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
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:25 pm
Ragnar
“and that will mean no endorsement of any individual sooner than the nomination of the Republican.”
One does not have to call out a name to endorse someone. Rush is a great ENTERTAINER ( i listen sometimes). As you say he will wait until it is evident who will win than jump on their bandwagon and of course oppose Obama…. His fans will chant El Rushbo as if he is some guru…………..
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:25 pm
Gingrich is on such a roll right now because he is the ANTITHESIS of Obama.
That’s it ……….. pure and simple.
Get ready for November.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:25 pm
I suppose it’s like the evolving definition of ‘conservative.’ Now it’s all about feelings, once reserved as a pejorative for progressives.
Paul–You need to spend a little more time with the unwashed conservative masses. I know that you’re strictly a man of high flown principles, primarily because you’ve told us so repeatedly, but the rest of us, the 99 percenters, if you will, live in the human world in which emotion is what drives us. Think about it. E- motion. It’s not just a coincidence.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:25 pm
williebkind
let me help you out son.
News for food stamp president fact check
Bush and Obama, the Food Stamp Presidents – 3 hours ago
When Newt Gingrich labels President Barack Obama the food stamp president … Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (provided to Factcheck.org/USA Today) …Reason Online (blog) – 48 related articles »
Fact Check Shows Gingrich’s Obama Food Stamp Claim Was False – News One – 485 related articles »
Is Obama Really The ‘Food Stamp President’? Fact-checking The SC … – NPR (blog) – 1157 related articles »
FACT CHECK: Gingrich’s food-stamp claim | 11alive.com
3 days ago … Our fact check results? The food stamp recipient growth grew to an historically
high level under President Obama, beginning before he took …
http://www.11alive.com/…/FACT-CHECK-Gingrichs-food-stamp-claim – Cached – SimilarIs Obama Really The ‘Food Stamp President’? Fact-Checking … – NPR
6 days ago … He later said that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama
than any president in American history.” We check it out.
http://www.npr.org/…/is-obama-really-the-food-stamp-president-fact-checking-the-s-c-debate – SimilarFact Check Shows Gingrich’s Obama Food Stamp Claim Was False …
2 days ago … FactCheck.org has looked into Newt Gingrich’s claim that Barack Obama had put
more people on Food Stamps than any President in American …
newsone.com/…/fact-check-shows-gingrichs-obama-food-stamp-claim-was-false/ – Cached – Similar
Mr. Silly Pants!
getalife
January 23rd, 2012
1:27 pm
The newt sounded like a member of the OWS movement.
What a bizarre gop cycle.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:28 pm
Gingrich is on such a roll right now because he is the ANTITHESIS of Obama.
That’s it ……….. pure and simple.
Get ready for November.
Scout, I’m not sure why, but the Libs here seem to have difficulty accepting the plain, unvarnished truth.
Welfare or work. That simple.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:28 pm
getalife
This GOP cycle is giving America the cramps.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
1:29 pm
I think Scout is watching police blotters and live cams to monitor in real time the Occupy movement’s activities.
Obviously Bill O’Reilly was whistling by the graveyard when he rushed to declare OWS dead last October.
It’s obviously alive and well when it can keep Scout so busy coming up with material for his posts.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:29 pm
Any reason you can’t accept the Con take on it, Jay, without depending on these exit polls??
Well, first I’d like to read the Con take on it, Bruno. So please, enlighten us.
Explain how bashing “vulture capitalism” and complaining about ““rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company” is now the “new conservatism.” Because most of the leading lights of the GOP, from Rush Limbaugh on down, reject that as conservative at all.
So again, please explain.
getalife
January 23rd, 2012
1:30 pm
Scout loves him some newt .
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
1:30 pm
I ponied up for mitt, again
He better win FL or there will be real problems
I’m not going to choose between Obama and Newt
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:31 pm
getalife:
I will vote for Elmer Fudd over Obama.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:31 pm
Doom–Since you’re on board, maybe you can jog Joe Mama’s memory about how he fared discussing the meaning of Godel a while back with me. I haven’t been able to track down the specific blog yet. His claim that it was so beneath him to even discuss it was never matched by any meaningful insights, which I’m sure would have been a snap to discuss.. Maybe he’ll take some pity on dumb lil ol me and toss me a few crumbs of understanding.
Frankly, I remember him hemming, hawing and belittling. Called my invocation a “high school debating” tactic if I recall correctly.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
1:32 pm
Welfare or work. That simple.
Black or white.
Indians or cowboys.
Bad guys or good guys.
Them or us.
I choose adulthood over prepubescent binary options.
Erwin's cat
January 23rd, 2012
1:32 pm
GG – A Google search on your machine and the exact same search on my computer will yield different results…Google will customize your results based on previous searches from that machine….just sayin’ silly pants
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:33 pm
Bruno:
“Scout, I’m not sure why, but the Libs here seem to have difficulty accepting the plain, unvarnished truth.”
Yep ………… and the fact that people are finally realizing the truth about Obama’s policies.
getalife
January 23rd, 2012
1:33 pm
“I will vote for Elmer Fudd over Obama.”
Are you calling the newt “Elmer Fudd”?
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:34 pm
Kammie:
Good or evil.
I choose light over darkness.
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:35 pm
getalife:
Nope. Whoever runs against Obama gets my vote ………. even Ron Paul.
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
1:35 pm
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:24 pm
Doomy, we’re still PAYING for the Bush Excursions (as I’ll call them)…and will be for YEARS!!
How long have we been paying for the wars this nation has gotten into!! Many have noted thatwe’re still paying for Vietnam………
“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. ”
Yes, it does. What this is is a direct challenge to this nation’s ability to innovate and derive market based solutions to regulatory issues. EPA regulations spurred innovations to clean the environmental damage of coal-fired plants…….it can do likewise IF people embrace the challenge rather than running from it!!
Let ME fix YOUR typo…..
” It should read ” the one whose legacy will read “I tried to FIX what the Republicans started and it is slowly getting better.”
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
1:37 pm
Jay
Btw
Newt didn’t do well because he attacked capitalism
He did well because he us reflecting the GOP mood. He’s angry and they’re angry. And he’s reasonably articulate
Nothing more
He offers nothing though to anyone looking for a reasonable minded, capable leader and president
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
1:37 pm
Newt, I served with Elmer Fudd, I knew Elmer Fudd, Elmer Fudd was a friend of mine. Newt, you’re no Elmer Fudd.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:37 pm
Erwin
That’s Mrs. Silly Pants to you!
Thanks for dropping the last name – a real pain to spell.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:37 pm
Explain how bashing “vulture capitalism” and complaining about ““rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company” is now the “new conservatism.” Because most of the leading lights of the GOP, from Rush Limbaugh on down, reject that as conservative at all.
Again, Jay, you’re believing that a majority of conservatives, or even a substantial minority of conservatives, are buying into the BS class warfare arguments that are now the centerpiece of Obama’s re-election campaign. And please spare me polls showing how important of an issue it is. We both know that how questions are worded will invoke different responses.
The second rule of politics, which is actually great advice for any competitive undertaking, is to not play into the other guy’s strategy, which is what you seem to be demanding from the conservatives. Demonizing the rich is YOUR thing, not mine (ours).
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:39 pm
Elmer Fudd is hot.
In fact he’s on fiwa.
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
1:39 pm
“I can’t think of a parallel strain of such significance on the left.”
You are correct Jay, the liberals destroy property and kill people.
Union
January 23rd, 2012
1:42 pm
obamas america.. where its ok to grow up poor.. work hard.. study hard.. bring yourself up by the “bootstraps” to become successful…… just as long as your not more successful than the person that didnt do any of that.
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
1:42 pm
Kamchack @ 1:32,
Yeah, you’d have to be “simple” to think that binary crap actually constitutes comprehension of complex issues. My father is the most “liberal, leftist” man I know, and makes me look center right by comparison. He never shrugged off a day of work in his life, worked his behind off in more than one profession, and made do without taking advantage of people for the “sin” of being ignorant. He’s more Christ-like and generous than most Christians I know, and he still chooses to work AND volunteer well past the age most men retire to their easy chairs or golf resorts. Furthermore, if he went up against the self-proclaimed acadamians around here, he’d EAT THEIR LUNCH.
Either/or: that settles it! Is there a lazier mental stance than that?
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:42 pm
Bruno
“Demonizing the rich is YOUR thing, not mine (ours).”
Guess all of Newts comments were not played on any of the media outlets you listen too or read
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:43 pm
Bruno:
I read a good editorial today that pointed out Obama is a “Vulture Socialist”.
Check it out.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-is-a-vulture-socialist/
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
1:43 pm
In other words, Bruno, screw the data, you’re going on your emotions.
It’s a shame to see a Harvey Mudd education go to ruin like that.
And as to this: Demonizing the rich is YOUR thing, not mine (ours).”
Tell it to Newt, not me. He hasn’t gotten the memo.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:43 pm
GG–None of your links work. Just wanted you to know that I tried.
I did see the Factcheck link that someone put up earlier in an attempt to understand Libthink. Quite a nice piece of tap-dancing there. The fact remains that dramatically more people are on food stamps than prior to him taking office.
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
1:44 pm
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
1:39 pm
“I can’t think of a parallel strain of such significance on the left.”
You are correct Jay, the liberals destroy property and kill people.”
REALLY?? Aren’t the more pro-DEATH penalty states led by Republican governors…starting with Texas???? Don’t conservatives want to DENY a person’s right of CHOICE and access to contraception??
Better re-read the platform……………
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:44 pm
I really like that ……….. “Vulture Socialism” !
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:44 pm
So fact check is now “libthink”
Nice spin…….. Bruno
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
1:46 pm
Bruno:
You will have to pass my 1:43 on to Jay as a post from you.
He won’t dialogue with me anymore ………………
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
1:47 pm
I care about Newt cheating on wives about as much as libs care about Clinton cheating on his wife 7 or more times including the alleged rape of a woman- a woman who worked for the Dem party and whose testimony was found to be credible by the NOW gals.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:47 pm
Is Newt still talking about “right wing social engineering”?
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:49 pm
In other words, Bruno, screw the data, you’re going on your emotions.
It’s a shame to see a Harvey Mudd education go to ruin like that.
Nice dig, Jay, but way off mark. The first order of business at Mudd was to teach us that there are myriad assumptions built into any statement, scientific equations being no exception. It wasn’t enough to state that PV = nRT and start plugging in variables. That’s more of a Penn State thing. We first had to explain all of our assumptions before using any equations or we received no credit for the answer.
The bottom line is that all data isn’t created equal. Especially in terms of opinion polls. I’m sure you’ve seen surveys in which small, subtle changes in the way the questions were asked evoked dramatically different answers. You’re convinced that Newt’s Bain Capital attacks are what separates him from Romney. I’m telling you that it’s not so. You just can’t accept it.
ragnar danneskjold
January 23rd, 2012
1:49 pm
Dear Bruno @ 1:43, do you read Taranto’s daily “Best of the Web?” The last two weeks he has skewered the left wing “fact checks,” funny stuff.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
1:50 pm
TD
the best you have his hypocrisy on both sides
There were many on the right who now back Newt, who claimed Clinton on “character” alone shouldn’t be the President… yet they are now backing an admitted cheater and a person who left office under a dark ethics cloud
I can see hypocrisy on both sides…….. can you see the irony?
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
1:53 pm
He won’t dialogue with me anymore ………………
That may be a badge of honor in some ways, Scout……
I feel somewhat validated that Jay thinks my ideas are worth discussing, even if only to ridicule them. I hope he realizes that I choose to blog here due to the “juice” he offers along with his thoughts. (Not that kind of juice, Jay. My man crushes are purely intellectual in nature
)
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
1:54 pm
Bruno
gee wiz you sure do read funny!
“Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.
But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.”
FactCheck.org
(And Bush got out before the worst of the Bush Recession kicked in)
oh and
here’s where the goal posts go off the tracks
“The fact remains that dramatically more people are on food stamps than prior to him taking office.”
goofy goofy goofy
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
1:55 pm
Obama’s reelection strategey: deemphasize first term, blame Bush and focus on inheriting a mess, promote class warfare and ‘fair share, and promote a plan to put economy on path that’s built to last.
Whoever the GOP nominee will be only needs to emphasize his first term, from what he said in 2008 and what his actions have been.
The other team has pulled their goalie. It’s wide open. All you gotta do is tap it in.
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
1:57 pm
Newt
The Freddie Mac lobbyist
The serial adulterer
The poster boy for attention deficit disorder
The faux intellectual that just likes every new idea he hears, good or bad
Newt is not fit to be president, not for a country of out quality
Neither is Obama. We need mitt.
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
1:58 pm
Class warfare? It’s idiotic just on it’s premise. That war has long been over and the rich won, funny how that works…please try to come up with a more reality based argument, thanks…
gm
January 23rd, 2012
1:59 pm
Remember the people that are voting for Newt, are your so called christians who insult other religions, other people life styles, gays, always talking about family values in America.
These so called white conservatives christians have no credibility on morales and family vaules by voting for Newt, resign from the speaker position, yet these I love Jesus hypocrites close a blind eye
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
1:59 pm
Scout 1:46 you too
Jay does that when he loses an argument
One word my friend: jujitsu
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
2:00 pm
Bruno:
“That may be a badge of honor in some ways, Scout……”
It is.
GT
January 23rd, 2012
2:00 pm
Jay is right on the money. Bruno you better be nice to those “liberal” hands you may be serving under that flag for quiet a while. Where I am really missing it is where else did the Brunos of this world think this was going? Do you really think Newt is going to win outside this freak situation with all his luggage. What he has done is not only bring his flawed self to the party with a disease but diseased his whole party with his self adsorption. Newt is like the girl or boy you couldn’t take home to your parents. A nice little summer fling but not the marrying type. The Palin choice left many of us paused, this is out and out suicide of the Republican Party. And Bruno we are not liberals unless that is the new word for people that are not fruitcakes. You can call me anything, but not a Republican now that is going too far.
0311/1811
January 23rd, 2012
2:01 pm
Jm:
I lost sometimes too and have even apologized when I was wrong or misquoted.
I just hold his feet to the fire and he doesn’t like that.
Got to run ………… everyone be nice.
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
2:01 pm
“And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.”
So Bush had 14.7 million added in 8 years and Obama has 14.2 million added in 3 years. Looks like Obama is winning.
Tom G
January 23rd, 2012
2:02 pm
ABO – Anybody But Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bookman parrot
January 23rd, 2012
2:05 pm
Jay,
You should have a headline of “Four more years of Obama bodes poorly for the USA”. Unless you enjoy huge debt… and eventually becoming a third world country or government controlled … then …
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
2:05 pm
I hope you guys get your eye of the newt, sensible folks know that he is not presidential in any way, shape or form. Don’t believe me? Just ask your newest repub chris christie who basically tears the newt a new one…
Jimbo
January 23rd, 2012
2:06 pm
Newt Gingrich is an angry old man who should just go away!
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
2:07 pm
The last two weeks he has skewered the left wing “fact checks,” funny stuff.
Not a web junkie, ragnar, but the Factcheck link put up by Granny earlier was laughable, at best:
http://factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/
From the article:
“But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.”
So now, up is down. Brilliant.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
2:07 pm
Talking Head
Gee whiz…Wonder what happened that might explain that?
MMMM Wonder what the difference is?
MMMM Wonder what Talking Head is avoiding?
(And why because Bush wasn’t a REAL conservative anyway???)
Could it have been the worst recession since the Great Depression?
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:09 pm
Bruno
“Paul–You need to spend a little more time with the unwashed conservative masses.”
I live in Texas, remember?
Was talking this Sunday in church with a guy who told me one of the questions on the self-evaluation form his company uses is ‘are you trustworthy?’
One of the people wrote ‘conservative Republican’ as an answer.
My friend called him and said ‘I don’t understand this. Would you explain?”
The guy replied “what are you implying? We’re in Texas, remember?”
He may not have fit your target group. He washes regularly, I understand.
Emotion drives 99%?
So doctors make decisions based on emotion?
Professors grade students based on emotion?
Judges hear cases based on emotion?
Just because something sounds clever on a blog does not mean it’s connected to reality.
Granny Godzilla
January 23rd, 2012
2:09 pm
Bruno
Do you admit that the lie is a lie?
This is your chance to be the wunderkind not the wonderbread.
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
2:09 pm
granny
A one track mind is just that – they are stuck on it…
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:09 pm
To my Lib friends
I have said it over and over again that this election is not about whoever the Republican nominee is but rather if the white married middle class suburban woman (Independent voters) believe Obama has done a good enough job to get four more years. If gas prices are going to $5 per gallon at the end of the summer then the Republican nominee WILL be President. It will not matter about the character of the Republican nominee, how they made their money, where there money is and how much taxes they paid. End of story, can I get an Amen!!!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
2:11 pm
So now, up is down. Brilliant
Bruno seems to be flailing with his claims now…….. please show your work Bruno. What part of “put less on the rolls” (assuming that merely counting the numbers during the term is “putting on the rolls”) does not show Newts claim is incorrect and as you claim “laughable.”
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:13 pm
he said more people were on food stamps that ever before under any president.. there are more.. i don’t quite follow..
funny thing was.. gwb ran a promotional campaign to get more people to take advantage of the assistance.. dont think obama has??
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm
I’ve seen some pathetic displays on here, but rarely have I seen an intellectual no-show as massive as the one displayed by our conservative friends here today. They are utterly at sea and unable to offer even a peep in the way of a coherent statement of explanation of what is going on in their party before our eyes.
The conservative crackup that we’re witnessing is apparently reducing conservatives in large numbers to a mixture of silence and aggressive misdirection and frantic attempts to change the subject.
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:13 pm
Obama pays the states bonuses to get the most people on FS and you have not seen the SNAP commercials on TV?
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:15 pm
td
“I have said it over and over again that this election is not about whoever the Republican nominee is but rather if the white married middle class suburban woman (Independent voters) believe Obama has done a good enough job to get four more year”
You seen Newt’s unfavorability rating among women?
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:16 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm
I guess you have not read my post?
Mick
January 23rd, 2012
2:16 pm
1811
“I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
2:18 pm
“Talking Head
Gee whiz…Wonder what happened that might explain that?
MMMM Wonder what the difference is?
MMMM Wonder what Talking Head is avoiding?
(And why because Bush wasn’t a REAL conservative anyway???)
Could it have been the worst recession since the Great Depression?”
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has grown from 26.3 million people in 2007 to 44.7 million last year, an increase of nearly 70 percent. Now what happened in 2006? Oh yeah, Dems took control of Congress. Yes Bush signed it into law, but Dems wrote the bills from 2007-2010.
gm
January 23rd, 2012
2:19 pm
President Obama no scandals, family values, morales
Any one notice you dont hear Newt speaking on family vaules anymore?
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:19 pm
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:15 pm
And you really think that is going to matter to these suburban women driving their SUV’s and costing them $150 to fill up the tank? I think they will forget all about Newts indiscretions when they have to skip a hair and nail appointment or are stuck at home this summer not being about to take the brats to the beach in order to fill up their SUV.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
2:20 pm
“Doomy, we’re still PAYING for the Bush Excursions (as I’ll call them)…and will be for YEARS!!”
In other words you will be playing the W card for the duration of Obama’s presidency. Just as I suspected.
“How long have we been paying for the wars this nation has gotten into!! Many have noted thatwe’re still paying for Vietnam………”
Well we’re not in Iraq anymore so other than care for some injured veterans how are we still paying for a war we are no longer in?
“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. ”
“Yes, it does.’- HDB
Truly one of the more astounding statements I’ve ever read from a liberal considering economics. Lets just hire a million more regulators and watch the economy just take off according to your logic.
“What this is is a direct challenge to this nation’s ability to innovate and derive market based solutions to regulatory issues. EPA regulations spurred innovations to clean the environmental damage of coal-fired plants…….it can do likewise IF people embrace the challenge rather than running from it!!”
Nope. HDB you are looking it from the wrong aspect. That would be regarded as an added cost. Not as some type of an economic boom created by regulation. You won’t find any respected economists who would view it the same way you do. Your inability to distinguish between an added cost and increased economic output simply shows your flawed understanding of basic economics.
Let ME fix YOUR typo…..
” It should read ” the one whose legacy will read “I tried to FIX what the Republicans started and it is slowly getting better.”
And as I stated HDB this is the weakest recovery from a recession on record since the great depression.Its also interesting to note that in very deep recessions the recoveries tend to be particularly strong because of the tremendous upside potential when you’ve hit such a deep bottom. That tremendous recovery has not happened. Its a very modest recovery and clear evidence of this president’s stunning failure of an economic record. You can’t put lipstick on this economic pig.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:20 pm
td: “I have said it over and over again that this election is not about whoever the Republican nominee is but rather if the white married middle class suburban woman (Independent voters) believe Obama has done a good enough job to get four more years. If gas prices are going to $5 per gallon at the end of the summer then the Republican nominee WILL be President. It will not matter about the character of the Republican nominee, how they made their money, where there money is and how much taxes they paid. End of story, can I get an Amen!!!”
Your scenario is too simplistic. The fate of the euro, the situation in Iran, oil prices, may very well tip the balance here, but for that to matter the GOP has to avoid complete meltdown and crisis, and they’ve shown no ability to do that. In the last cycle, they shot themselves in the head by allowing a cabal of party apparatchiks led by Bill Kristol (son of ex-Trotskyist Irving Kristol) to persuade the nominee’s team to pursue a suicidal course by naming an unknown quantity, a blithering idiot by the name of Sarah Palin to join its ticket.
This time around it’s not doing much better, as its main contender is a middle-class, job looting capitalist raider who’s a mediocre campaigner on his very best day, and Newt Gingrich, whose speaks for itself.
So given these facts, all bets are off as to the factors you mentioned.
arnold
January 23rd, 2012
2:22 pm
I think the Republicans will have a brokered convention. Maybe Mitch Daniels. Possibly, but I doubt, JEB Bush.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
2:23 pm
Oh yeah, Dems took control of Congress. Yes Bush signed it into law, but Dems wrote the bills from 2007-2010.
Oh I get it….you can call Obama a food stamp president because of what took place before he took office. And of course since you attribute the “Dem control” of Congress to Obama, I did not seem to note who exactly gets blame since the Dems have not “controlled” Congress. Does this mean Newt is to blame since you see to believe he will be elected?
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:24 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm
not hard to explain it at all.. the gop is trying to “dumb” everything down to the obama supporter level.. trying to appeal to a wider base if you will..
you dont think the liar in chief has done the old slight of hand a few times with numbers? seem to recall something about a “jobs created” number.. the wh.. obama.. biden.. no one could figure it out.. but that didnt stop them from tossing all kinds of numbers out..
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
2:24 pm
That’s right. Blame the POOR people! THEY took all the money! Never mind that they don’t have any. Never mind that whatever funds came into their hands went right back out into the economy again, to the grateful tills of local retailers. Never mind the small percentage of super-wealthy who keep getting super-wealthier. No, don’t follow the money trail. DON’T LOOK over there! (Grabs head and cranks back toward poor people.) Look! Those darned poor people took all the money! THAT’s why your home and your 401Ks aren’t worth *bleep* any more!
‘Tard Town.
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:25 pm
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:13 pm
“Obama pays the states bonuses to get the most people on FS and you have not seen the SNAP commercials on TV?”
no.. i have not.. work.. then home.. then travel.. barely have time to do this from time to time..
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:26 pm
td
“And you really think that is going to matter to these suburban women driving their SUV’s and costing them $150 to fill up the tank?
With gas at $3.38 a gallon, that’d be a 44-gallon gas tank.
I’m getting the impression you like to post whatever you think sounds good.
That’s okay.
carlosgvv
January 23rd, 2012
2:26 pm
Jay, you forget this is the same Republican electorate that put those crazed Tea Party people in the House. So, do not expect the Republicans to act in any logica manner, even for right-wing conservatives. Rather, expect them to act like irrational children determined to get their way no matter how much our Nation is harmed.
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
2:26 pm
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
1:44 pm
Yes the conservative want to deny you choice of killing people! It may be a dent in their armor but they are serious about it. Yes babies are people too!
Yes we want to execute those who are found guilty of murder or heinous crimes by a jury of their peers. We are talking about criminals!
mm
January 23rd, 2012
2:27 pm
“And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million.”
But Bush and his merry band of fools kept telling us how great the economy was.
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:27 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:20 pm
Do you remember the Bill Clinton campaign “its the economy stupid”? It has to be simple for the dumb masses to get it. If gas prices are between four and five dollars per gallon this summer, every speech will the Republican nominee will give will start with Keystone pipeline and off shore drilling for oil and will include something like this: If Obama would have approved the pipeline and approved drilling rights then gas would be much less and food would be much less. Game, set match my friend. All the technical definitions world demand and world currency will not even be listened too by the average independent voter.
Quagmire
January 23rd, 2012
2:28 pm
Looking at Christie and Newt is like looking at Before and Way Before……………Cons, it takes a minute to kick in!!!!!
Union
January 23rd, 2012
2:28 pm
paul.. suburbans used to have 40 gallon tanks.. they have since trimmed down a little..
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
2:29 pm
“crazed Tea Party people in the House”
Hmmm, so I guess the Occupiers are a sane intelligent group. Just ask HDB! They destroy property and kill people. How sane can you be!
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
2:29 pm
Bruno, YOU may choose to believe that Newt’s economic populism had nothing to do with the outcome. But your candidate obviously believes otherwise, which is why he continues to bang that drum.
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:31 pm
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:26 pm
td
“And you really think that is going to matter to these suburban women driving their SUV’s and costing them $150 to fill up the tank?
With gas at $3.38 a gallon, that’d be a 44-gallon gas tank.
I’m getting the impression you like to post whatever you think sounds good.
That’s okay.
30 time $5 equals $150.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:32 pm
Union
I know. Daughter in law has one. And she’s one of the rare types who actually uses it for what it was designed for.
But the mass of SUVs driven by those independent moms td’s referencing don’t have tanks anywhere near that.
Point is, if he’s into hyperbole, that’s okay. Just so I know.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:32 pm
Gasoline is $5 a gallon?
Learn something new here every day.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
2:33 pm
Class warfare? It’s idiotic just on it’s premise. That war has long been over and the rich won, funny how that works…please try to come up with a more reality based argument, thanks…
Amen, brother Mick!
The ostriches simply want to pretend that the middle class has not gotten shafted in this Class War for forty straight years.
Nope, nothing warlike about flat-lined wages for 80% of Americans at all! Nor that the top 1% saw an increase in wealth of 2655 since 1971 while those hundreds of millions of hard working Americans saw next to nothing by way of increase.
These are the facts and they are irrefutable. And why NO REPUBLICAN dares touch them witha 3.084 meter pole.
To do so is to admit that what they desperately want to cling to and believe in is a sham.
And ONLY when millions of Americans started taking a stand against this perverted Two Americas did these bootlikckers even take notice.
And the rub?
THEY and their families are exactly the ones getting shafted and they don’t even care!
???????????????????????
Beyond science fiction…
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
2:34 pm
please show your work Bruno.
Looks pretty straightforward to me, Keep and Granny. There are now dramatically more people receiving food stamps that at any other time in the history of the SNAP program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
Maybe it’s not fair to say that Obama “put ” people on the rolls since he didn’t sign them up personally, but it happened on his watch, and as td points out above, it was done with a lot of encouragement.
To get around these incontrovertible facts, weak minds will try to fall back on the “but the increase in 3 years is less than under Bush’s 8 years”, which isn’t meaningful when you consider the shorter time span. Furthermore, slowing the rate of increase at no times is equivalent to a decrease, which is what the geniuses at Factcheck are attempting to do.
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:32 pm
Gasoline is $5 a gallon?
Learn something new here every day
The economic forcast is for gas to be $4:50 and $5 before the eand of August. You know those lib hated oil companies can make that happen and make sure Obama does not get re elected.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
Well the Whole Foods is selling gas for $4.50 in food stamps….. it pays to save.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
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.
nor can I, but I think think by focusing on a wingnut web site you’ve lost sight of something (to my mind, anyway) far more significant–the GOP establishment actually approves of such messaging from their own online merchandise outlet.
Example A:
http://www.gopstore.com/cgi-bin/rnc/BS130.html?id=nZ2bevs5
Example B:
http://www.gopstore.com/cgi-bin/rnc/BS127.html
Can you seriously imagine the DNC selling “Visualize No Conservatives” bumper stickers?
(Not that my DFH self wouldn’t enjoy seeing such things; I just can’t imagine it.)
again, this isn’t some third-party advocacy group. This is the official Republican organization.
crabby
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
Actually I’m tired of the elite media reminding us of the crimes committed by the recently pardoned criminals in Mississippi. After all, these crimes were committed years ago and they, like Newt, asked for God’s forgiveness for the pain they caused others.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
Redact 2655 to read 265% in my last…
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
2:36 pm
How much gasoline could I have bought with the money spent on green energy failures. I stand corrected they are all going to fail. It is relevant to recycling. Yeah it is a good feeling to do so but it costs more to recycle than to create from scratch. Dont tell anybody this the liberals will start their drive by’s.
williebkind
January 23rd, 2012
2:37 pm
crabby
January 23rd, 2012
2:35 pm
But they did go to jail and not like Obama’s friends who blew up police stations.