left and they can’t inflict much more damage.

    To my mind, Perry would be the best candidate, but his early debate performances killed his chances. Bad luck that he was till suffering from recent back surgery.

    Santorum doesn’t have the chops for the job and Paul is nuts on defense.

    Looks like we are still in a heap of trouble.

  3. T Says:

    Neoneocon, respectfully, I sense some sarcasm in the choices you’ve given us above. Even Newt’s best characteristic, his legislative record, is not “stellar”; I offer that it is damned good, however.

    Those choices aside, here’s what I like about Newt. He doesn’t cow-tow to the liberal media or the progressive left. He redefines their attack in his own terms and throws their complaints right back at them (see Scott Pelley’s and Juan Williams’ interactions with Newt). Thus, he leaves them mostly tongue-tied because they’re not used to actually having to debate an issue on a factual basis. He does this unapologetically.

    I think Newt also defines conservatism most clearly and also unapologetically as he did in response to Juan William’s questions the other night. Newt’s appearance is that of an active majority conservatism looking to restore America, not a passive conservatism looking to react as a minority view to the progressive left (as has been for the last 80 years).

    No less that Thomas Sowell has voiced support for Newt noting that he has a record of engineering the first Republican takeover of the house in 40 years and engineering balanced budgets (with a Dem president). Sowell notes that voting for someone for president is quite different than voting for someone for “saint.”

    All that aside, though, Newt comes off as cranky. IMO that’s why his attack ads against Romney don’t work and Romney’s do. Romney comes off as bland, and when Romney attacks it’s something of note; Newt is known as cranky, and when Newt attacks Romney, it raises the issue that the “old Newt” has returned.

    The real question, which you ask, is can Newt draw the necessary votes to win a general election? I don’t presume to know, but I offer that 47% of voters did NOT vote for Obama in 2008 when he had NO record; I can’t believe that any of them would vote for him now. If true, the Republican nominee may not face as great a hurdle as the punditocracy thinks. Me, I’m voting ABO because the policies and lack of character of the Obama administration are many levels of magnitude worse than any flaw in any of the Republican contenders. This is not a race one can “sit out.”

    (Somewhat off topic, but the site http://www.270towin.com has an interactive voting map that commenters might like to reference to test their own hypotheses)

  4. gcotharn Says:

    Also: in this comment section, when references have been made to the Romney Campaign’s attacks against Newt in Iowa, then … fair questions have been raised as to what examples, exactly, constituted Romney Campaign attacks against Newt. Specifics have never been proffered.

    However, now, in South Carolina, we see a new Romney offensive being mounted against Newt (for example: Molinari), and the offensive is representative of what happened in Iowa (for example: Coburn): Newt is accused – overtly and covertly, blatantly and through innuendo and whispers – of being unstable.

    And, I say: fine. No problem. Politics is a big boy game. If Newt cannot overcome, then he will not deserve the nomination.

    However, I note a double standard on the part of Romney supporters in D.C., in media, and on blogs: Romney supporters seemingly never noticed Romney’s (and friends) concerted, coordinated, successful Iowa efforts to denigrate Newt; yet Romney supporters squealed, loudly loudly LOUDLY LOUDLY, when Newt fought back by raising legitimate questions about Romney’s business ethics.

    Maybe the double standard is good politics. I am only saying: it exists, and it is a factor in this race, and MSM helps it along … b/c MSM wants Romney as the nominee.

  5. davisbr Says:

    …I think neo, that you missed the most obvious argument:

    Newt has an ability to debate – to respond instantly, to think on his feet – that few others seem, umm, to very, er practiced at.

    The times we’ve seen Obama without his teleprompter puts him in the “others” column.

    My gut feeling (along with paying attention for years) is that Newt would absolutely destroy Obama AND Obama’s teleprompter in any kind of public forum.

    And Newt’s negatives are no worse than Romney’s …well, to those of us in the None of the Above camp (but whom are still ABO voters, and will be voting against Obama in the fall, regardless of the primary outcome).

    Does that trump (pun intended) everything else?


  6. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Romney–who, now that I think of it, reminds me of the immaculately groomed, pin stripe suited “bank officer” with the strained and phony smile who is not likely to give you the loan (and will sanitize anything you might have touched when you leave)– and is basically just not tough enough, too well mannered. He won’t disturb things, make a “fuss, or be impolite, and he will wait his turn in line; he lacks the guts and the instincts, he jus ain’t got it.

    On the other hand, I suspect that rumpled, ol Newt knows his way around an intellectual lead pipe or a pair of brass knuckles, and he is exactly who we need to take down Obama, who–you can be sure–will use every advantage, every dirty and underhanded trick in the book to stay in power. so that he can continue to “Transform” America beyond recognition, and likely beyond saving.

    Look, Democrats have been relying on and taking advantage of Republican’s good manners, squeamishness, and general “niceness” for ages, betting–and being successful in that bet–that their Republican opponents would be too “civilized” and decorous to bring up “uncomfortable” things, and would not want to be perceived as being “mean,” and they have been right–see John McCain.

    We need a street fighter to fight what is certainly going to be a dirty, no holds barred street brawl of a general election–see SEIU, ACORN, Union goons, Holder knocking down voter ID requirements, and the Occupy crowd for starters–not a boardroom type who doesn’t know he way around the dangerous neighborhood, and certainly doesn’t want to get his suit messed up, his shoes scuffed, or–heavens forbid- bruised knuckles and a spot or two of-blood on his shirt.

  7. T Says:


    I agree with you, although Krauthammer recently made the point that presidential debates do not influence voting as much as people think. He may be right about that.

    I suggest that the real question is what kind of campaign would Newt or Romney run? We already know that the Dems will savage the Republican nominee personally. Do either of these candidates have the organization to successfully deal with that? Newt can personally–re-frame the issue in his own terms–but that’s quite different than having a campaign organization that can do the same.

  8. T Says:

    Wolla Dalbo,

    Succinctly stated. I agree that Newt is, in fact, a street fighter. I personally have no problem with that, but again, the real question is can Newt draw more votes than he repels?

  9. SteveH Says:

    I think the whole issue comes down to how much in your face conservative medicine will voters accept. The conventional wisdom thus far seems to be not very much.

    Newt would probably be more of what the country needs. But elections are decided by what voters want.

  10. foxmarks Says:

    Suggested campaign slogans–

    Newt Romney, not your father’s conservative Republican!

    Newt Romney, blurring the lines of conservative principle.

    Gingrich can lay out a better argument. The good Newt is actually good. His nasty side is a handicap to leadership. But an enormous benefit as VP.

    I say Gingrich would do better against Barry. Gingrich has human flaws and can occasionally connect with John Q. Voter. Romney will be crucified for his wealth and his heritage. He lacks ordinary humanity (unless you see him in person?)

    But anybody can beat Obama. I just saw a FB post by one of my Progressive pallys calling those who still support Obama “O-pologists”. Awesome.

    Without the enthusiastic Progs, all Barry has behind him is Wall Street’s money.

  11. M J R Says:

    I’m sure this sentiment has been voiced here before, but . . .

    Gingrich will out-debate Obama easily, with half his brain tied behind his back. But I have serious doubts that he can prevail in the general election.

    I’d rather go with my chances of winning the election and ridding ourselves of Obama, than having the pleasure of watching Obama bloodied in debates, but getting the last laugh in November.

    (Remember, once he’s no longer subject to reelection, there’s no telling what manner of (often irreversible) wonderfulness he’ll foist on us.)

    Time to be damn sober about it all.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    foxmarks: I think you’re wrong on several counts:

    (1) Gingrich is way too nasty and pedantic to connect with many John Q. Voters who aren’t already quite conservative,

    (2) Almost no one trusts the “good Newt” will last for any significant amount of time.

    (2) I don’t think Obama’s chances in the general are nearly as poor as you think. I have very serious doubts about the chances of any of the Republican contenders against him in the general. I agree that Obama is pretty weak, but I think they are even weaker.

    In one way Gingrich and Romney have opposite and perhaps equal problems, and that is on the issue of voter motivation. A Gingrich candidacy might energize the conservative base to come out and vote but it would also be likely to motivate the disaffected liberal base to do the same in protest and come out and vote for Obama. Romney might motivate the disaffected conservative base to stay home, but the liberals who don’t like Obama any more would also be more likely to stay home if Romney’s the candidate.

  13. neo-neocon Says:

    Wolla Dalbo:

    I agree that Newt’s a street fighter. I wish Romney had more of that in him, because I agree that it’s needed.

    The problem is that “we” (i.e. conservatives) might need a street fighter—but Newt is, unfortunately, one of the worst candidates I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, IMHO, for everyone but true-blue (true-red?) conservatives. Put bluntly, he is a singularly unattractive candidate. I’m not just talking about physically, although that’s part of it.

    Most Americans are not political junkies, unlike political bloggers and commenters at political blogs. I know; I spent most of my life as a typical only-somewhat-interested American voter. My observation is that people vote at least 75% with their guts, on impressions they have of the candidates. Romney and Gingrich both are unfortunate in that regard, in almost entirely different ways. Romney is bland and goodlooking, and he doesn’t seem to have much fire in the belly or much conviction. Gingrich is quite different, but his personality is offputting to most people who are not already in his camp, and when I say “offputting” I mean it in the most forceful way possible. He repels people on a visceral level. At least, that’s my observation.

    The only other president in my memory who won despite a personally repellent quality (although of a somewhat different type) was Nixon. Americans like to vote for people who seem likable. For neither Romney nor Gingrich is that a strong suit, but Gingrich is the more unlikable. Perhaps not to you or to many of the readers of this blog, to a lot of people.

    I don’t have time to look up the unfavorable ratings, but Newt’s have long been higher than Romney’s. That could change, of course—Romney’s could rise, but I doubt Newt’s could fall. They’ve been well-earned over the years.

  14. Mr. Frank Says:

    There are lots of people on food stamps, unemployed, in debt, homeless or out of the labor market who were not that way for the last election. They will be vulnerable to the promises of the nanny state. The Republican candidate is going to have to be non threatening.

  15. foxmarks Says:

    neo: My opinions are not as strong as you take them. At least on this topic…

    Newt can *occasionally* connect. If non-conservatives ever saw that Iowa family forum, they would be surprised to discover his likable side.

    I, for once, am with the majority in believing the Good Newt is so transitory as to be ephemeral. But if he was the GOP nominee, people would be convincing themselves Good Newt was real.

    I don’t think Obama’s chances are poor. He has the incumbency power. He now has more Presidential experience than all the other candidates combined. I merely say he is quite defeatable, so much so that any of these GOPers could do it once they got the endorsement and the strength of party machinery behind them.

    A Romney-Gingrich ticket would be great fun. It might even win without the Ron Paul faction’s support. If it weren’t for Newt’s ego, the kingdom would be restored…

  16. neo-neocon Says:

    davisbr: no, I didn’t miss that. Maybe it wasn’t completely clear, but in my head I had included debate performance in the phrase “persuasive abilities.”

    And I don’t think it matters at all, for reasons I’ve stated in some of my comments in the thread here, above. Newt’s negatives are higher than Romney’s at the moment, too (see my most recent comment), and although Romney’s negatives could increase I doubt Newt’s will decrease (and they could increase, as well).

    I also don’t think the substance of debates matters as much as how people perceive the candidates as whole in debates, including things such as demeanor, physical attractiveness, whether the person sweats (remember Nixon/Kennedy and the radio/TV dichotomy?), tone of voice, and all of those hard-to-define gut impressions on which I think Newt fails to appeal to anyone but die-hard conservatives.

  17. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    A sharp upswing for Newt in a major poll was reported just this morning, and already the MSM and various liberal outlets have a barrage of at least a half dozen articles critical of Newt out that–for me–demonstrate just how frightened they are of Newt becoming the Republican nominee.

    According to many reports the Democrats have been gearing all of their campaign strategy around the idea that Mitt–who they believe they can more easily defeat–will be the Republican nominee who they will face, and for that reason have been generally throttling back and muting their criticism of him, so that he can have a better chance of becoming nominated, and then, they will unload on Romney with both barrels.

    In the case of Newt, they have to destroy him now, to clear the way for the victory of their preferred opponent, the weaker Romney.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    Wolla Dalbo: I think that argument is wishful thinking.

    Don’t get me wrong: Romney is a weak candidate whom the Democrats wouldn’t mind facing. But Newt is also a weak candidate whom the Democrats wouldn’t mind facing. It’s all good news for them.

    I’ve certainly never said Romney’s any shoe-in. But it’s a big error, I believe, to think Newt is either. I happen to think that signs are that Romney would be a little less weak a candidate than Newt, in completely different ways and for completely different reasons. But I think Obama has a very good chance against either of them.

    Sorry to be so depressing, but that’s how I see it.

  19. expat Says:

    It could be that after a year of all the infighting and name calling, the voters will be so tired of it that they want quiet competence. While we go on and on about the candidates’ records and ideological purity, we aren’t attacking Obama on the pipeline. He is trying to move into the middle of the road uniter who will get things done, ie, restructuring of Commerce. Republicans had better get their acts together and focus on Obama. The line should be, How dumb does he think we are?

  20. Bonny Kate Says:

    Because he read John McCain’s research file on Mitt and knows the guy is a skel.

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    foxmarks: ooo, Romney-Gingrich would be fun! Doubt it will happen, though.

    And if you look above at my most recent comment above, you’ll see that I agree with you that Obama won’t be easy to beat.

  22. Sara Says:

    I like Newt, he makes me laugh, I yell out “right on” during his debate performances. But, after his meltdown and temper tantrum coming out of Iowa, I’ve concluded that I want a more stable individual in the Oval Office. Also, we don’t need a debater-in-chief we need someone who can govern and is a proven administrator. Newt couldn’t even keep Congress in line when he was Speaker and those who worked with him know how volatile he can be.

    I think those who think Romney is weak, just hasn’t paid attention or doesn’t know much about him. And why should he disavow Romneycare? I don’t get this hang up. The people polled it favorably at 61% in MA, it is designed for a single state and Romney has said from Day One that neither the Affordable Care Plan of MA, or any other individual state plan can or should be forced as a one size fits all for the whole country. He isn’t ashamed of getting the best deal he could out of an 85% dem legislature to provide something the constituents of his state were clambering for.

    Newt left Congress in shame because of his ethics problems, pretty much forced out by his own party. Now, just today, we find out that his 30 min. documentary is all bogus. One man who was highlighted as being disgruntled at Bain’s treatment of his company is speaking out and he is mad. He says that creative editing completely changed the meaning of his words. Not only is/was he not disgruntled at Bain, but during their tenure, he had 2 promotions and a salary increase of 30%. After trying to contact the Pac to demand a correction and not even getting a call back, he went to the Romney campaign to help him get the word out. He wasn’t the only one to speak out today.

    Lastly, we are already dealing with a narcissist in the White House, do we really want another one. Make no mistake, with Newt it is always about Newt.

    Disclaimer: I worked for a Rep. Member of Congress during Newt’s time as Speaker and you did not want to be around right after she had to deal with him. Suffice to say, she was called Lady Bleep for a reason.

  23. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Well, it may always be about that smart old bastard Newt, but I happen to think that he loves this country and its traditions and people, our history, our freedom, and our democracy, and would try to do whatever is best fo our country and its citizens, rather than hate America and Americans, and try to destroy the U.S. as our current Marxist, crypto-Muslim con artist is trying to do.

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    Given ABC news, and his ex wife, well we can wrap this puppy up..


  25. Sara Says:

    Wolla: I’m an anybody but Obama gal, so no need to influence me against our current man in the White House. I don’t think Newt is the best candidate, but if he is the last man standing, I’ll vote for him, but I’ll still have strong reservations about his ability to govern. As to loving this country, I think that is a given with all the candidates, all 57 states. 🙂

  26. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    P.S.–I notice various commentators and political figures on he Right are starting to zero in on Obama, and that–more and more often–they are starting to describe him as a Socialist or even as a Marxist.

  27. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: a January surprise? A woman scorned, and all that–

    But isn’t that sort of old news? To answer my own question—maybe not to about 90% of the population.

    One thing that occurs to me, though, is that if ABC has a clip like that and decides not to air it before the SC primary, it would indicate that they’re not so hot on pushing a Romney candidacy. Because if by airing it they could sink Newt, why wouldn’t they do so?

    PS: I think they will air it.

  28. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Been there, done that with the divorce thing, and I know that your soon to be ex-wife will say or do anything if it will wound you, the deeper the wound the better.

    Just doing a little bit of Googling, Marienne was not a happy camper, and once told an interviewer “I could end his career with one interview”.

    So, she was just waiting for her chance to sabotage him, and I wouldn’t doubt that ABC was quite happy to give her a means to do so.

    P.S. She was a former “records clerk” at the Secret Service, so I would not take her assessment of Newt’s capability to be President as being worth anything.

  29. gcotharn Says:

    In the spy v spy game, there is much intrigue: the leak … given out without detail … in a way which will promote rumor and water cooler talk … could damage Newt more than the actual information in the interview. Absent detail: speculation, including from me, runs wild.

  30. Conrad Says:

    Mitt for president.
    Newt for philosopher-prince.
    Santorum for Grand Inquisitor.

  31. Pat Dooley Says:

    Romney lost to McCain last time. He’s doing little better this time around. To me, he is Mr. Cellophane Man.


  32. rickl Says:


    Now that there is funny.

  33. rickl Says:

    Sara Says:
    January 18th, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Lastly, we are already dealing with a narcissist in the White House, do we really want another one. Make no mistake, with Newt it is always about Newt.

    Yep, an academic with a massive ego and an unshakeable faith in his own intellect. I think we’ve already seen what that’s like.

    It’s a shame, because Newt seems to be the only candidate who takes space policy seriously. And that’s our future, after all.

  34. SteveH Says:

    “”Americans like to vote for people who seem likable. “”

    I agree. Which makes it incredibly weird that a narcissistic Chicago politician like Barak Obama fell into that category for so many people.

  35. foxmarks Says:

    A bitter, vindictive ex-wife is not outside the mainstream experience. Depending on the editing (and the underlying facts) it could generate some sympathy for Newt.

    Gingrich would benefit by learning from another presidential narcissist; he should borrow a few of Bill Clinton’s tears.

  36. goldby621 Says:

    Boy, a lot of scrolling before I could get a word in!

    Neo, above, notes: (@ 5:21 PM)
    (2) Almost no one trusts the “good Newt” will last for any significant amount of time.

    There is no “good Newt.” He exploded that carefully contrived myth way back in Iowa when he couldn’t take big boy politics and some negative ads against him. Ads, I might add that simply repeated the much discussed “baggage” Newt had. And Newt’s method of response was (and still is) vindictive and driven by one thing: vengeance. Instead of advancing his case with what he deems to be his assets, he blamed Iowa and New Hampshire on those ads and his trailing in S. Carolina still on those ads and began what remains not just negative, but personal vicious attacks.

    A debater doth not a President make. Sure he’s an excellent debater. And there was a time I salivated at the thought of a Gingrich-Obama debate in real time (i.e no opportunity for networks to cut and paste and spin (altho’ they’d probably still do that afterward to benefit Obama and air over and over again until folks couldn’t remember which was real and which was edited version. Sort of like NBC’s trick with Tina Fey’s version of Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her back door. I know so many people who still, today, insist those were absolutely positively Sarah Palin’s words as opposed to the words of her imitator in a bit on SNL.

    For about a minute, I really thought about Newt seriously. Until he showed everyone that he has no self-control, no common sense (the man ain’t stupid but thru his red-eyed vengeance-driven attempt to “pay back” Romney, he didn’t calculate that his actions might explode the new, God-forgiven, currently good husband, grandfatherly sweet and positive fiction that he and Callista and staff had so carefully nurtured?) Please! A man can be brilliant — and be dangerous. A man can be brilliant — and be a loose cannon. A man can be brilliant — and repulse people with his behavior. And that is exactly what Newt has been doing. It’s not just his Super-PAC. The man attacks every day — and not issue-driven subjects. Personal, vindictive stuff that still hasn’t stopped. And the cry-baby “if not for Romney’s negative ads….” echoes Obama’s eternal Bush blaming. And let’s not forget, Obama was supposedly brilliant, too. Where has that gotten us.

    We need a leader with appeal — appeal to a broad swathe of voters which will include the independents and even all those left of center non-Far Left liberals who have had it with Obama. And that has shown to have hit the mark — especially in New Hampshire.

    Let a brilliant Newt contribute his ideas as a member of a new Administration if he would accept anything besides Leader of the Free World. If he is so passionate and has such wonderful ideas, great. But he’ll be answerable to someone. I wouldn’t trust him farther than I could throw him and I sure wouldn’t trust him with a non-friendly foreign leader, let alone access to “the button” launching nukes.

    Also, remember, Newt comes from that academic background and there is no question that he considers himself to be an elite — just not the same kind of elite that has Liberal views.

    Finally, re: that Super-PAC movie on Romney and Bain which he arranged (and despite legal prohibitions, it is obvious that Gingrich arranged for his buddies to debut that little gem. Perhaps he sent Callista to whisper in Sheldon Adelson’s ear & collect the necessary $5,000,000.
    But already some of those interviewed in the film who were portrayed as petrified, losing their livlihoods, etc. as a result of Bain buying the co. they worked for, are so angered at the completely misinformed results that they have starting making the rounds disputing the films allegations and telling the real story — which happens to be quite a positive portrayal of Bain under Romney. And guess who at least one of them is voting for. It ain’t Gingrich. (The other one is undecided but is doing a lot of research).

    You know — that’s really the key: encourage voters to do a lot of research for themselves. Even a little. And focusing on morality and integrity in a leader — that pretty much excludes career politicians — wouldn’t hurt either. (It’s a shame that’s the way it is today, but it’s a fact.)

  37. neo-neocon Says:

    foxmarks: something tells me it wouldn’t endear Newt to bitter, vindictive ex-wives.

    But something tells me that’s not his natural constituency anyway.

    And somewhere on a blog today I read a comment that said, “Newt Gingrich is the right’s Bill Clinton.”

    I would add: without the charm.

  38. Mike Mc. Says:

    I don’t see what any of the things on the list have to do with beating Obama. What’s the thought process there: “Oh, Newt got a divorce! Wow. I’ll take four more years of misery and decline then, plus a truckload of tyranny in that case”.


    Newt could beat Obama, anyone could beat Obama, if they have the nerve to do it. If they have the nerve and the skill to call him out to his face, unafraid, every day, all day, non stop, unrelenting until next November…and add your own plans in at the same time.

    No one is pulling the lever for Obama because Newt is “mean”. No one. None. Zero.

    This election, as in almost all elections, the deciding factor is votes against and not votes for. The problem with voting against Newt is that you have to vote ‘for’ Obama.

    If 50% of Americans do that again, we’re over anyway.

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike Mc: I don’t know whether you clicked on the link in my post, because I think you may have missed the premise of the post if you didn’t. In the link, Newt says that if Romney is the nominee, “the odds are fairly high he will lose to (President) Obama.”

    My question in the post—does Newt really think he’d do any better against Obama, and, if so, why?—has to do with Newt vs. Romney as Obama’s opponent, not whether people will vote for ABO (“anyone but Obama”). If the vote is so strongly ABO, then either Romney or Newt would do well against him (I don’t think that’s the case, by the way; I think Obama is still a stronger candidate than that).

    But when you write “no one is pulling the level for Obama because Newt is ‘mean,'” you miss another point I tried to make in one of the comments here. I’ll repeat it:

    A Gingrich candidacy might energize the conservative base to come out and vote but it would also be likely to motivate the disaffected liberal base to do the same in protest and come out and vote for Obama. Romney might motivate the disaffected conservative base to stay home, but the liberals who don’t like Obama any more would also be more likely to stay home if Romney’s the candidate.

    I know plenty of people who aren’t keen on Obama and who either will vote for Romney or will stay home if Romney is the candidate. But if Gingrich is the candidate they will not vote for him, and a lot of them will come to the polls to vote for Obama. Gingrich’s personality (including “meanness”) is part of it for them.

  40. Kurt Says:

    I think that both Newt and Romney are very smart, but Romney, while no slouch in verbal intelligence, has greater strengths in analytical intelligence (hence, his success at Bain and in law and business school). I would argue that Romney also has better emotional intelligence and more polished social skills, which is one reason why he impresses many people as plastic–he’s not really the sort who reacts with strong, emotional reactions to things.

    Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has high verbal intelligence, but partly because of that, I think he often thinks he’s smarter than he is. Partly because of that, he can often rub people the wrong way. And as we’ve seen in the past month, when Gingrich feels like things aren’t going his way, he can strike out in emotional and unappealing ways.

    Although I’d prefer a candidate with a more solid track record on the issues I care about than Romney, Gingrich’s negatives convince me he is not that candidate, and the others all have big shortcomings of their own.

  41. T Says:

    “. . . and the others all have big shortcomings of their own.”

    I repeat as I said above, the damaging policies and lack of integrity of the Obama administration is orders of magnitude greater than the worst faults of ANY of the Republican challengers.

  42. rickl Says:

    I honestly don’t think any of the Republican candidates can beat Obama.

    He has the media on his side, as well as old fashioned Democrat vote fraud. To the latter end, his Justice Department will cover that up as well as fight any attempts to require valid ID and clean up the voter rolls.

    It’s true that many of the lamebrained idiots who voted for him the first time because he was a “historical” candidate will not be likely to enthusiastically support him again. And yet I think they may be susceptible to a fearmongering and race-baiting campaign, and may end up voting for him anyway, because those eeevil Rethuglicans are so much worse, dontcha know?

    Which of course is the mirror image of what the Republican establishment is telling us: Vote for our candidate, because those eeevil Demoncrats are so much worse.

    Most of the likely Republican candidates are easily caricatured as old, rich, out-of-touch white guys. (White guys? Oh noes!) Obama will still be the cool, hip candidate as far as young voters are concerned. The Democrat machine will bludgeon them into voting for Obama just as the Republican machine is trying to bludgeon conservatives into voting for Romney, or whoever.

    One thought that has occurred to me is that Ron Paul would be likely to capture more votes from independents and disaffected Democrats than any other possible Republican candidate. And aren’t we always being told that it is the independent voters who decide elections?

  43. Don Carlos Says:

    So we agree the voters like ‘cool’ with their food stamps and unemployment bennies. We agree the Ministry of Propaganda (MSM) plus the Dems’ vote fraud in overdrive will be major forces on behalf of the Dems. We are thus likely to fail, with our rule-abiding obeisance, to unseat Hussein as ruler of us all.
    And what do we do as we circle the drain? Quibble, point fingers, quibble some more. So-and-so is irritable and irritating, so-and-so looks presidential but there’s his money and his church, so-and-so’s too Texan, so-and so’s way too socially conservative and doesn’t have much money.

    Y’all deserve what you get. And I do not exempt Neo. I used to post Obama=Chavez here in 2009, but he’s worse. This is national life and death here, people, so just quibble on. You won’t actually do anything more though, will you? I am. Are you?

  44. vanderleun Says:

    It’s that lovely hank of snow white hair on top of the Republican/Conservative’s Stay Puft Marshmallow Man that puts him over the top.

  45. neo-neocon Says:

    Don Carlos: what are you talking about? I’d wager most of us here (and I certainly include myself) will vote for ABO. What you call “quibbling” is mostly an attempt to figure out who would be most likely to defeat him.

  46. neo-neocon Says:

    vanderleun: Gingrich before he went gray.

  47. vanderleun Says:

    What’s that? Buddy Holly with his skull being eaten by an alien life form?

  48. Curtis Says:

    National life or death?

    Yes it is, but even if Obama wins, is it game over?

    Our candidate selection reminds me of WWI and the lack of great leadership. But then along came WWII where the junior leaders and officers of WWI shined brightly.

    Gingrich, it might be observed, is the only candidate who has survived the “not Romney” characterization. Bachman, Perry, Cain . . . and then Gingrich who broke the mold. That at least has to be credited him. He might be a mutt and a mongrel but winning is the best argument.

  49. br549 Says:

    The left wants Romney. We all believe that, I think. As was said above, McCain was selected over Romney last time, and had his hat handed to him at election time. So, the left feels if Romney is our man, Obama is a shoe in.
    My personal opinion.

    I must say I have sat and pondered dozens of times in my life about those who have become politicians. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to be one, at any level. Unless of course, one realizes that by the time they pull away, they have prestige, power, and wealth at a level that most of them did not possess before becoming a politician. In my life, the only person I personally believe was not that way (wealth, power) was the Gipper.

  50. expat Says:

    Instapundit linked to this Canadian response to the Keystone decision:


    This is what voters should be seeing–not a bunch of squabbling macho types. As Neo says, we are political junkies and can deal with the noise, but most people aren’t. They are very likely to be turned off by the circular firing squad and think that Obama is the grown-up in the room. Sarah Palin is wrong about prolonging the debate. Obama will use every statement to portray all Republicans as ignorant, unsophisticated, and not ready to lead.

    BTW, our ambassador to Germany said a short while ago that Obama is planning a trip to Berlin, but there are no details yet. How much do you want to bet that he is planning a Brandenburg Gate speech? The totally inept foreign minister, Westerwelle, has been claiming credit for organizing the Taliban talks in Quatar. Does he owe Obama now? What kind of goodies will he offer to Merkel (who is suspicious of Obama, but has a bunch of romantic dings in her party) to get an historic venue to display his excellent statesmanship? Believe me, Obama is going to skip over the messy details we are discussing (the press and his minions will use them against us) and he will rise above the fray as the statesman par excellence. Some of the average voters will buy it. And the egomaniac Gingritch will have played into his hand.

  51. br549 Says:

    Sadly, all politicians are ego maniacs to one degree or another (all degrees greater than anyone who reads or posts here, anyway) or they wouldn’t be politicians.

    Ronald Regan changed my life. Anyone, think what you want about it, or say what you will.

  52. neo-neocon Says:

    br549: I don’t believe the left especially wants Romney above the others. I wrote about the topic here (plus the discussion in the comments section that follows).

    Who do I think the left wants? Any of the current candidates would do just fine, in their opinion. They each have large vulnerabilities that the left thinks it can exploit. It’s an embarrassment of riches.

    That doesn’t mean Obama will win. But as I’ve said a number of times, he has a good chance of winning with any of these candidates.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    expat: agreed that the Republican infighting does no one any favors except Obama. Ammunition for a huge number of political ads for him.

  54. uncleFred Says:

    Republican infighting = ammo for Obama. Nonsense. Obama has had all this ammo since these guys announced. It is better to get it all out now, and talked to death so that no one cars by November. Further some of our candidates needed to learn to take a punch, and the infighting is about the only lesson plan.

    As for Newt and the list of questions. He would answer every question yes. One thing that is overlooked is the lure the Presidency holds for virtually every American politician. If they think that they have a shot, they’ll warp their world view to fit. Each of them come to believe, head and heart, that they are the best person for the job and is needed by the nation. Political ego is boundless.

    The question can beat Obama is not quite the correct question. The question is can the nominee and the combined and united forces of the Republicans beat Obama, the MSM, and the combined forces of the Dems.

    I believe the answer is “Yes if they fight to win”. Be it Romney, or Newt, or one of the Ricks, the nominee must be committed to fight to win both face to face and in every other way. A tough primary can instill that in someone.

  55. SteveH Says:

    “”My observation is that people vote at least 75% with their guts, on impressions they have of the candidates.””

    We should call them the “Good Morning Americans”. That special group that consumes enormous amounts of television and has no idea they’re being conditioned like pigeons to peck ideological buttons per direction. They see 85 prescription drug commercials a day, followed by 85 lawyer commercials asking if they’ve taken any of those drugs.

    It’s all insanity made the norm.

  56. expat Says:

    It has less to do with the specific ammo than with the perception that Republicans are chaotic.

  57. FenelonSpoke Says:

    I think I’ll go give Newt’s campaign some money.

  58. Trebuchet Says:

    My Father fought in the South Pacific in WWII. When I was in my 20’s we had a discussion about George S. Patton and his zeal to get to Berlin. I said that Patton had done some insensitive things during the war, like the slapping incident. To which my Father replied, “Well, if you’re going to fight a son of a bitch, you better find a son of a bitch”. Newt may be a son of a bitch but at least he’s our son of a bitch.

  59. Artfldgr Says:

    vanderleun, its the “Dan Akroyd” look from the SNL news….

  60. Conrad Says:

    I think there’s way too much attention being paid to which candidate the Dems want to see us nominate.

    (a) Don’t assume the libs are a monolithic entity and that there is 100% consensus on their side as to who the weakest GOP opponent would be.

    (b) Don’t assume the libs are infallible in their putative choice of a GOP opponent. [cf. Reagan, 1980.]

  61. SteveH Says:

    “”I think there’s way too much attention being paid to which candidate the Dems want to see us nominate.””

    It’s sorta like debating which team to field for the super bowl with the consideration that the referees have been bought and paid for by the opposing team.

    Does it really matter what skills the team possesses?

  62. Conrad Says:

    The questions surrounding Newt’s character and temperment are completely legitimate and potentially significant in assessing electability. It’s wrong to suggest (as someone did above) that nobody would vote for Obama over Newt because of Newt’s “mean” personality. I’m not sure I’d characterize Newt as mean, but there should be no question that a smallish percentage of voters will actually be wavering between voting for Obama and voting for the GOP candidate. For that segment of the electorate, I would imagine that mushy factors such character, likeability, and trustworthiness are going to be significantly MORE determinative than the candidates’ positions on the issues.

    I think history largely bears this out. Thinking back on past elections, the more “likeable” candidate seems to win far more often than not. GWB beat Kerry and Gore. Clinton beat Dole in ’96 and GHWB in ’92, before he became America’s favorite skydiving granddad. GHWB beat the cold technocrat Dukakis. Reagan beats Mondale and Carter. The only clear counterexamples of “nice guys finishing last” are Nixon over Humphrey in ’68 and Nixon over McGovern in ’72. Carter over Ford was about a push in terms of likeability, and the election was really close.

    I know it’s hard to separate out political considerations, but if you force yourself to imagine that these are real people, not just candidates, it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the public would like Romney and Obama and not like Newt. I mean, if Romney lived in your town and sold insurance or something, is there any question he would be the most popular guy in town? Same for Obama: if he were the high school principal or something, the community would idolize him.

    Now try that thought experiment with Newt Gingrich. . . . . See what I mean?

    Some will say this is superficial; I just think it’s intuitive: People want to feel a sense of trust toward a president. You’re far more likely to trust someone you really like than someone you can’t stand.

  63. Conrad Says:

    “It’s sorta like debating which team to field for the super bowl with the consideration that the referees have been bought and paid for by the opposing team.”

    I just think this goes too far. I agree the dems will resort to vote fraud and the media is in the tank, but we still haven’t reached the point where the winner is preordained and the whole election process is just an elaborate sham. If that were the case, how do you account for the dems’ getting shellacked in the midterms? How were the Republicans in Wisconsin able to prevail in the Supreme Court race and the state senate recall elections?

    Fraud plus media bias may give dems the edge, but that doesn’t mean our side can’t win.

  64. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Neo–Over the years you have been very calm and even-handed in your criticisms and treatment of all sorts of people and issues.

    Yet, in the language and arguments you have been using with regard to Newt, I detect what seems to me to be a very active hatred of him.

    What gives?

  65. Pat Says:

    Those who think the Dems have a chance in 2012 should look at 2010. The Dems got slaughtered and nothing has gotten better since then. I know the Tea Party folk are quietly organizing at the grass roots level to have even more impact on the primaries and general. The sense that the country is going down the drain and needs to reverse course is palpable. In that context, Gingrich looks like the candidate who can reverse course while Romney looks like the candidate who would slow down the rate of decline. I know which I would prefer.

  66. gcotharn Says:

    Over the last 8-9 days, Romney has been gifted with a golden opportunity to win some conservative voter empathy re his time at Bain; to draw parallels between his own business principles and the classic principles of America. Romney has not seized the opportunity to draw those parallels; has not seized the opportunity to win some love from conservative voters.

    Instead of winning over, and basking in, some conservative voter love, Romney has back to his typical playbook: bashing and smashing and attacking his major opponent of the moment.

    Why? Why did Romney flatly refuse the golden opportunity to win some conservative voter love? I speculate that one of the following applies:

    1. the golden opportunity never existed (my take on the political moment was misguided)
    2. political tin ear: Romney did not recognize the golden opportunity
    3. Romney is incapable: of presenting himself as sufficiently warm and likable, in order to seize such opportunity*
    4. Romney’s history is tainted: b/c his time at Bain included unprincipled activity.

    This morning, with Perry endorsing Newt, with 100 Tea Party leaders endorsing Newt http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/exclusive-100-tea-party-leaders-to-announce-support-for-newt/ : it feels as though Mitt may be done. Not his campaign: he has too much money and too much Republican big shot support: he will continue on. However, it feels as if he might .. might … trail from here, and never recover front runner status.

    Mitt missed his opportunity to win some conservative voter love. And, just like that: he may have missed his entire opportunity to win. He will still be a player: will still wield some power at the convention. But, it feels as if he has missed his opportunity to win.


    * a dynamic, about Romney, reminds of a different dynamic about Obama.

    Obama supporters look at Obama .. and see capability: they see a person who is up to the challenge. They do not entertain the possibility that Obama is not up to the challenge of the office. Impossible. The one thing they know, for sure, without even a shred of doubt: Obama is more than capable of excellence in office.

    Different issue, yet similar dynamic:

    Romney supporters look at Romney … and see warmth and likability: they see someone whom voters will respond to, and will feel warmth towards, and will love. Romney supporters do not entertain the possibility that Romney is incapable of generating widespread voter love. One thing they know for sure, w/o a shred of doubt: voters will love Mitt Romney; will embrace this good and decent man. It cannot possibly fail to happen.

  67. T Says:

    This thread began as a discussion of whether ort not Newt Gingrich could draw voters to the extent that any other Republican candidate could.

    I suggest that there is another dynamic in play, and that is Obama himself. As but one example, how much damage has he done by rejecting the Keystone pipeline? Dropping the charges against the New Black Panthers? Suing Arizona and South Carolina? The last three years have been example after example of this administration’s actions not evincing its rhetoric, and it just keeps getting worse.

    IMO, most of the American public is taking note of this, thus the reason for the 2010 election sweep by Republicans. I suspect that the American public has already discounted the Dem argument of a Republican osbstructionist congress because they know that the senate is Dem controlled.
    Remember that the left has always lived in a fantasy word where the “facts” are of the left’s own making, inspired by their own narrative (e.g., Debbie Wasserman-Schulz). In the past three years, that mirage has unraveled at the seams. Obama calls for austerity and goes to Hawaii; FLOTUS goes to Costa del Sol. They fly their dog on a separate plane. One item at a time, this all adds up to create a mental imprint of this administration.

    While there are always some hard-core political supporters for any candidate, Under current circumstances (caveat, anything can happen in 10 months) I find it hard to believe that the American public will endorse this anathema any more than they endorsed a Carter second term. It simply runs against our collective DNA.

  68. Tesh Says:

    T, I wish it were that simple. I don’t believe in the American voters as much as you do. I think there are still too many who will see Romney as “white, rich and Mormon” or Gingrich as “white, rich and rude” and go with the populist Obama, no matter the facts. They simply don’t think beyond those rudimentary “facts”.

    I’d like to be proven wrong, though.

  69. Kurt Says:

    gcotharn wrote: Romney supporters look at Romney … and see warmth and likability: they see someone whom voters will respond to, and will feel warmth towards, and will love. Romney supporters do not entertain the possibility that Romney is incapable of generating widespread voter love. One thing they know for sure, w/o a shred of doubt: voters will love Mitt Romney; will embrace this good and decent man. It cannot possibly fail to happen.

    Frankly, I’m just a committed ABO voter, but with regard to this point, I think it misrepresents what the most outspoken Romney supporters have said. Look, for instance, at some of the things Ann Coulter has said and written about Romney. She doesn’t talk about how voters will love him, but she talks about why he’s the best option at the moment.

    In his comment above, Conrad makes an important point about voters usually favoring the more “likeable” candidate. The most notable exceptions he cites in the not-too-distant past were Nixon’s victories. I think when considering Newt Gingrich, we would do well to consider Nixon. Nixon won against opponents viewed as weak at a time when the Democrat party was imploding. Although Obama is very unpopular, it remains to be seen whether or not he’s unpopular enough for Newt–who is about as likeable as Nixon–to defeat him. The press hates Newt and is scared of Newt, and consequently, so is much of the public at large.

    Romney might be more robotic than loveable, but I think the only folks who find Romney scary are the conservatives who fear he won’t do enough to turn back the Obama agenda. Comparing Romney’s chances in 2012 with McCain’s in 2008 will never be persuasive because a). Barack Obama was still mostly a mystery at that point (except to those of us who recognized him for the hard left character he was), and b). McCain made a number of unforced errors in running against him. In 2012 the candidate can run against Obama’s record, but this will work best if the candidate doesn’t turn off voters who are on the fence.

  70. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Are we forgetting that at one time Newt was the most unpopular politician in America and inspired a mutiny in his own party. I would love to see him in a debate with Obama but can we ever be sure his former brain mouth disconnect won’t return? The ABO core vote may not be enough to carry him. Also if Romney runs the repubs will probably get MA, MI, NH, CO and maybe NV. Romney is almost certain of victory, with Newt we would to depend on the analytical wisdom of the American voter.

  71. T Says:


    It’s pure speculation, of course. I just truly believe that Obama with each passing day shows himself to go against our national character. Just today, info revealed that Obama announced that he will not take hostile action against Iran—what moron neuters himself strategically like that and undercuts his own potential leverage? Also there is now word that up to 32 coal-fired electricity-generating plants could close as the result of Obama’s EPA regs. None of this goes unnoticed.

    Neither of these may make the MSM news blast, but do you think that any of the workers who lose their jobs at those power facilities are going to be pro-Obama? Then there are the grocers from whom those unemployed used to buy their groceries, the appliance dealers, etc.

    Again let me reaffirm that this is all speculation. Having said that, anecdote after anecdote starts to pile up that the resulting image is just not good.

    My fear, is whether or not Republicans are mentally fit enough to actual use the ammunition that Obama is handing them—do they even recognize it as ammunition? This is why I believe that Newt could succeed where Romney fails. When hit with a liberal bomb (e.g., “Isn’t it racist . . .?), Newt doesn’t weaken his position by apologizing that one would see it that way, he simply goes on the offense and returns the argument to Obama’s record. When he’s good, he’s very very good. I hope that in this election, that will be enough.

  72. T Says:

    Bob from Va,

    “I would love to see [Newt] in a debate with Obama but can we ever be sure his former brain mouth disconnect won’t return?”

    No, we can never be sure. That, I think, he has recently proven. I think the question is whether that’s enough to dilute his message.

  73. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    I note the news today–stepped on by all sorts of other big news stories– that after a recount in Iowa it was discovered that Santorum had actually won the state by 30+ votes, but that his win could not be “certified” because the votes from 8 districts were “lost” and presumed destroyed i.e. a little electoral sabotage here?

  74. Artfldgr Says:

    the feminist leaders at the VIEW now have the baton and the Caining of Newt will continue…

    the idea is to make sure that the person that does get the nomination is a person they can beat… the feminists WANT communist bureaucratic state (though their followers may want something else, they dont count as they dont act in line with what they want, but with what the leaders want), and they are going to all jump in with the unions and others to get what they have been chomping ast the bit and writing about having for OVER 100 years.

    see the harridens of the view here…

    Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says


    the idea is CLEAR AND EASY…
    ie… all men are rapists and sex deviates
    and they are going to connect the victim story of every feminist to the ex, and then to Newt

    its the SAME thing done to Cain

    Ie… not only can your past relationships with feministsd lead to debtors prison, denuement of future atatinments, and loss of family, etc.. but they can also mean not being able to hold office unless they approve.

    given the visceral hatred they embue their followers, and the ideas fomented to destroy family, you cant be elected unless announted by these SELF DECLARED Communist women!

    in essance, they now have so much power they get to choose who gets to run in a race!!!

    they dont get to use real pertinant facts, but they get to do it through making women feel!

    the whole article is the common feminist type where everything the male does HAS to be aligned with the matriarch of the family, or else he is a criminal or subhuman

    (never ever does anyone wonder if being married to such a person influences ones choices. after all, being with a sexually liberated woman, many lead a man to think that he can be sexually liberated as well… )

    Do note that in a proper Caining the victimized women all claim to be selfless martyrs for the good of all

  75. Ymarsakar Says:

    Personally, my solution to the problem with Republican screwed up primaries is to basically say that the top 5 candidates with the most votes in aggregate, are put as President, Vice President ,Secretary of Defense, SecState, and SecEducation.

    Or if they refuse the position, recommend someone they trust to that position and for it to be accepted.

    Why doesn’t America adopt this solution?

    That’s like asking why don’t Democrats use compromise and harmony to make our lives better…

  76. ConceptJunkie Says:

    Rickl said: Yep, an academic with a massive ego and an unshakeable faith in his own intellect. I think we’ve already seen what that’s like.

    Yeah, but there’s one important difference: Newt actually has an intellect to have unshakeable faith in. No, we don’t need another narcissist in the Oval Office, but if we have someone who’s actually smart enough for the job, which despite his many minuses, I believe Newt does, having a big ego might be a small price to pay.

    I really didn’t like any Republican candidate in 2008… to the point where I punted in the primary. I feel more or less the same in 2012. I think there are (and were) Republican candidates that have great presidential qualities, like Newt’s quick intellect and Ron Paul’s uncompromising principles, Herman Cain’s plain speaking and common sense, but there has been no candidate that inspires me to believe he (or she, were there any women at this point) can actually face the battle against Obama, the MSM and public ignorance of what our government can and should be, and have a good chance of winning.

    No one inspires me, least of all Romney, although I figure I’m likely to once again engage in the cynical calculus of voting for a Republican I don’t like as a lesser evil to defeat a greater evil.

    Here’s an interesting thought: All through 2008 I was determined _not_ to vote Republican for reasons I’m sure are obvious to anyone here even mildly conservative, even before McCain, my least favorite, magically won the nomination I didn’t like any of them. My Dad, whose politics intersect pretty closely with mine, and whose opinion and wisdom I respect greatly, convinced me to hold my nose and vote for McCain. I did and decided later I wished I hadn’t. Now I’m not so sure, and at this point I may end up doing it again. Is this a case of acknowledging the practical realities of politics or admitting the sheer futility of electing a chief executive in the age of failed education and successful liberal indoctrination?

  77. Perfected democrat Says:

    Rick Perry and Thomas Sowell have endorsed Newt, that’s saying something…

  78. uncleFred Says:

    To Bob from Va:

    Obama wins Mass no matter what. Romney claims he quit because he had accomplished all he could, the truth is that he was doomed to defeat there. Gingrich can win NH as easily as Romney, Obama is well underwater among independents there despite its 5.x% unemployment rate. NH doesn’t like what he has done in office, a marginal improvement in the economy won’t change this.

    Romney might make a difference in Mi, but that’s far from clear. I can’t speak to Nv or Co.

  79. Ymarsakar Says:

    Americans are too focused on individuality and cult personalities like Obama. Americans need to start learning how to make use of team work, like the US military. Can’t win a war or fight a war by yourself, you know, no matter how good you are.

    And you guys are seeing this with the nominations. They aren’t all perfect, and everyone likes or hates something about someone. The best plan would be combine people’s assets together to form a greater whole, but America is so poisoned by Leftist sabotage that I don’t think that’s possible any more.

    And so another great empire dies a whimpering death in 5 more decades.

  80. davisbr Says:

    Isn’t it kind of ironic & funny, given the inevitability and the “it’s all over” and the “he’s got this wrapped up” and the like-ability index (???), and the bad divorce news (and seriously, anyone who’s been through a bad divorce kind of knows that the ex’ still hating and being angry by the very thought of your continued existence 20 years later is NOT all that rare) and the …well, whatever …that the fat lady is still singing?

    …and that the morning news is that in at least one poll, Newt now leads by a few points in SC?

    And you know what, the thought that NE lib’s and the Lefties and the MSM hate Newt more than they hate Mitt (so far, at least: and don’t we all kind of expect that to change if Mitt wins?), is kind of a plus for Newt in my dark, shriveled, rock-hard, little conservative soul.

    So it’s nice to see the fat lady is still belting ’em out.

  81. foxmarks Says:

    “Obama will still be the cool, hip candidate as far as young voters are concerned.

    One thought that has occurred to me is that Ron Paul would be likely to capture more votes from independents and disaffected Democrats than any other possible Republican candidate. And aren’t we always being told that it is the independent voters who decide elections?”

    Yes, rickl! By conventional wisdom, Paul has the best chance to beat Obama. RP has 50% of the under-35s and kicks the knees out of Obama’s base.

    Those who align with Anne Coulter and believe we’ll need Congress to keep Romney on the proper path could apply the same thinking to Paul. Worried about his foreign policy? Have Congress tell him what to do through specific legislation. If people can get over their fear of RP’s foreign policy, he wins.

  82. Sergey Says:

    Nixon had the same repelling quality, but still was elected. There is such thing as “bad guy” attraction, and not only among hot chicks. Men also like nasty guys. And now to be conservative it is not enough to resist any change. One need to be real counter-revolutionary, a radical retrograde, to roll back every decadent trait of modern culture which emerged after 1960. Newt has this quality, Romney does not.

  83. Conrad Says:

    “Worried about his foreign policy? Have Congress tell him what to do through specific legislation. If people can get over their fear of RP’s foreign policy, he wins.”

    Unconstitutional. The POTUS is the head of state and CIC. The State Department is within the executive branch. Congress has no constitutional authority to take over foreign policy.

    What WOULD work, constitutionally, is to elect Romney and a GOP Senate, then have Congress assert itself sufficiently in domestic policy to make sure Mitt is governing as the conservative we want rather than the moderate many fear. Even if you think Mitt is, at heart, a moderate, I really can’t see him vetoing legislation passed by a GOP Congress.

  84. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: whatever Gingrich’s ex-wife said (and I haven’t read the interview yet, but I believe the supposed smoking gun is that he asked her for an open marriage), Gingrich has always been vulnerable on morals charges because he’s indisputably a serial adulterer. That’s just a fact.

    And you don’t need to be a feminist or even sympathetic to feminism to know that.

    Will it matter electorally? I have no idea. Bill Clinton certainly got away with it. But his wife, despite what she said in during the 1992 campaign, did end up standing by her man.

  85. neo-neocon Says:

    Kurt: agreed.

  86. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left has tendencies to unify, if only because they know that their sociopathic tendencies will leave them vulnerable if left alone for too long.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge