Why the Gingrich win bodes poorly for the GOP
“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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,059 comments Add your comment
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
12:27 pm
Occupation
“do you care to comment on that?””
It seems he offered an open-ended question to give Newt the opportunity to state his case, period. The question did not imply guilt or innocence. It merely noted a major late-breaking story and asked for comment.
To have phrased it any other way would have led to charges of bias.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
12:29 pm
I can’t imagine that any respectable journalist would play patsy for the set up but I have been surprised before
Remember in Scene I of The Godfather, when Don Corleone says “Some day, and that day may never come, I’ll call upon you to do a service for me”?
Perhaps that’s how John King’s last contract negotiation went with CNN.
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
12:31 pm
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.
I’d buy into that line of thought. That’s why I’ve referred to those “debates” as nothing more than informercials, as they both have about the same net worth in our society as a whole.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
12:32 pm
Bruno — “Any reason you have so much difficulty calling it on yourself and your Lib buddies then??”
I’ve called it on my “Lib buddies” from time to time. I’ve also *failed* to call it on your ‘Con buddies’ quite a bit; I’m sure that doesn’t trouble you at all.
“You use the tu quoque argument frequently yourself.”
Then grow up and call ME on it, Bruno. Nothing’s stopping you from doing the same. I’m certainly far from perfect; none of us here is. If you think you see me engaging in it, then call me on it. I frankly can’t believe I apparently have to tell you that.
“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.”
Given that it’s recognized among scholars of logic as a classic fallacy, I see no reason to credit your position ahead of theirs, Bruno. I don’t begrudge you your position, but I see no obligation on my part to adjust my handling of Tu Quoque cases simply based on your personal objection. IOW, shrug.
“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.”
I can live with your opinion of me; it’s always the arrogant pretenders like yourself who need to belittle others in order to elevate themselves. (laughing)
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
12:33 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?
Stevie Ray–Jay seems to be having some difficulty understanding the Newt surge as well, so let me break it down for you. When we can see and hear someone speak, the message received is about 95% emotional and only 5% factual in terms of impact. The reason for this goes back to what Joe Mama keeps missing about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. We aren’t entirely “logical” creatures, and for good reason. Formal logic, i.e. deductive logic, is only one small tool in our bag of tricks to help us understand and navigate our way through the world. What we primarily rely on, and again for good reason, is inductive logic. We see a few examples, and draw a larger inference about how the world works. And in a fast paced world in which we don’t have the time to gather complete information, I’ll take inductive logic over deductive logic any day.
The bottom line is that Mitt is a man on the run right now, his offense and defense breaking down simultaneously. I don’t want him to be the message bearer for the Republicans, because I don’t trust he’ll live up to those conservative values if he ever makes it to the White House. His record in Massachusetts proves that to me. I trust Newt a lot more.
Lord Help Us
January 23rd, 2012
12:34 pm
The transition in the GOP from:
George W Bush/Cheney
to
McCain/Palin
to
Newt/?
I am trying to figure out what is ‘conservative’ here…and where this ‘movement’ is headed…cliff, perhaps…
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 23rd, 2012
12:34 pm
Well, not to get off topic or nothing like that, but has anybody heard if they let the revered Sen. Rand Paul out of the hoosegow yet? I mean, if those thugs molest little girls and old grandmas, it’s hard to tell what they’ll do to a big-shot Senator. No offense, Brocephus.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
12:34 pm
decibels: Where do these guys get off stealing my material?
Where are those damn copyright laws when we need them!
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.
I hear you but I just don’t think so. I agree that King put the question front and center out of a certain cynicism but I don’t think it was that calculated. I think rather that the feeding frenzy mentality of scandal made them think that it had to take top billing, had to be gotten to first. In one sense, the media today are like the dumb cop who doesn’t realize that the evidence of the crime is hidden in plain sight and conversely that the perpetrator’s best defense is to take the corpse and simply throw it back at the inspector with the cynical charge that the cops aren’t all that innocent either. I mean this is obfuscation and misdirection 101. Good god have these media people not read a single page of history! or detective fiction!
King would have been much smarter to play the smart detective, not the dumb one, and take the Columbo approach and subtly bait Gingrich without putting his cards on the table too openly and quickly.
But I digress .. as usual ..
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
12:35 pm
Nice post at the end of the last thread.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
12:36 pm
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
12:36 pm
I think we’re seeing a new Romney in Fl.
Politico: “Mitt Romney landed here Sunday with a simple message: Newt Gingrich is a failure and a fraud. And a disgrace. And a hapless showman.
Standing under a brilliant orange Florida sunset, Romney delivered his longest sustained critique of the South Carolina primary winner to date — ticking through a list as if he were reading off Gingrich’s Wikipedia page, and undercutting each item as he got to it.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71802.html
Not sure how Gingrichs ‘he paid only 15%’ line is going to work when so many Fl voters are seniors whose retirements are derived from investment income.
mm
January 23rd, 2012
12:36 pm
Stands,
I see the unknown republican (the one with the bag over his head) polls better than the other GOP candidates. They just can’t seem to find their savior candidate riding in on a white stallion.
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
12:36 pm
They BOTH
I am soooooo co-opting that photo @ 12:26.
Cutty
January 23rd, 2012
12:38 pm
Would love to see the Family Values crowd vote for the twice divorced adulterer over the man married for 20 years to the same woman.
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 23rd, 2012
12:38 pm
IS THAT ALL THERE IS? Mitt or Newt?
Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that’s all there is my friends, then when will it end?
Let’s break out the booze and cry in our beer.
If that’s all there is WE HAVE A LOT TO FEAR.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
12:38 pm
I’ve referred to those “debates” as nothing more than informercials, as they both have about the same net worth in our society as a whole.
Fair enough, but I think a lot of Americans think of them more as sporting events, and the general election debates are the equivalent of the World Series or, better yet (to pick a more telegenic event), the Conference Championships + Super Bowl. I think that’s why Newt keeps on hammering this notion that he’ll be a master debater against Obama.
Some people really seem to think it all comes down to who “wins” a debate. Obviously, there are clear-cut examples where one guy absolutely did better than the other, and occasionally it actually does turn a bunch of undecideds over to supporting one side. But it really doesn’t work that way, most of the time. not in my experience anyway.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
12:39 pm
I see the unknown republican (the one with the bag over his head) polls better than the other GOP candidates.
that can’t be an unusual phenomenon at this point in a primary race, against an incumbent President, though–right?
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
12:41 pm
Dear Jay, you are tying yourself in knots needlessly. Gingrich won in SC because he sounded like an economic conservative. Romney lost because he sounded like a moderate. Full throated conservatism has not lost since 1964. I am not yet persuaded that Gingrich is the second coming of Reagan – goodness knows Reagan would never have rejected the brilliant Ryan blueprint by using leftist language. The more likely result is that Romney – a bright fellow – will start sounding more conservative. That is a win-win for America, a promise of relief from the past three years.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
12:42 pm
Paul, rags favorite beauty queen, “Chairman Anne”, sure seems to be a moralist in that Faux News piece!
She sure doesn’t like that cons are giving a free pass to Leroy the Horndog.
Has Billy O’Loofah weighed in on the matter? LOL.
And should Mr. “I was a philanderer before philandering was cool” win the nomination it would be the biggest surprise in American politics since Woodrow Wilson won the White House. (Something Newt will never, ever do.)
But should those numbskulls in Tampa make him their “champion” (HA!), I would consider wagering the mortgage on the Uppity Muslim, no matter what the odds…
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
12:43 pm
Minor correction, “full throated conservatism” can only lose under Nash’s games theory.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
12:44 pm
It’s been fun, but producin’ awaits. later, all.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
12:45 pm
I can live with your opinion of me; it’s always the arrogant pretenders like yourself who need to belittle others in order to elevate themselves. (laughing)
Bottom line, Joe, is that you’ve never demonstrated in the least that you understand Godel, in spite of your claims otherwise. Kind of like going to a movie theatre and only seeing previews. It’s time to put up or shut up about Godel.
Unless you’re simply the most self-unaware person on the planet, how are your little (and shall I say girlish) little comments at the end of your posts such as “(laughing and pointing)” NOT an example of belittlement?? Of course, you claim it’s in response to poor treatment foisted upon yourself, as if to say that your own condescension is justified, but other people’s isn’t.
I’m not really a psychologist, but you seem to have some major self-esteem issues, Joe. Which is okay as long as you’re not a total d-was about it like you.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
12:45 pm
ragnar danneskjold: “I am not yet persuaded that Gingrich is the second coming of Reagan – goodness knows Reagan would never have rejected the brilliant Ryan blueprint by using leftist language”
Oh really?
The Reagan who used leftist language like this:
We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?
Or this:
These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland … They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
However situational and cynical these statements may have been, point is, he said it. And he meant it on some level. After all, not like he was an actor or anything.
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
12:46 pm
Dear Lord @ 12:34, you raise a valid question. Cheney was a conservative, Bush was not. Palin was a conservative, McCain was not. The republicans err, consistently, by nominating moderates, and the American public does not win when the choice is between a democrat or a moderate republican.
Erwin's cat
January 23rd, 2012
12:47 pm
Joe – “I can live with your opinion of me; it’s always the arrogant pretenders like yourself who need to belittle others in order to elevate themselves. (laughing)
”
Is this irony or hypocrisy?
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 23rd, 2012
12:48 pm
If the overall GOP message truly is as weak as it appears.
WHAT MESSAGE?
The only message we have heard from the GOP is:
Obama didn’t…….
Obama can’t…….
What Obama did….
What Obama didn’t do..
Obama said,,,,,,,,,
Obama didn’t say..
During the debate between Obama and WHOEVER that dog won’t hunt. Blaming Obama.
Whoever will have to SAY WHAT THEY WOULD DO……………give solutions, ideas, etc
The GOP DON’T HAVE A CLUE..
mm
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
“goodness knows Reagan would never have rejected the brilliant Ryan blueprint by using leftist language.”
You used Ryan and brilliant in the same sentence?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
Paul: “The question did not imply guilt or innocence. It merely noted a major late-breaking story and asked for comment.
To have phrased it any other way would have led to charges of bias.”
I disagree. I think John King is easily good enough with language and rhetoric to 1) know not to ask the question as a yes/no question, and for god sakes not a “do you want to reply..” question, and 2) be able to formulate something more undodgable.
Normal
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
“My hypothesis is the reason for Gingrich’s bump is the fact that he “shouted down” that CNN dude to start debate…”
It’s funny, but all I saw was Newt sidestep the asked question. Sure, he played the angry abused man, but he never answered the question. Too bad the questioneer didn’t call him on it.
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
Dear Welcome @ 12:45, you misapprehend the meaning of “conservative,” which is nothing more than a synonym for freedom. Eliminating overlord preferences in the tax code, thus to minimize political effects on the economy is not “anticonservative.” Freedom, but not compulsion, to join a labor union, is not “anticonservative.” You need to read up on your Friedman (Milton, not Thomas.)
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
Dear Jay, you are tying yourself in knots needlessly. Gingrich won in SC because he sounded like an economic conservative. Romney lost because he sounded like a moderate.
ragnar–I’d like to believe that Jay, as a smart guy and decent human being, might be interested in hearing from some Newt supporters as to WHY we like the guy despite his obvious faults. So far, he seems unable to break out of his own limited Libthink in order to appreciate the corresponding limited Conthink take on things.
Lord Help Us
January 23rd, 2012
12:50 pm
rag, ‘The republicans err, consistently, by nominating moderates..’
Is Newt or Mitt ‘conservative?’
In reference to one of your recent posts, I am not referring to what they ’sound’ like, I am referring to their core beliefs.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
12:52 pm
Rags
Funny about who is and who isn’t a conservative.
Why didn’t the GOP vet Bush and McCain before they ran?
Why would we think you are any better at who is and who isn’t a real conservative than you were before?
In fact, since it takes years for you folks to figure out who is or isn’t this that or the other – why should we think you have the ability to think rationally regarding any political candidate?
Dumb abd Dumber
January 23rd, 2012
12:52 pm
Hey Bruno — got reading comprehension skills? Jay’s Blog is on how Gingrich’s win bodes ill for the GOP; not that its meaningless.
Did you go to UGA? That might explain your limitations.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
12:52 pm
JamVet
“And should Mr. “I was a philanderer before philandering was cool” win the nomination… ”
I still think a bunch of those evangelical Christian Republican voters are just flat-out envious.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
12:52 pm
Is this irony or hypocrisy?
EC–The truly funny/sad thing is that Joe seems so self-unaware that I don’t hink he even sees the irony/hypocrisy in his own posts. The old “three fingers pointing back at yourself” phenomenon seems to escape him.. We can only hope that he’s a better man in person.
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
12:53 pm
ragnar
Every conservative principle was tried from 01-07 when you had the presidency and congress. The result of all these sham theorems and policy’s came to a catastrophic climax in sept 08 – never again….
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
12:54 pm
Welcome
Any ideas on how he could have phrased the question to avoid the ‘bias’ charge?
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
12:55 pm
Bruno
“I’’d like to believe that Jay, as a smart guy and decent human being, might be interested in hearing from some Newt supporters as to WHY we like the guy despite his obvious faults.”
Please – the floor is yours.
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
12:56 pm
Will be interesting to see if newt’s SC bump fades or is sustainable
RB from Gwinnett
January 23rd, 2012
12:56 pm
““Fox News exit polls show that Gingrich overwhelmingly carried the evangelical vote. ”
Yea, it couldn’t have been because they think he’ll do a better job than Romney, right? Must be because of his religion. That’s obviously why SC overwhelmingly voted for former baptist pastor Huckaby in ‘08 too, right? Oh, wait. McCain won that one. Hmmmm.
By the same “logic” you people are using, since most black people voted for Obama, they voted for him because he’s black, right?
Libertarian
January 23rd, 2012
12:58 pm
Could it be as simple as perhaps people in the south see Romney as another elitist northerner wall street type who says whatever he needs to say to get elected? I think he doesn’t appeal to the masses in the south because he seems like the typical slick politician who dodges questions and flip flops. Perhaps they like that Newt is a little more of a loose cannon and more willing to say what’s on his mind, rather than saying the “PC” thing.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:00 pm
RB
You need some cheese with that early afternoon whine
YOU attempted to paint the religious issue strictly on a liberal vs conservative paradigm
Whether you can see past this paradigm in your day to day life, I have no idea…….. you surely do not show it on this blog
You were shown several right leaning sources that claimed the EXACT thing you said the left is doing…. yet you still cry about the left
WOW
You do make for some great belly laughs
Hold off on the clowns JB……………….. they are already in the house
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
1:00 pm
Mick, I remember the endless drumbeat by virtually every Republican out there – George Bush is man of principles and a true conservative!!!
Now?
The 20-20 hindsight boys say otherwise, even though it was patently obvious as early as 2000.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
1:01 pm
Bruno — “Bottom line, Joe, is that you’ve never demonstrated in the least that you understand Godel, in spite of your claims otherwise. Kind of like going to a movie theatre and only seeing previews. It’s time to put up or shut up about Godel.”
No.
If you want to behave like an adult and speak to me like one, then we can have the adult conversation that you *claim* you want to have. If, OTOH, you’re going to continue to behave like a jackass towards me as you have since our very first exchange, then you can go fly a kite. I don’t dance to your tune, mister.
“Unless you’re simply the most self-unaware person on the planet, how are your little (and shall I say girlish) little comments at the end of your posts such as “(laughing and pointing)” NOT an example of belittlement??”
If you feel belittled by it, then strap on a pair and *say* so. I’m pretty sure, however, that you’re not the arbiter of everyone else’s thoughts on that, and I’m also pretty sure that you don’t get to determine what *I* mean when I post that sort of thing.
“Of course, you claim it’s in response to poor treatment foisted upon yourself”
I neither said nor thought any such thing. You’re simply putting words in my mouth, Bruno.
“as if to say that your own condescension is justified, but other people’s isn’t.”
I don’t think I’ve spoken to anyone’s condescension today but *yours,* Bruno.
“I’m not really a psychologist.”
Then the rest of your diagnosis is kind of beside the point, isn’t it? (laughing)
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm
I think he doesn’t appeal to the masses in the south because he seems like the typical slick politician who dodges questions and flip flops.
Yeah, because that type is quite unknown south of the Mason-Dixon line…..
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm
I think that’s why Newt keeps on hammering this notion that he’ll be a master debater
I think I could have gone all day without reading that portion of that statement….
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm
E. Cat — “Is this irony or hypocrisy?”
Both, and you win a cigar.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:03 pm
JamVet
Except for a few issues, he was the best thing since sliced bread until the 06 elections………. Had Repubs held Congress…. he would be considered the 14th disciple right after Reagan who is the 13th……..
BuckeyeinGa
January 23rd, 2012
1:03 pm
I use to think Mitt R. had a chance in the general election. but seeing how unprepared he was for the tax question shows he’s won’t make it through a debate. The Washington insiders are the ones that seemed to be panicking because they know Newt can’t win a general election.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:03 pm
A Tax Cheat or A Wife Cheat (Is this the Best Republicans Have To Offer?)
January 23rd, 2012
12:38 pm
“IS THAT ALL THERE IS? Mitt or Newt?”
“Is that all there is, is that all there is?”
Nope. Take comfort in knowing that you can always relect the guy in there now. You know. The one that has presided over the worst post recession recovery since WW2, the one who has driven us roughly another 5 trillion in debt, the one with the anti-business rhetoric, the one strangling the economy with burdensome regulation, the one whose legacy will read “food stamp president”. You can still vote for that guy. Who knows? Maybe you’ll get a raise in your food stamp allotment.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:03 pm
And Welcome, I don’t think there was any way possible for King to phrase that question without getting the exact, well-rehearsed response that we saw.
The first thing you learn in candidate school is to answer the question that you wanted to be asked, and ignore the question that you were asked.
Quagmire
January 23rd, 2012
1:04 pm
I never thought I would see or even say this, watching the GoP debates over the pass couple of weeks. All I see is “White on White Crime”
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
1:05 pm
…the meaning of “conservative,” which is nothing more than a synonym for freedom.
LOL.
conservative – disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
freedom – the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
Yep those look interchangeable to me!
You gotta love those absurd outtakes from the Republican Dictionary of Made Up Definitions…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
1:06 pm
Bruno — “EC–The truly funny/sad thing is that Joe seems so self-unaware that I don’t hink he even sees the irony/hypocrisy in his own posts.”
Oh, Bruno, come now. We know you didn’t spot that little nugget I left for you until Cat uncovered it for you.
“The old “three fingers pointing back at yourself” phenomenon seems to escape him.”
Was it accidental? Intentional? Intended with malice? Done all in fun? You just don’t know, Bruno.
Why don’t you put some of your vaunted meta-logic to work here and recognize that what you *think* you know might not be at all what it appears to be?
“We can only hope that he’s a better man in person.”
Why? Are you planning on stalking me or something?
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
1:06 pm
Get a little rude – who nails it again-
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
1:06 pm
Paul: “Any ideas on how he could have phrased the question to avoid the ‘bias’ charge?”
Well, for one there was no way to avoid a bias charge. Any reference to the revelations in the ABC interview, short of a questioner who made it clear he viewed them as bogus and tossed Newt a softball chance to bat it down, would be viewed as part of a media ‘bias’ attempt to smear a GOP candidate. On the other hand, a failure to bring it up and demand a response would be viewed as a dereliction of the media’s duty by all other parties. So there’s no way around that really.
Perhaps the best question would be What is your response to your ex-wife’s decision to come forward at this time with allegations concerning your behavior as a husband?
5-0
January 23rd, 2012
1:06 pm
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
Every conservative principle was tried from 01-07 when you had the presidency and congress. The result of all these sham theorems and policy’s came to a catastrophic climax in sept 08 – never again….
OMG. Your statement is so ludicrous it hurts. It should read every moderate principle was tried.
Besides…It has taken Obama only 3 years to do the damage Bush took 8 years to cause. The lesson here is that we need true conservativism.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:07 pm
Gingrich won in SC because he sounded like an economic conservative.
Really? So bashing venture capitalists is now economic conservatism? Making an issue of Romney’s wealth and how he acquired it is now economic conservativism? Man, “conservative” must be the new “gay”, a word that’s taking on a totally new meaning even as we watch.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
1:08 pm
Bruno
Please tell us you’re still here and it doesn’t take 20 minutes to tell us why Newt supporters like the guy despite his obvious faults.”
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:08 pm
Dear Lord @ 12:50, I think they both “is,” just not sufficiently so for my satisfaction.
Dear Granny @ 12:52, good afternoon. I think both were adequately vetted – we knew what we were getting in both cases – just that Nash’s games theory works against the majority view within the party.
Dear Mick @ 12:53, the housing collapse was a function of loose monetary policy at the Fed, taxpayer sops to leftist-proffered government chartered mortgage resellers, and stupid Congressional laws dating to the Carter era, ramped up by unfireable bureaucrats during the Clinton era. A conservative would have wished to defend the value of the dollar, abolish FNMA and FHLMC, fire every bureaucrat earning more than $100,000 per, and repeal every regulation not founded on punishing collusion or fraud. We surely can agree that the leftist minority in the Senate would oppose such moves, and the capacity to block legislation there would always be successful absent a “veto-proof” majority. Perhaps we can also agree that the democrats, holding same power from 2009 – 2011, did not even pass a budget?
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
Thulsa
“the one whose legacy will read “food stamp president”
If you google food stamp president and factcheck you’ll have an unhappy surprise.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
Jamvet
Ease up a little
He meant the Right wing talking points dictionary………..
He was in such a rush to provide the definition that he left out a minor detail
No big deal
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
Dear Jay @ 1:07, agree, but the Newt-meister backed off that silliness too after Limbaugh made him an object of national ridicule.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
Granny: Why would we think you are any better at who is and who isn’t a real conservative than you were before?
Dumbshyt: Jay’s Blog is on how Gingrich’s win bodes ill for the GOP; not that its meaningless.
Paul: Please – the floor is yours.
Again, guys, it’s as simple as this: Newt resonates emotionally with people who call themselves “conservative”. Nothing more, and little less. Which is the same reason most of you backed Obama last time. Any of you here honest enough to admit that?? I certainly hope you didn’t pick Obama over McCain due to his superior experience and more detailed plans for the nation. Seriously.
At the root of his emotional appeal is the fact that he aligns himself with hard work and self-reliance, while Obama aligns himself with victimhood and dependency. You guys might not like that, or disagree with it intellectually, but that’s what’s going on at the deepest level. Newt trumps Mitt because he is a much more effective spokesperson.
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
1:10 pm
I think you progressive liberals should be listening to Obama sing and stop trying to create spin about the conservative presidential candidates. Oh, has Obama doubled his total income yet? He should leave office with about 20million in the bank.
RB from Gwinnett
January 23rd, 2012
1:10 pm
BOTH – You do know there is a difference between “57% of evangelicals voted for Newt” and “evangelicals voted for him because Romney isn’t a Christian” don’t you?
The problem isn’t with what the media outlet reported, it’s with your understanding of it.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:12 pm
Ragnar
Are you saying that Rush runs the Party or an aspect of it? I ask because I have heard several right leaning pundits and read several right leaning articles that didn’t really take to kindly to the “left” saying Rush is the pied piper
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
1:12 pm
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:03 pm
This would be a more accurate statement:
“The one that has presided over the worst post recession recovery since WW2 — caused by the near-collapse of the ecenomic system by a Republican Administration; the one who has driven us roughly another 5 trillion in debt — caused by the two unfunded WARS of a Republican Administration; the one with the pro-business rhetoric….since business stocks have improved since the Republican Administration LEFT office; the one re-invigorating the economy with necessary regulatory control and enforcement; the one whose legacy will read “I tried to FIX what the Republicans started.”
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:13 pm
RB
Dismissed………….. You need to listen more to Oreilly’s slogan
“The spin stops here”…………… You are getting dizzy
RB from Gwinnett
January 23rd, 2012
1:13 pm
Jay – “Really? So bashing venture capitalists …..”
That’s a lie, Jay, and you know it. Newt has repeatedly pointed out that Romney needs to explain what happened in about 3 cases. Try being truthful for once. It won’t kill you to tell the whole story.
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
1:13 pm
5-0
Don’t blame obama, he’s merely the cleanup man and what he inherited will take many more years to cure…
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
1:13 pm
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
I did GG and they all say Obama is the food stamp president. Thanks for the FACTCHECK!
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:14 pm
Ragnar
I did read the Rush’s article of him bashing Newt………. No worries… Newt wins FL and Rush will be back on the Newt wagon for the time being
RB from Gwinnett
January 23rd, 2012
1:14 pm
Ok, BOTH, you win. Blacks voted for Obama because he’s black. Got it.
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:14 pm
It’s amazing that Jay is so fearful of Gingrich and his message.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:14 pm
Really? So bashing venture capitalists is now economic conservatism? Making an issue of Romney’s wealth and how he acquired it is now economic conservativism?
Meanwhile, Jay’s still stuck trying to force his own Lib interpretation of things on people who don’t think like him. Kind of like DDR’s and Brosephus’s objections last night that White People simply “don’t get it”. And they’re likely right. Their “truth” is different from mine. Similar events, such as being pulled over by the police for no apparent reason, take on a far greater meaning in their mind than in my own White Boy mind.
Any reason you can’t accept the Con take on it, Jay, without depending on these exit polls??
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
1:15 pm
ragnar: “You need to read up on your Friedman (Milton, not Thomas.)”
I hate both of their guts, thank you!
AU Liberal in ATL
January 23rd, 2012
1:15 pm
Was it the Pope who suspended the 7th and 9th commandments for republicans or did Pat Robertson get that memo directly from God? And, is this suspension permanent or does it only apply to the campaign season? Never mind. I already know the answer to that one.
Libertarian
January 23rd, 2012
1:16 pm
I don’t think Newt will win in Florida. I also don’t think he’ll win overall. As for the SC win, you can’t completely discount the fact that he’s from GA, a neighboring state, and is well known in the south. I think people like his shooting from the hip and bashing the media, who are viewed as northern elitists.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:16 pm
“Then the rest of your diagnosis is kind of beside the point, isn’t it? (laughing)”- Joe Mama
Joe Mama,
You’re slipping. You left out the full (pointing, laughing) on that one.
“I’m pretty sure, however, that you’re not the arbiter of everyone else’s thoughts on that,”
True dat. Bruno is just one guy with an opinion on the childishness of putting exclamations such as (laughing) or (pointing, laughing) after statements in an attempt to ridicule.
But he aint the only one with that opinion. I mean seriously.Its bizarre. I mean who does that crap??? To my knowledge you’re the only one who engages in that kind of 6th grade childishness. As if putting (pointing, laughing) is actually a point of debate.
Do you do this because you are
1- immature
2- mean spirited
Yeah. I know this is a false binary. So lets up the ante and go for a false tertiary. Do you do it because you’re
1-immature
2- mean spirited
3- both
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
1:17 pm
Bruno
“Newt resonates emotionally with people who call themselves “conservative”. Nothing more, and little less. Which is the same reason most of you backed Obama last time. Any of you here honest enough to admit that??”
I suppose it’s like the evolving definition of ‘conservative.’ Now it’s all about feelings, once reserved as a pejorative for progressives.
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:17 pm
Dear Both @ 1:12, fair question, “Are you saying that Rush runs the Party or an aspect of it?” You err in two elements of the question, within the leftist blind spots.
(a) Running a party has little meaning to conservatives. We are not a party oriented to fawning adulation over an UberFuerher, rather we are an ideology of principles. Even if a Limbaugh “ran” or otherwise “controlled” conservativism, he would merely be herding cats, a “control” with no meaning. Sharply different from the goose-steppers in the party of cultism.
(b) Limbaugh’s contribution – making Newt an object of ridicule over Newt’s anti-freedom slurs against Romney – is not an exercise of control, but merely a brilliant contribution to public discourse.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
1:17 pm
Just passing through on the way to a meeting, but I thought this was the most illuminating of Newt’s quotes lately.
“Governor Romney’s core problem was that as the governor of Massachusetts, he was moderate, which by the standards of Republican primary voters is a liberal.” Mr. Gingrich said on “Face the Nation.”
Nice way of Newt to say that Republicans voting in the primary are not representative of the nation at large which is comprised of mainly of moderates.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
1:17 pm
“and “evangelicals voted for him because Romney isn’t a Christian””
Is this where you’re supposed to say “there’s your sign”?
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
1:17 pm
ragnar
The one point that I’ll agree with, that you did not bring up, was repeal of glass/steagall, which clinton signed into law – that flung the doors wide open to massive financial sector malfeasance…
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:18 pm
willibekind
Your welcome about the FACTCHECK on foodstamps
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/
No thank you required
Glad I could help……
What else can I assist you with today?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
1:19 pm
Again, guys, it’s as simple as this: Newt resonates emotionally with people who call themselves “conservative”. Nothing more, and little less. Which is the same reason most of you backed Obama last time. Any of you here honest enough to admit that?? I certainly hope you didn’t pick Obama over McCain due to his superior experience and more detailed plans for the nation. Seriously.
Ahhh that’s great little debate tactic. Set up the response of the other side by challenging their “honesty” and then defining the parameters for any required elements of any response. Can I try?
Again, guys, it’s as simple as this: Newt resonates emotionally with people who call themselves “conservative” because he is not Obama and he has the dog whistles. Nothing more, and little less. Which is the same reason they would back anyone other than Obama. Any of you here honest enough to admit that?? I certainly hope you didn’t pick McCain over Obama due to his changing political stances and failure to recognize a serious crisis, his failed integrity and his pick of Palin as VP. Seriously
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
1:19 pm
Bruno: “Meanwhile, Jay’s still stuck trying to force his own Lib interpretation of things on people who don’t think like him. ”
You just completely dodged the point Jay made, I can’t believe it.
Why did you even bother pasting Jay’s point — which remains to be addressed here by the way — if you have no answer for it and only wish to pivot to a misdirection?
So, again, what is your explanation of the fact that Newt took SC going away after he and Perry attacked Romney from the left?
If you claim that bashing venture capitalists is in fact conservative, then you have to explain how. I know one person who vigorously disagrees with you — and his name is Mitt.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
1:19 pm
To some extent or another all of the con candidates genuflect before the de facto RNC Chair and free loader extraordinaire – Lush.
The pecking order then devolves down to Pretty Boy Sean, Billy O’Loofah, Mann Coulter, Kneel Boar-tz and so on. I’m sure that in my intentional ignorance on these types that I’ve omitted some of the other intellectual heavyweights who demand obeisance.
But the question that begs asking is why do the neo-cons try to turn spinelessness and groupthink sycophancy into such admirable traits?
Where are the men of moral courage who will stand up to these powers and say no! You are wrong and here is why!
But don’t ask Tom Price, I already did.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
1:20 pm
jewcowboy
Good afternoon.
That’ll make a great PAC ad. “Republican moderates. Newt says you’re really liberals and he doesn’t want your vote.”
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:20 pm
Ragnar
Thanks for the reply on Rush……. My opinion is that he has some sway with the conservative faction on the Republican Party, however he doesn’t “run it” as a mentioned in my earlier post.
Was just looking for your take on Rush
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
1:21 pm
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
1:10 pm
“……stop trying to create spin about the conservative presidential candidates.”
We don’t have to create spin….the GOP is doing it all by themselves!!
Remember…..when an airplane is caight in a spin, to get out of it, you apply COUNTER-rudder….and the rightward spin that Bush got us into needs to be countered…….
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:21 pm
Rags
Pish Tosh Nash
You conservatives can’t figure each other out with out a score card.
While the Nash Game Theory is a relatively accurate predictor of political behavior (according to the good folks at Cornell) …..if y’all were subsrcibing to it why didn’t you warn the GOP about Bush and McCain?
You kept it a secret why?
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:21 pm
Dear Both @ 1:14, I respectfully disagree. Rush advocates conservatism, not candidates. Prediction here is that he will continue to oppose Obama, and that will mean no endorsement of any individual sooner than the nomination of the Republican. Rush’s agenda is to drive the discussion toward conservatism.
Dear Welcome @ 1:15, it is ok to hate either or both, but if you want to “understand” the mind of a conservative, you need to read Milton. Or Hayek. Or Von Mises. Or Sowell.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:22 pm
Bruno, I’d actually agree with you about much of that. It’s indeed about emotional resonance, and Newt creates it and Mitt does not.
However, picking a candidate because he expresses your cultural resentments well is a poor basis for picking a president. (And yes, Barack Obama is much smarter, wiser and stable than John McCain could ever hope to be. And if you care to disagree, I have two words: Sarah Palin.)
In fact, Newt’s popularity can be explained as part of that odd quick in the conservative movement that puts such emphasis on making liberals mad.
Every day this year, for example, Human Events has sent out an email detailing one of “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy.” Then there are all those bumper stickers:
“How to annoy a liberal: Work hard and be happy”
“White, Straight Republican Male: How else can I p*ss you off today”
I can’t think of a parallel strain of such significance on the left.
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:22 pm
Dear Granny, call me “Elijah,” a mere voice in the wilderness.
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:23 pm
My, my ………. just think if those Bibles had been Korans !
Headline (ABC) “Members of the Occupy Wall Street movement urinated on a cross, desecrated a church and threw Bibles at police officers in separate incidents over the weekend”
“Protesters in San Francisco occupied an abandoned hotel and began attacking police – hurling bricks and Bibles at officers.
“Once they gained access [to the hotel], some of them made it to the top of the roof and they began to throw Bibles down at the officers,” San Francisco Police Dept. spokesman Carlos Manfredi told ABC News.
Several officers were injured in the attack.
In New York City, Occupy protesters allegedly urinated on a cross inside a Brooklyn church.
“An occupier peed inside the building and the pee came into contact with a cross,” wrote Rabbi Chaim Gruber in a note to the New York Post.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has a history of participants urinating and defecating in public.
The group has also been accused of desecrating West Park Presbyterian Church. The pastor ordered 60 protesters to leave the sanctuary after someone stole a bronze lid from the $12,500 baptismal font.
“It was like pissing on the 99 percent,” an angry Rev. Bob Brashear told the New York Post.
The pastor supports the Occupy movement – but is outraged over their behavior.
“Even in the 1980s when we had a lot of crack addicts etc. in the neighborhood, and even robbing people in the church, that particular religious symbol had never really been disturbed before,” the pastor told CBS News. “I tried to make it clear that I don’t believe in collective punishment but I do believe in collective accountability and responsibility.”
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
1:24 pm
Howdy Paul,
“Republican moderates. Newt says you’re really liberals and he doesn’t want your vote.”
Ouch.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:24 pm
“caused by the two unfunded WARS of a Republican Administration;”
HDB,
We are out of Iraq completely. Or did you not notice that? We still have projected trillion dollar deficits and projected deficits through the year 2020 according to Obama’s own team. What’s your excuse now?
“the one with the pro-business rhetoric….since business stocks have improved since the Republican Administration LEFT office;”
Yes. And as has been explained numerous times stocks and earnings are at all time highs because companies are sitting on cash and not engaging in expansion or new hiring which costs enormous amounts of cash flow.
“the one re-invigorating the economy with necessary regulatory control and enforcement;”
Really? Increased regulation invigorates an economy? That’s news to a lot of economists out there. You’re going to have a hard time convincing them of that.
“the one whose legacy will read “I tried to FIX what the Republicans started.”
Let me help you out with your typo HDB. It should read ” the one whose legacy will read “I tried to FIX what the Republicans started and made it dramatically worse”