Why the Gingrich win bodes poorly for the GOP

mittconcedes“Over the past few weeks we’ve seen a frontal assault on free enterprise. We expected this from President Obama. We didn’t anticipate some Republicans would join him. That’s a mistake for our party, and for our nation…. Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow.”

– Mitt Romney
in his concession speech
in South Carolina Saturday

————————

Newt Gingrich’s impressive 12-point victory margin in South Carolina has touched off enormous doubt among national Republicans, much of it centered on Mitt Romney’s perceived weaknesses as a candidate.

To cite just one example of many, here’s Mark Steyn at NationalReview.com:

“Even if you don’t mind Romneycare, or the abortion flip-flop, or any of the rest, there’s a more basic problem: He’s not a natural campaigner, and on the stump he instinctively recoils from any personal connection with the voters…. For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.”

While there’s certainly some truth to that, I think the Republican problem is much more deep-seated than the failings of a particular candidate. Newt Gingrich not only exposed Romney as a flawed politician; he exposed the fact that their economic message sucks.

Look at what happened: In a Republican primary in a deeply conservative state, Gingrich rode to victory by employing the Democratic line of attack against Mitt. What does that tell you about the power of that critique in the general election, among a much less conservative electorate?

(UPDATE at 11:50: Two new polls out of Florida:

Insider Advantage puts Gingrich up 34-26.

Rasmussen has Gingrich up 41-32.)

It’s really quite stunning, in ways that a lot of people don’t yet comprehend.

It’s true, of course, that the economy was just one of many factors that affected the outcome in South Carolina. For example, Gingrich outperformed Romney by 2-1 among evangelical voters, and given Newt’s personal history, that’s amazing. Romney’s religion had to have played a role in that kind of outcome.

However, when you sift through the exit-poll numbers on the economy, what you find is really compelling:

Seventy-nine percent of South Carolina voters told exit pollers that they were very worried about the nation’s economy; Gingrich carried that group by 14 percentage points.

Among the 11 percent of voters who said their own economic situation was improving, Romney did well, finishing in a virtual tie with Gingrich. But Romney and his message fell flat among those who said their economic status was static (Gingrich up 14 points) or slipping (Gingrich by 19 points).

Among income groups, Romney was competitive only among those said they made $100,000 or more, losing that demographic by only five percentage points. He lost by 15 points among everybody else.

Again, these are conservative voters in a conservative state, in an election cycle in which the economy will be the defining issue. And yet they clearly sided with a candidate who conducted “a frontal assault on free enterprise,” to use Romney’s description.

For the moment, Romney’s solution is to do as he did in his concession speech: whine about the treachery of a fellow Republican daring to advance a liberal critique. Within the confines of a GOP primary, that approach may have some temporary success.

But again, in a general election that’s not going to work.

Two more points: One, as Gingrich clearly recognizes, Romney’s personal history, his bearing and his personality all make him the perfect foil for a populist message. He epitomizes the Wall Street tycoon often central to that narrative, and it’s a weakness for which there is no cure.

Two, the lessons of South Carolina may have real consequences for House and Senate races as well. If the overall GOP message truly is as weak as it appears after Saturday — if it can be turned into a handicap even in a Republican primary — then Democratic prospects downticket may be brighter than they have seemed.

– Jay Bookman

1,059 comments Add your comment

Stonethrower

January 23rd, 2012
11:26 am

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
11:27 am

BTW, Jay, thanks for winning a bet for me. I told PB and some others yesterday that you would be coming out with a column today “explaining” why the Gingrich win was meaningless.

Hope you’re okay with being so predictable.

TaxPayer

January 23rd, 2012
11:28 am

The “funny” thing is that if the Republicans managed to get Newt, for example, in the White House, they’d call it a “win”. Okay, maybe funny is the best choice of word. How about I take a word from Boehner’s playbook — pathetic. :roll:

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:29 am

Look at what happened: In a Republican primary in a deeply conservative state, Gingrich rode to victory by employing the Democratic line of attack against Mitt. What does that tell you about the power of that critique in the general election, among a much less conservative electorate?

I remember the other night when you pointed that out. I don’t recall many people droppin’ science on how Newt appeared to have beat Mitt from the “Left” when Mitt is considered the moderate and Newt is the conservative.

ty webb

January 23rd, 2012
11:32 am

SC voters are not Conservative…they proved that saturday by voting for gingrich. They are simply republican…Romney’s road map for success is simple, answer every question with an attack on the media. Economy? “Mainstream media’s fault”… Jobs? “mainstream media’s fault”… foreign policy? “mainstream media’s fault”…oh, and his opening statement for the next debate should be him punching the moderator in the face.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
11:32 am

I told PB and some others yesterday that you would be coming out with a column today “explaining” why the Gingrich win was meaningless.

show of hands–anyone else think that’s what Jay’s saying?

While we’re at it–how many think our Brunhilduhhh here actually read what Jay wrote before posting?

Union

January 23rd, 2012
11:33 am

@ bruno.. so very very true.. but hey.. its part of the liberal editorial board guidelines.. no free thinking anymore and you have to blog about what you are told to. kind of like working in a chinese factory or something.. hmm.. wonder if they live in dorms at the ajc? :-)

Gman

January 23rd, 2012
11:33 am

The explaination is simple… Mitt Romney is a mormon!

Stonethrower

January 23rd, 2012
11:33 am

You would think with his experience from the last GOP primary he would have at the very least polished up his message or the delivery of said message.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
11:34 am

If the overall GOP message truly is as weak as it appears after Saturday — if it can be turned into a handicap even in a Republican primary — then Democratic prospects downticket may be brighter than they have seemed.

and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

Jay

January 23rd, 2012
11:34 am

Well Bruno, considering that I posted a shorter version of this Saturday night in the comments, adding that I intended to flesh it out more in a later post, maybe you can now use your “predictive” powers to tell us whether New England will beat Baltimore yesterday.

Union

January 23rd, 2012
11:34 am

stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
11:32 am

“While we’re at it–how many think our Brunhilduhhh here actually read what Jay wrote before posting?”

dont have to read it.. unless youre a slow learner.. every time someone wins a primary or is ahead in the polls.. negative blog issued the next day.. almost like clockwork

TaxPayer

January 23rd, 2012
11:35 am

Poor Mitt was confronted with an enemy that he had not anticipated ’til then — BizarroNewt and the “look, there, up in the skyscraper, it’s a Wall Street job killer that pays less taxes than me! Let’s see if he can fly.”

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
11:35 am

Wait a minute–Bruno, seriously, are you claiming victory because Jay actually posted something/anything at all about the SC primary results today?

seriously?

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:36 am

I find it funny as hell that a party who’s goal is to make Obama a one-term president is doing everything in their power to ensure him a 2nd term.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 23rd, 2012
11:36 am

why the Gingrich win was meaningless

Meaningless? Seems Jay’s post is more about what it means rather than it’s meaninglessness.

Matti

January 23rd, 2012
11:37 am

Still don’t care. I’m not voting for any of these jerks, they and could not possibly give less of a poop who the Repubs in Iowa or S.C. like better. They all make me want to hurl. Eight more days of “news” people probing and sharing with us what they find inside the heads of conservative Floridians? BLECCCHHHH! Time to change the channel before my breakfast comes back up.

saywhat?

January 23rd, 2012
11:37 am

Bruno- looks like you lost your bet. The fact that Jay found some meaning in the results by definition means he didn’t say they were meaningless.

And if Jay does some day end up having a problem being so predictable, maybe you can e-mail him and let him know how you cope with it.

Talking Head

January 23rd, 2012
11:38 am

“Look at what happened: In a Republican primary in a deeply conservative state, Gingrich rode to victory by employing the Democratic line of attack against Mitt. What does that tell you about the power of that critique in the general election, among a much less conservative electorate? ”

Actually Gingrich rode to victory by clearly winning the last 2 debates, being able to hold his grown on personal attacks, and articulating his message better than the other candidates. The reason Romney lost South Carolina is because of Romney. He looked unsure, unconvincing, and out of touch with the electorate in the last two debates.

Stevie Ray

January 23rd, 2012
11:38 am

Yeah, the GOP contingent is even weaker than that in 2008. Unfortunately, while the faces change, the song remains the same…check this out about BO and drone assassinations…Seems that since we have a military, a presidents ego requires he use it…even if counter to our “transparent democracy”…Change We Can Do Without? Can’t imagine all the lefties in support of this sort of law breaking…or generally emperialistic behavior..my opinion, I could be wrong or otherwise misunderstood the threat this new father presented to our shores..

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:38 am

Keep

Maybe it’s meaningless because Jay says it means something. You know, everything a liberal says will be diametrically opposed by conservatives.

getalife

January 23rd, 2012
11:39 am

Bruno loves him some of the newt.

willard blew it by not releasing his tax forms.

Then the cons found out his Dad was born in Mexico and they will get some karma on his birth certificate.

Stevie Ray

January 23rd, 2012
11:40 am

Romney will get better as time passes and his message improves. Gingrich is a scumbag…representing all he uses to attack Romney…I really like Gingrich when he entered the race but my opinon has done a 180 with his shoutdown, avoidance of key issues, and sleazy approach to the race.

HDB

January 23rd, 2012
11:41 am

Newt’s doing nothing but throwing red meat to the lions…..the realization that not EVERYBODY wants the GOP red meat……but the TRUTH as to how to make this nation better than it is…is what people are searching for!! Since the GOP is persistent in marginalization, demonization…..the question in anyone ’s right mind is WHO would vote FOR them…rather than AGAINST the other guy!! So far…..the GOP hasn’t given me a reason to vote FOR them!!

TaxPayer

January 23rd, 2012
11:41 am

All this time, most folks were expecting Newt to announce that he had picked Michelle Bachmann or something similar as his “Hail Mary” pass. No one expected it to be Newt clinching the Republican nomination by running on the Democratic ticket. :lol:

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 23rd, 2012
11:42 am

Brosephus…. That would be part of Newt’s Law of Politics? For every liberal issue there is an exponentially diametrically opposed reaction? :D

GOPer

January 23rd, 2012
11:42 am

Romney is simply an unlikable candidate. He might end up the nominee, like a John Kerry (to whom he’s often compared), and he might get every vote *against* Obama in the general election, but who’s going to get passionate about a Romney nominee? Let’s at least pick a nominee who voices what we feel’s really going on in Washington. You tell ‘em, Newt!

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
11:42 am

show of hands–anyone else think that’s what Jay’s saying?

show of hands Lib hands–anyone else think that’s what Jay’s saying.

There, fixed your typo, stands. Am I now a comic genius?? You guys seem to think the “fixed your typo” thing is high humor around here.

The bottom line remains is that Jay continues to try to frame the debate in terms of his Lib take on things, which is why the class warfare argument remains the only filter he can run things through to help him understand why Newt’s message is now resonating better than Mitt’s message. Doesn’t matter that the messages are fairly similar. What we’re trying to do is pick the most effective delivery person for that message. IMO, that man should be Newt.

So why aren’t you guys cheering Newt’s success on?? The Lib memo I keep reading is that it will be a cakewalk for Obama with Newt as the candidate. Some of you here might not possibly be afraid for Obama to get in the ring with him, would you?? I’m betting on a TKO in 2.

Ayn Rant

January 23rd, 2012
11:43 am

Let’s size up the candidates for the GOP nomination!

Romney wants to be the CEO of the US.
Gingrich wants to be the national scold.
Santorum wants to be the American ayatollah.
Paul wants to be our nutty grandfather.

Who deserves our vote? None of the above.

getalife

January 23rd, 2012
11:43 am

The newt wanted higher speaker fees and was on a book tour like cain.

He was not a serious candidate until the cons made him one.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

January 23rd, 2012
11:44 am

Well, I don’t care what excuse you use to explain old Newt’s thumping of Mr. Mormon Underpants. The plain fact is, us rednecks voted for Newt because Romney ain’t Washed in the Blood of the Lamb. I know, Newt’s a Catholic and is probly going to wind up in the hot place when he passes on, since Catholic ain’t a real Christian religion either. But at least Newt’s religion ain’t based on some guy finding a bunch of gold tablets in a orchard or something. I mean, I’ve seen better excuses for being out running around from folks down at the warehouse.

Anyhow, it’s a pity a rich guy like Romney has to go out and mix with the mob to be President, but what he really needs is a down-home Conversion. Maybe he could arrange to drop in on a tent revival or something like that and publicly see the Error of His Ways. What he’s doing now ain’t working and won’t never work.

Newt for President. He might could be a womanizer and a sinner but at least he’s kinda one of us. I mean, all of us slip up every day and we got Lust in Our Heart but a little prayer takes care of everything.

Have a good lunch everybody. Speaking of which, them beenie-weenies are going to taste mighty fine today.

Jay

January 23rd, 2012
11:45 am

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
11:45 am

Well Bruno, considering that I posted a shorter version of this Saturday night in the comments, adding that I intended to flesh it out more in a later post, maybe you can now use your “predictive” powers to tell us whether New England will beat Baltimore yesterday.

You’ll have to trust my timeline, but the prediction was made at 4 AM on Saturday night at the hotel when I saw how soundly Newt trounced Mitt. Trust me, we weren’t consulting the Bookman blog at that time ;-)

JamVet

January 23rd, 2012
11:45 am

The Reality TV “debates” actually sway voters opinions about these men???????

Incredible.

Rather than carefully do detailed research on their backgrounds, statements, positions and votes on the issues, the rubes are more inclined to fall for a smile or sound bite?

No wonder Christian frauds and televangelists from sea to shining sea make such huge money…

Joe Hussein Mama

January 23rd, 2012
11:46 am

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Karl Rove, or one/some of his close associates or proteges, is working closely with Newt’s team, IMO. I said at the time that I believed Newt’s camp (possibly with Rove’s help) to be behind the chick-nuking of Herman Cain’s campaign, and here we have more Rovian tactics — directly attacking the perceived strengths of an opponent — being applied to Romney (and with, again, positive results for Gingrich).

As a Democratic voter, I fear a Romney candidacy more than I fear a Gingrich one (IMO Romney has more crossover appeal and is more likely to peel off disaffected moderates from Obama), but it is my opinion that Newt and his team are playing serious, serious hardball in the primary. Romney will certainly have to up his game in order to recover now.

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:48 am

When Securing America goes wrong….

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) was detained Monday by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn. after refusing a full body pat-down, POLITICO has confirmed.

“I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said Monday morning. “The image scan went off, he refused patdown.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71818.html

Normal

January 23rd, 2012
11:49 am

Welcome to the Occupation

January 23rd, 2012
11:50 am

Glad you’re posting on this, Jay. I agree with you.

What I also find very significant, however, and I think I’ll keep harping here until we get a larger discussion going, is that the Gingrich/Perry attacks on Romney from the “left” take place against the backdrop of the apparent collapse in the will of the Democratic party to continue fighting for the white working class vote. (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/).

Which, if it does come to pass, moves us one step closer — viewed in the most pessimistic historical frame — to a state where the native working class is truly ‘up for grabs’ a la late Weimar Germany.

And that, I would suggest, is a very sobering development that should cause all of us to wake up with a start.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
11:50 am

the cons found out his Dad was born in Mexico and they will get some karma on his birth certificate.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. I’ll enjoy the farce. (Mind you, the sideshow won’t be anywhere near as noisy when it’s going to be snide lefties reminding conservatives about how they tried to leverage Birther stupidity.)

Carlos

January 23rd, 2012
11:50 am

Prediction: New England will beat Baltimore

Joe Hussein Mama

January 23rd, 2012
11:50 am

Brosephus — “I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said Monday morning. “The image scan went off, he refused patdown.”

Sir, I respectfully request that you post any sort of hilarious details you can that you are not (by law or by agreement) bound to hold in confidence. Inquiring minds really, really want to know. :D

ByteMe

January 23rd, 2012
11:50 am

You’ll have to trust my timeline, but the prediction was made at 4 AM on Saturday night at the hotel when I saw how soundly Newt trounced Mitt.

So at 4 AM on Saturday night in a hotel… you’re thinking about Jay?!?

Ew.

Stevie Ray

January 23rd, 2012
11:51 am

JAY,

You are incorrect. The inept BO is chuckling over the drone strike that killed some non-threatening guy in Somolia…or it could be that he is closing in on the Billion Dollar campaign war-chest…perhaps he found another GSachs executive to appoint, or maybe he paid off another campaign bundler with yet another “green” stimulus grant….

JamVet

January 23rd, 2012
11:52 am

B, no wonder you were so quick to get rid of me! (J/k buddy, I was born on a Saturday, but not last Saturday!)

As for libs wanting Newt to win so as to improves BHO’s chances, count me out.

Notwithstanding his craven flip-flopping, I have some small amount of respect for Mitt, his accomplishments and morals.

The reactionary, equally flip-flopping, filth slinging Newt? Not in ten lifetimes.

That he is even relevant, much less a player (LOL) is something I find amazing.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
11:52 am

You guys seem to think the “fixed your typo” thing is high humor around here.

And by “you guys” I guess you mean someone you mistook for me.

Or, put another way–pretty sure I last fried someone’s tamale was at least a year or so ago.

Jay

January 23rd, 2012
11:52 am

ByteMe, I take solace only in the fact that so was “Platinum Black.”

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
11:52 am

Prediction: New England will beat Baltimore

You seem to be forgetting about the point spread, Carlos.

New England lost in the only venue that matters, the Vegas betting houses.

getalife

January 23rd, 2012
11:53 am

The image scan went off because rand was hiding weed.

Ennis Eaton

January 23rd, 2012
11:53 am

I also am wondering… If the repubs want to make BO a 1 termer how can they do it if everyone running on the ticket make each other seem like scumbags?

Mick

January 23rd, 2012
11:54 am

bruno

Give it up, deep down we know that you are a faux conservative. Walk towards the light and away from your dark side of the moon…

Jay

January 23rd, 2012
11:54 am

Two new polls out of Florida:

Insider Advantage puts Gingrich up 34-26.

Rasmussen has Gingrich up 41-32.

Talking Head

January 23rd, 2012
11:55 am

“I also am wondering… If the repubs want to make BO a 1 termer how can they do it if everyone running on the ticket make each other seem like scumbags?”

Every primary (both D’s and R’s) in history has this element.

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:55 am

Joe H

I can’t find anything yet. I’ll see if I can get the scoop later on though. :)

Welcome to the Occupation

January 23rd, 2012
11:55 am

Decibels: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”

Yay! Second Hegel reference in one morning (via Marx no less).

Now if we keep this up, we might gradually raise the intellectual level of this blog by a tenth of a percentage by Miller time tonight! :)

Paul

January 23rd, 2012
11:55 am

“Again, these are conservative voters in a conservative state, in an election cycle in which the economy will be the defining issue. And yet they clearly sided with a candidate who conducted “a frontal assault on free enterprise,” to use Romney’s description.”

Sooooo…….. Conservative Republicans are really Progressive Democrats with an identity crisis?

So it would seem.

I love politics.

aaannnndddd…. Redneck Convert just kicked a 90-yard, game-winning field goal!

“Newt for President. He might could be a womanizer and a sinner but at least he’s kinda one of us.”

Newt’s new campaign slogan.

____________________________________________________

In line with Democrats using Newt’s attack to their advantage, seems Romney has finally decided to do the same.

Newt wanted Romney to release his tax returns by saying ‘what’s he hiding? Is something wrong? We need this vetted now, we don’t need an October surprise.”

Listening to the radio coming home, I hear Romney

– call for Newt to release his Freddie contract, using the same reasons

– call for Newt to release the entire record of the ethics investigation when he was fined and dumped as Speaker, using the same reasons.

Mr. Grand Ideas doesn’t down the road very well.

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
11:55 am

ByteMe, I take solace only in the fact that so was “Platinum Black.”

LOL–No, she doesn’t match my man crush on you, Jay.

However, a few times when I turned away on the dance floor, she did get a little Sapphic thing going on a time or two with some of hippie chicks. Not sure if that did as much for Jam as it did for me. ;-)

harvey

January 23rd, 2012
11:57 am

It is sad that in this country people seem to vote for the loudest, most boorish, candidate than a reasoned, steady person with a great economic and personal track record. I guess we will truly get what we deserve if we get another Obama term. If he gets another 4 years unfettered by any discipline forced upon a first term president, this country is doomed.

Mick

January 23rd, 2012
11:57 am

**he exposed the fact that their economic message sucks.**

Jay – I’m shocked at the use of juvenile slang! On the other hand, that just about neatly sums it up, however ineloquent…

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
11:58 am

Sooooo…….. Conservative Republicans are really Progressive Democrats with an identity crisis?

Paul

I think you’ve got a stellar business opportunity sitting right in front of you. I can see a need for thousands upon thousands of political ideology tracker calendars that are waiting to be sold. :lol:

Normal

January 23rd, 2012
11:59 am

” a reasoned, steady person with a great economic and personal track record.”

I thought he was talking about President Obama…I can’t think of any Republican that matches that…

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
12:01 pm

It is sad that in this country people seem to vote for the loudest, most boorish, candidate than a reasoned, steady person with a great economic and personal track record.

Chalk it up to the unseen consequences of striving for ideological purity. Sometimes, it’s the moderates that provide the necessary balance to the ideological pure to give the party equilibrium. When you run the moderates off, you end up with an uneven boat.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 23rd, 2012
12:02 pm

Normal — “…I can’t think of any Republican that matches that…”

Well, not any that are in this race.

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

January 23rd, 2012
12:02 pm

Stevie Ray@11:40 “Romney will get better as time passes and his message improves.”

This is Romey’s second trip down this path. He is what he is.

IMHO

Paul

January 23rd, 2012
12:03 pm

Brosephus

Gotta check that out with Bosch.

He tells me he’s entitled to market and profit from any ideas I come up with.

Something about free enterprise, no regulations and CEO control.

JamVet

January 23rd, 2012
12:04 pm

Baltimore gave that game to New England.

I said repeatedly that in the first quarter, when they went for that FG instead of going for it on fourth and less than one from the three, that they were gonna lose that game.

And poor Billy Cundiff. Jeez, was that ugly with a capital U…

And B, I did notice how my first lil dancing queen took a liking to PB as well. And vice versa.

Oh yeah, baby…

Doggone/GA

January 23rd, 2012
12:04 pm

“This is Romey’s second trip down this path. He is what he is”

Maybe he should go back to running for Governor. He seems to be better at that then he is at running for President.

Stevie Ray

January 23rd, 2012
12:05 pm

My hypothesis is the reason for Gingrich’s bump is the fact that he “shouted down” that CNN dude to start debate…could it be that the mainstream media’s favorability rating is akin to Congress? His only finer debate points had to do with Romney’s work experience as opposed to a debate on the issues..

Romney does remind me physically of Bulworth….one of my favorite movies…if he’d just start rapping…

Normal

January 23rd, 2012
12:06 pm

Jm

January 23rd, 2012
12:07 pm

Newt up in FL polls

Yikes

Normal

January 23rd, 2012
12:08 pm

getalife

January 23rd, 2012
12:08 pm

The newt is positioned with our President on fairness for all Americans in our economy and not just for the wealthy like willard.

We know the wealthy does not need any more welfare but the gop will still fight for it.

The newt moved left.

Stevie Ray

January 23rd, 2012
12:08 pm

Steve,

I concur re your support of none of them, including BO on my part. I do think when people get tired of the personal bashing that Romney, for better or worse, will clarify his message and also focus on the fact that he truly is the least corruptible of the bona fide contentors…including our sitting pres…

RB from Gwinnett

January 23rd, 2012
12:09 pm

Jay – “Romney’s religion had to have played a role in that kind of outcome.”

Just curious… How much does Obama’s religion influence your decision to vote for him?

I realize you liberals have low regard for Christians, but if you think a whole bunch of people in SC are so stupid they walked into the polling place and said “the economy doesn’t matter, entitlements don’t matter, unemployment doesn’t matter, I’m voting for the Christian”, you’re an idiot.

In fact, it would serve you well to pay attention to the public’s reaction to Gingrich’s comments about the news media and people like you who’s sole purpose for being in the media is to get democrats elected, regardless of the truth, the issues, facts, or anything else. You’re famous for leaving out the part of the story that doesn’t fit that agenda, Jay. There is no “journalism” in that.

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
12:10 pm

“What is your major malfunction, numbnuts!”

–Thomas Jefferson

JamVet

January 23rd, 2012
12:11 pm

Normal, what a hoot.

I’m amazed at both the ideas some people come up with and also the amount of spare time they obviously have on their hands!

Since Newt is the Head Hypocrite of the Known Universe, the American people should lambaste him endlessly about his serial diddlings.

I just wish I could “interview’ him on that topic. He’d blow a venal gasket within thirty seconds and have to be taken away in a stretcher…

zeke

January 23rd, 2012
12:11 pm

the newster is not for middle class…get real getalife…..the newt if elected will do the plutocracy’s bidding muy pronto…callista is high maintenance

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 23rd, 2012
12:11 pm

Newt was able to “shout down” the CNN guy with his moral outrage because the question was poorly worded and not specifically related to his hypocriscy and his so-called family values. His response was basic attack the questioner. But the Republican base accepts this tactic…from Cain to Newt.

Granny Godzilla

January 23rd, 2012
12:13 pm

RB

“I realize you liberals have low regard for Christians”

Bull dookey.

We have no regard for faux christians.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
12:15 pm

SC GOP primary voters actually thought Newt would be more electable…?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577175480758093506.html

Paul

January 23rd, 2012
12:15 pm

RB from Gwinnett

“just curious… How much does Obama’s religion influence your decision to vote for him?

I realize you liberals have low regard for Christians,”

Lemme see if I understand your point.

Liberals have low regard for Christians.

Pres Obama is a Christian.

Liberals voted for Obama.

Do I have tat right?

“if you think a whole bunch of people in SC are so stupid they walked into the polling place and said “the economy doesn’t matter, entitlements don’t matter, unemployment doesn’t matter, I’m voting for the Christian”, you’re an idiot.”

Oh, really? According to a Fox News report, 57% of SC voters thought it important that a candidate share their religious beliefs.

And 57% of SC Republicans ain’t LDS.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/south-carolina-exit-polls-show-debates-and-religion-playing-key-role-20120121-ncx

JamVet

January 23rd, 2012
12:16 pm

I have a low regard for the sleazy, hyper-hypocritical Christians, like Newt.

The type that Gandhi wrote about.

That so many are willing to win, wink, nudge, nudge his repeated adultery all under the rug is their cross to carry.

I think Slick Willy should start doing ads for him!

Granny Godzilla

January 23rd, 2012
12:16 pm

I just read that Ms. Coulter is quite unhappy with Newt and defends John King.

What’s next? Cats and dogs living together?

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
12:16 pm

Bull dookey.

We have no regard for faux christians.

particularly those Christians who claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, and who go crying “anti-christian bigotry!” any time one of their radical clerics is called on his bullsh-t.

Peadawg

January 23rd, 2012
12:17 pm

The Democrats are obviously scared of Newt.

Has this been said yet? :)

They BOTH suck

January 23rd, 2012
12:18 pm

RB

As usual YOU leave out what doesn’t meet your agenda…………

Let us see here……….

http://online.wsj.com/video/gingrich-courts-evangelical-vote-in-sc/A5525E6F-FD8C-4908-8C06-8E1353FADE99.html

WOW even the WSJ talks about Newt and conservative Christians

Are they also part of that “liberal media” conspiracy that angers you and keeps you awake?

Bruno

January 23rd, 2012
12:19 pm

From below:

You needed neither to reference Godel nor to give me “hints,” as I’m already quite familiar with it. And what you term “defensiveness” was actually ‘derision’ stemming from the fact that you didn’t actually *apply* Godel to what was under discussion at the time, Bruno. Citing Godel is all well and good, but if you don’t bother *applying* it and elaborating on your argument, then your stance is specious and naive. A periodic table, by itself, proves no argument. It must be properly applied before it’s of use. Same holds true of Godel’s IT. The fact that Godel advanced his IT proves no argument, and it certainly didn’t support yours.

That so, Joe?? Since I don’t have much to do this AM, I’m going to find that blog in the archives so we can see how things really went down. I challenged you to explain GIT, and you choked. After some time went by, you came back on with some lame attempts to make yourself look better, but both Thulsa Doom and I saw through your ploy immediately. The bottom line is that you still don’t understand the philosophical impact of GIL, despite the fact that I did write a few essays later regarding how it can inform us about our own thought processes.

f someone engages in Tu Quoque, I’m going to call them on it.

Any reason you have so much difficulty calling it on yourself and your Lib buddies then?? You use the tu quoque argument frequently yourself. One incident immediately comes to mind in which you stated that because I drew attention to the wasteful spending of Obama, then I am obligated to draw attention to similar waste under Bush. Though logically invalid, I think that is a valid point, which is why I think the tu quoque objection is weak to begin with. But, its value in trying to make yourself look smart is too great for you to place it in a larger context of Truth. Which is why I will always consider you to be a second-tier intellectual at best.

Brosephus

January 23rd, 2012
12:20 pm

Y’all quit picking on RB!!! He can’t help it if he didn’t read the polls or news that came from conservative outlets.

:)

#37 in your program #1 in your hearts

January 23rd, 2012
12:21 pm

Quit your Pollyanna hand wringing. This is a good thing for the gop. For them to air their laundry like this. Let everyone know where they stand on everything and tell folks to get with the program.

Welcome to the Occupation

January 23rd, 2012
12:21 pm

Keep: “Newt was able to “shout down” the CNN guy with his moral outrage because the question was poorly worded and not specifically related to his hypocriscy and his so-called family values”

So true. It was a floating curve that hung over the plate for Mighty Casey to send sailing over the right field wall.

Amazing, and no matter how long John King’s journalistic career lasts, this slip-up ought to be listed in the first paragraph of any future Wikipedia write-up on his career.

How intellectually lazy is a media that simply asks a master rhetorician like Newt Gingrich such a craven, open-ended question like “do you care to comment on that?”

What are they, blithering idiots not to have known that the question should have been formulated to force Newt to address the hypocrisy in his pursuit of Clinton and should have been the 3rd or 4th question that was asked, not the first. Unbelievable.

Oh, yeah, silly me, the same media I suppose that is so decayed and decadent in terms of fulfilling an authentic purpose that it finds time to muse aloud whether it’s role is to be a truth vigilante or not.

mambo

January 23rd, 2012
12:21 pm

Jay, Mitt isn’t much a much better now than he was in “08. You can’t blame that on Newt.

mm

January 23rd, 2012
12:22 pm

“Some of you here might not possibly be afraid for Obama to get in the ring with him, would you?? I’m betting on a TKO in 2.”

If I were you I would keep my money in my pocket.

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
12:22 pm

the question was poorly worded and not specifically related to his hypocriscy and his so-called family values.

I am a sufficiently cynical enough b@stard that I think it was probably very carefully worded to maximize Newt’s poutrage response. King, I think, deliberately played setup/straight man and fed Newt a line because it played beautifully into the “Newt rages against librul media” stories that had probably already been more or less written.

Don’t worry, there’s plenty of time to bang away at Newt’s hypocrisy. it’s a lonnnng primary season, lots of hours of air time to fill.

They BOTH suck

January 23rd, 2012
12:22 pm

RB

Even Fox is in on the “liberal media” conspiracy……….

“Fox News exit polls show that Gingrich overwhelmingly carried the evangelical vote. ”

Who would have thought Fox, RB?

man…. what we will do?

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
12:23 pm

If I were you I would keep my money in my pocket.

whatever makes you say such a thing?

Paul

January 23rd, 2012
12:24 pm

Granny Godzilla

Ann Coulter: “she says that with Gingrich you throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. She also said that Gingrich is the least conservative of the four candidates left in the race”

http://pohdiaries.com/ann-coulter-newt-gingrich-baby-bathwater/

Peadawg

It would appear it’s many Republicans are “obviously scared of Newt.”

getalife

Background music for the high fives in the White House over Newt’s win and lead in the FL polls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL0Qt7IF8Q4#t=00m23s

stands for decibels

January 23rd, 2012
12:24 pm

Second Hegel reference in one morning (via Marx no less).

Where do these guys get off stealing my material?

nelson

January 23rd, 2012
12:26 pm

It bodes well for President Obama. He would make Newt look like “an old pair of shoes”

Joe Hussein Mama

January 23rd, 2012
12:26 pm

Bruno — “That so, Joe?? Since I don’t have much to do this AM, I’m going to find that blog in the archives so we can see how things really went down.”

Outstanding. I look forward to it.

“I challenged you to explain GIT, and you choked.”

So you say. Why don’t you tell me about this mechanism you possess that grants you insight into what others do and do not know, and what others are and are not thinking?

“After some time went by, you came back on with some lame attempts to make yourself look better, but both Thulsa Doom and I saw through your ploy immediately.”

Except that you didn’t; what you term a “ploy” is more colloquially known as ‘lunch and a meeting.’ I’m not bound to operate on your posting schedule any more than you’re bound to operate on mine, Bruno.

“The bottom line is that you still don’t understand the philosophical impact of GIL”

Well, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 23rd, 2012
12:26 pm

stands, I understand the cynicism. I can’t imagine that any respectable journalist would play patsy for the set up but I have been surprised before.

They BOTH suck

January 23rd, 2012
12:26 pm