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
2:37 pm
td
Upon rereading, I see you did in fact write “IF gas prices… $5″
My apologies.
But y’know, we can hypothesize all day long about ‘IF such and such happens THEN so and so wins”
I just am not convinced that demographic with such an overwhelming distrust of Newt’s gonna be swayed by an event outside the President’s control.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:38 pm
You know those lib hated oil companies can make that happen and make sure Obama does not get re elected.
Actually I think it’s more about OPEC controlling the output more than anything else, but since you wanna play the “what if” game, what if unicorns crapped skittles?
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
2:38 pm
Bruno
Don’t spin so fast that you fall down
Yes the rate of increase is much higher, however the total number as your boy Newt asserted as not eclipsed the total under Bush
When and if that occurs Newt and yourself will be correct
As we stand today…….. you have spin, Nothing less; nothing more. However like Newt I must admit; you do a great job of making your argument seem to be right even when it is so wrong
crabby
January 23rd, 2012
2:39 pm
Arnold @ 2:22 pm:
Read up on Mith Daniel’s wife and decide if women in this country will vote to put her in the WH.
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
2:39 pm
“Oh I get it….you can call Obama a food stamp president because of what took place before he took office”
Actually Obama was in office, as a Senator voting for the increase in food stamp enrollment when the Dems controlled Congress from 2007-2010.
Mark
January 23rd, 2012
2:40 pm
@ 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.
I swear you sound exactly like the current GOP candidates. You have to sum up each response with a hit to the president. TD why don’t you run for something on the state or local level since you profess to have so much political insight?
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
2:40 pm
So doctors make decisions based on emotion?
Professors grade students based on emotion?
Judges hear cases based on emotion?
In the real world, absolutely, Paul. Do you really believe otherwise?? Seriously.
Doctors absolutely make decisions in the real world based on the perceived financial ability of the patients.
Professors most certainly will give a student a break that they like.
And, maybe Brosephus can help me out withe the judge thing. He seems to believe that a black defendant will get a harsher sentence than a white defendant, starting all the way back at Juvenile Court. Are you calling my man Bro a liar??
Again, Paul, I’m not sure how you are serving yourself well to deny the obvious.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
2:42 pm
I’m out for a while
Keep up the banter. Some of it is good to read as well as JB and the AJC appreciating your contribution and hits on the blog
Peace
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:42 pm
Kamchak & Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:38 pm
My if statement was not pulled out of thin air. It was produced by the leaders in the fields of predicting these prices. So it is a viable situation to think consider.
HDB
January 23rd, 2012
2:42 pm
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
2:20 pm
““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?”
Interest payments on the money the US BORROWED from China for one; we’re still paying on the INTEREST from Vietnam. Add the veterans’ care for those who were injured…….add the cost for replenishment of military supplies…AND personnel…….
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!”
Why are fetuses NOT consider people until they are counted by vital statistics on their BIRTH DAY??
“Yes babies are people too!” — but do they only care about babies PRIOR to conception…not AFTERWARD?? That’s what it seems to me! Cutting nutritional programs, cuts in education spendind, weakening of the safety net….these are CONSERVATIVE paradigms……….
“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!” Note what I said: you can make the ACCOUNTABLE, but you can’t STOP them!!
williebkind….I actually think that the Tea Party and Occupiers are opposite sides of the same coin…but the Tea Party has an additional racial animus that the Occupiers don’t necessarily have in the same volume!!
Jack
January 23rd, 2012
2:42 pm
Newt’s win bodes poorly for Bookman’s predictions.
Jm
January 23rd, 2012
2:43 pm
Paul
Chaos in TX yet now that perry is back?
FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)
January 23rd, 2012
2:43 pm
Newt won SC because he was the candidate that articulated the most venomous hatred toward the President and those of his “ilk”. The voters reacted to that hatred like pigs to slop. Just as Newt calculated they would.
Bob
January 23rd, 2012
2:44 pm
Actually Obama was in office, as a Senator voting for the increase in food stamp enrollment when the Dems controlled Congress from 2007-2010.
Actually this statement makes no sense? How could the President have been in office as a Senator voting for food stamp enrollment when the congress was controlled from 2007 – 2010?
Obama was elected President in 2008 and didn’t take office until January 2009. Nice try though.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
2:44 pm
Enter your comments here
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:44 pm
Mark
January 23rd, 2012
2:40 pm
How do you know that I am not an elected official or work for an elected official or am a political science professor?
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
2:45 pm
TalkingHead
“Actually Obama was in office, as a Senator voting for the increase in food stamp enrollment when the Dems controlled Congress from 2007-2010.”
Would you know which bill #s and budgets these were?
Thanks
Doggone/GA
January 23rd, 2012
2:45 pm
“Why are fetuses NOT consider people until they are counted by vital statistics on their BIRTH DAY??”
Try looking up “symbiote”
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm
My if statement was not pulled out of thin air. It was produced by the leaders in the fields of predicting these prices. So it is a viable situation to think consider.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
Or is it something you can actually back up?
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm
Bruno
“In the real world, absolutely, Paul. Do you really believe otherwise?? Seriously.’
Do I believe otherwise?
Yup.
I believe emotion is part of the equation. As are facts. And in instances in the professions I listed, I believe facts are the overwhelming factor..
Try telling an FDA examiner he evaluates drug trials based on emotion.
But, it you’re trying to convince us conservative Republicans are all about emotion and so they’re just like everyone else, that’s okay, too -
MiltonMan
January 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm
Newt – bad for the GOP
Obama – bad for the USA
Jay – should be considered more a comedian than a serious journalist. Do you really think that this is going to result in the democrats regaining the US House???
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
2:47 pm
Mittens raggin’ on Pinball Leroy.
Too funny…
“As you look at the speaker’s record over time it has been highly erratic,” Romney said. “He voted in favor of establishing the Department of Education, and yet he gets in a debate and says we should get rid of the Department of Education and send all the education issues back to the states. He is opposed vehemently to the Massachusetts health care system, and yet just a couple of years ago wrote about what a superb system it was.”
The former governor said Gingrich “has gone from pillar to post almost like a pinball machine, from item to item in a way which is highly erratic and does not suggest a stable, thoughtful course which is normally associated with leadership.”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
2:47 pm
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
So your “truth spin” goes from a “laughable, at best” and “up is down, Brilliant” to nuanced distinctions, none of which addressed the inaccurate assertion from Newt and its proven inaccuracy.
It seems your “Brilliant” failed you and your repeated “if you are honest” statements eludes you. If you are honest Bruno, you will admit that Newt lies when he claims that Obama has “put more on the rolls than other Presidents”. If you are dishonest, you’ll continue your spin of false distinctions regarding the “truth”.
willie lynch
January 23rd, 2012
2:48 pm
Why is there such an uproar about Gingrich winning a southern state? In reality it was his to lose.
Stevie Ray
January 23rd, 2012
2:49 pm
JAY,
Did anyone opine on BO’s latest droning? Perhaps he, like BUSH, needs this to offset an insecure “size” issue?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:49 pm
Jay: “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.”
And you can bet your last dollar that the party leaders of the GOP are very aware of it and watching it with great nervousness.
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:49 pm
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45390261/Sharon_Epperson_Commodities
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:50 pm
Jm
“Chaos in TX yet now that perry is back?
”
Papers publish tweets and other comments. It’s more along the lines of “oh, @#!!” and “at least we know now how stupid he is when he doesn’t have a script.”
I liked that last observation. A variation on the teleprompter thing. Except it refers to entire events, not just a speech.
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
2:50 pm
Bob @2:44,
Can you seriously not comprehend what you just said? You do know that Obama was a Senator, yes? He was a Senator from 2005-2008.
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
2:51 pm
Food stamps do not disappear into an abyss, you know. They buy FOOD, for which grocery retailers and the rest of the food chain are compensated. They keep children from going to bed hungry. Hungry children have a hard time doing homework or focusing in school. Even people who trade them so they can by booze & cigarettes are still fueling our limping economy. Those of you who pine for the good ol’ days of the early 1930s with soup lines, massive homelessness, and short life spans need to get a freaking GRIP.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
2:51 pm
JamVet
With Romney taking the gloves off, I’m definitely watching the next debate.
I’d like to see how much he tries to needle Newt and goad him into really blowing – not the calculated, play-the-audience for suckers we’ve seen.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
2:52 pm
Yes the rate of increase is much higher, however the total number as your boy Newt asserted as not eclipsed the total under Bush
To be fair, there are two possible linguistic interpretations of Newt’s statement. If Obama added even one person to the SNAP rolls that wasn’t there prior to him taking office, therefore driving the total number of people higher than previously, then in one sense he IS guilty of “putting more people on food stamps” than anyone before, because he has to take credit for the folks still on the rolls that he didn’t boot off. That is the interpretation he is pushing with his statement. You may not like it, but linguistically, he is correct. Your interpretation makes sense as well, if you are only focusing on the new folks on board, and not looking at the total numbers. Think about it for a minute.
In the end, it’s a campaign gimmick either way. Too bad you guys missed your chance to hang this around Bush’s neck.
Stevie Ray
January 23rd, 2012
2:52 pm
BOB,
Based on BO’s voting record in Congress, it’s likely physically impossible that he voted on anything of substance except in absentia….He had no “voting record”…he was as competent as a senator as he is a president…weak and lacking leadership and clear positions on issues..
td
January 23rd, 2012
2:52 pm
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oil-executive-gas-prices-soar-2011-2012/story?id=12509267
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
2:52 pm
The point is that Newt is risking not only inflicting a fatal wound on his rival Romney, but his party too, for there is no way to control how the message will play among the general populace.
It is dogma for this party to defend free enterprise (a joke) at all costs, and if they are forced to defend a record of predatory capitalism it will risk doing grave damage to that meme for them.
Add to that a recall of Scott Walker in Wisconsin, and we could have a terrible year in the making for the GOP. But it’s still early yet.
Normal
January 23rd, 2012
2:53 pm
Hey AmVet…
http://justcapshunz.icanhascheezburger.com/2012/01/06/funny-captions-pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-meow/
Stevie Ray
January 23rd, 2012
2:54 pm
Instead of food stamps, how about we ship those folks to Thailand, Indonesia, or Singapore to take the $17 a day jobs. They won’t need much more to live on the the rural parts of these countries…of course the population control thingy may be an issue:-)
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:54 pm
Sharon Epperson is, “leaders in the fields of predicting these prices”?
The same Sharon Epperson that gave herself a C- in last years predictions?
I’m thinking you need to pick a new prognosticator.
Stevie Ray
January 23rd, 2012
2:56 pm
Damn, why can’t I get any action on the drone strike by our glorious BO? Our shores are safe again despite the crappy job Bush did…good thing we got change we can believe in…I feel much safer now that a new father in Somalia is reduced to ashes at the cost of a million or so..
Quotemeister
January 23rd, 2012
2:56 pm
“Pour Vous locuteurs français, Comme Mitt: Je viens enculée Votre caniche.” Newt Gingrich
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
2:56 pm
One more note from the exit polls that I found interesting:
The leading Republican among voters aged 18-29 was … Ron Paul. And Gingrich’s popularity increased with voter age, which may bode well for him in Florida.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
2:58 pm
Damn, why can’t I get any action on the drone strike by our glorious BO?
Why can’t you go to blogspot.com and start your own blog if this issue is so near and dear to your heart?
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
2:59 pm
“Interest payments on the money the US BORROWED from China for one;”
Then cut, cap, and balance. Oh. That’s right. The House Republicans can’t get the Dems in the Senate or Obama to cut crap.
“that add the cost for replenishment of military supplies…AND personnel…….”
We’ve replenished munitions throughout the cost of the war and those replenishments are mostly finished since we are no longer in a war and haven’t had a combat brigade over there in months. You’re really, really reaching HDB. Its not as if we’re having to constantly replace used up aircraft carriers.
Disgusted
January 23rd, 2012
3:00 pm
President Newt—your money or your wife.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:00 pm
“And Gingrich’s popularity increased with voter age, which may bode well for him in Florida.”
Especially among the Viagra crowd.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
3:01 pm
Normal, that is great. I especially like the tortured look on that cat’s face.
Newt and Mitt going after each other is like Sam Houston State playing North Dakota State.
Sometimes entertaining as hell, but who are we kidding here?
The Uppity Muslim is gonna be like the Crimson Tide steamrolling either one of those two FCS entries…
bman
January 23rd, 2012
3:01 pm
some pump prices are already over $4 / gal in NY. Probably Manhattan, airport locations etc..
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:03 pm
Try telling an FDA examiner he evaluates drug trials based on emotion.
Paul, you’re only digging yourself a deeper hole, but you don’t even realize it.
Your statement would make sense if all drugs underwent double-blind studies before going to market. In case you didn’t know, many “old-fashioned” drugs such as aspirin never faced that scrutiny, and, in fact, would never receive FDA approval today if that standard were applied. In fact, the physiological mechanism by which aspirin works wasn’t even discovered until 1971.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin
I (somewhat) appreciate your sentiment that logic should always win out over logic. But, in the real world, it usually doesn’t. And simply ignoring that fact comes across as rather “unscientific” in my book.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read “Zorba the Greek”??
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
3:05 pm
“Hungry children have a hard time doing homework or focusing in school”- Matti
Have you forgotten that we have free breakfast and free lunch programs in school for the poor?
“Even people who trade them so they can by booze & cigarettes are still fueling our limping economy”- Matti
Aaaah. The ole discredited nancy pelosi multiplier effect of food stamps argument. Using this logic perhaps everyone should be on food stamps so that the economic would then just boom! Let me go ahead and nip the food stamp multiplier nonsense in the bud now.
According to Pelosi the multiplier effect for food stamps (the new politically correct name is SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is 1.79 and the Agriculture Department cites and even more absurd multiplier of 1.84. The absurdity of the multiplier effect can be easily proven by reductio ad absurdum. If the multiplier effect is true why don’t we just spend an infinite amount of money then we will be infinitely wealthy? You cannot create wealth by taking money from one person (who created the wealth) and giving it to another person to spend – on food in this case. Entropy proves that you cannot even get $1 of return for each $1 spent on food stamps (welfare). The obvious losses include the cost of the bureaucrats to run the food stamp program, the time, effort and gas the recipients expend to obtain the food stamps. This does not add to GDP, since it is consumption. Economists seem confused that the P in GDP is for spending or consumption, when it stands for Product or production.
Any economist who repeats the multiplier effect lie should be immediately fired. Any politician who repeats the multiplier effect lie should be treated the same as people in the Flat Earth Society, as insane.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:05 pm
President Newt – watch out France, he may be wanting an open Presidency.
getalife
January 23rd, 2012
3:06 pm
If they know Tylenol causes liver damage, why is it still on the market?
Stevie Ray
January 23rd, 2012
3:09 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/22/public-employees-union-heaps-cash-into-gop-ad-atta/
You can’t script this…check it out…the unions are spending $1 million in Florida to call Romney greedy…seems they are more fearful of his candidacy than sleazy Newt..
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
3:09 pm
there are two possible linguistic interpretations of Newt’s statement. If Obama added even one person to the SNAP rolls that wasn’t there prior to him taking office, therefore driving the total number of people higher than previously, then in one sense he IS guilty of “putting more people on food stamps” than anyone before, because he has to take credit for the folks still on the rolls that he didn’t boot off. That is the interpretation he is pushing with his statement. You may not like it, but linguistically, he is correct.
Absolute nonsense. Suddeningly linguistically it is acceptable to take the statement out of context while repeatedly whining about context. And linguistically it now okay to interpret the words “put on” to require Obama take credit for existing numbers and to look at the entire total.
Again Bruno, truth eludes you in your dishonesty and spin. But even more so as you have spun further and further away from your original claim of “laughable at best” and “up is down. Brilliant”. You still have failed to defend your words. Did that Mudd education that you proclaim exists muddle your ability to be responsible for YOUR words and to be truthful? It seems, laughably, yes.
carlosgvv
January 23rd, 2012
3:09 pm
willibkind – 2:29
The Tea Party House members were willing to let our Nation go into default rather than raise the debt limit. This would have been disasterous but they didn’t care since it suited their dogma. I’m not aware the Occupiers kiiled anybody, but even if they did, why are you bringing them up? Their rights or wrongs have nothing to do with the Tea Party.
Billybob
January 23rd, 2012
3:10 pm
‘he exposed the fact that their economic message sucks’
……lib projection of hussein’s actual economic message……..easy and quite brilliant oratory jay…….obama debating on economics is a loser for you libs…..you say that our ideas of free market capitalism, smaller gov’t and personal responsibility, which is all involved in economic realities, sucks……..it’s almost time to have the economic debate b/t capitalism and socialism……it’s then that you will have to decide what you support….again that’s an obama loser my friend
‘ If the overall GOP message truly is as weak as it appears after Saturday’…..
wreaks of uneasiness on your part jay……..also i love to hear the leftist media denegrate south carolina voters for their choice in the primary………conservatives have had it with liberal media and the more your ilk does this, the more republican voters you create……..kind of scary for you to realize what i have been trying to tell about the exposing of the leftist media to more and more voters……..you probably need to call your network of media libs and have a few brainstorming sessions to try to slow this down…..enjoy jay
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
3:10 pm
According to Pelosi the multiplier effect for food stamps (the new politically correct name is SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is 1.79…
Copying and pasting someone elses work without giving credit is called plagiarism and is generally frowned upon in polite society.
Just sayin’.
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
3:10 pm
Thulsa,
Don’t like your tax dollars going to feed hungry children? EASY: Just become a “job creator.” The tax rates have never been lower for “job creators,” and Congress is already firmly in your pocket. If it’s SO EASY in your mind to earn the money to feed a family in a country where millions of jobs were shipped overseas, then surely it’ll be just as easy for an updstanding, work-oriented citizen like yourself to create hundreds of jobs and employ the less fortunate, right? We eagerly await the news of your success!
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
3:11 pm
the new politically correct name is SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Good ol’ Wingnut World, where is it considered an imposition of political correctness to use the actual name given to a program.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:11 pm
Paul,
“I’m definitely watching the next debate.”
I would rather watch Snooki and JWoww debate the impact of improvisational algorithmic compositions on modern generative music systems.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
3:12 pm
Bruno
“Paul, you’re only digging yourself a deeper hole, but you don’t even realize it.”
I’m not the one who set it up as emotion or fact.
I’m the one who set it up as both play a part and in many professions, fact carries the most weight.
And I ain’t buying what I take to be your argument that the conservative Republican emotion drivers are the same as what the Right alleges drives the Left.
The Left I see as compassion driven. Call it misguided if you will, but it’s still compassion.
What I see playing out with the Newt supporters is emotion with a mean streak. An ‘us vs them’ setup imbued with ‘good us vs evil them.’ Demagoguery at its worst.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:12 pm
Well, can’t wait any more for Joe Mama to come back and show us what he knows about deductive logic and how the human mind works. After all of his braying about how simple it all is, one might think he would be falling over himself to prove once and for all if he really knows his butt from a hole in the ground. I guess he prefers to follow Franklin’s advice about keeping one’s mouth shut.
If Newt flames out like all of you are predicting, I’ll be happy to come back so you can make me eat my words.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
3:12 pm
Oohh, the Moonie Times is cited as a source, again.
More cool beans!
Billybob
January 23rd, 2012
3:13 pm
That is, unless you are the Vice President of the United States named Joseph Biden, eh kamchak?
just sayin’…..
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
3:15 pm
I was saddened to learn of Joe Paterno’s death recently.
The good people connected with Penn State have had one hellish autumn and winter.
Here’s to hoping that there is some redemption in all of this…
barking frog
January 23rd, 2012
3:15 pm
We may be watching a battle for the Republican Party.
Mitt is the moderate that the Party elite want to run against
President Obama. Newt is the extremist the evangelicals
and the remnants of the tea party want to use to split the
party and they don’t care if he wins in the General Election
or not and Newt wants to seriously damage a Party that
has damaged him and create a following that will give
him the power to solicit more funds..The Party may be
over for the Republicans.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
3:16 pm
jewcowboy
I think Snooki’s that caricature Jersey girl, right? Jwow, not on my radar.
But I get your drift.
We got an inkling of Newt’s unhingedness (I like making up words) after the NH PAC-attacks. With what Romney’s said in the last 24 hours, I’m waiting for him to come unglued.
Or just plain nasty.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
3:17 pm
That is, unless you are the Vice President of the United States named Joseph Biden, eh kamchak?
And he was roundly criticized for it.
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
3:19 pm
And he was roundly criticized for it.
Wonder if BillyBob’s got any other late-breaking news from 1988 he’d like to share?
Erwin's cat
January 23rd, 2012
3:20 pm
speaking of dogma
carlosgvv“The Tea Party House members were willing to let our Nation go into default rather than raise the debt limit. This would have been disasterous (sic) but they didn’t care since it suited their dogma.”
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
3:20 pm
0311 — “It’s amazing that Jay is so fearful of Gingrich and his message.”
Per one conservative commentator who’s published regularly in both the NY Times and the National Journal, Newt doesn’t appear to actually *have* a message.
“Yes, he has an implausible supply-side tax plan, but you never hear him talk about it. He has technically signed on to some form of entitlement reform, but you never hear him talk about that, either. Instead, so far as I can tell, his “idea-oriented” campaign consists almost entirely of promising to hold Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with President Obama, grandstanding about media bias and moderator stupidity, defending his history of ideological flexibility much more smoothly than Mitt Romney, and then occasionally throwing out a wonky-sounding notion (like, say, outsourcing E-Verify to American Express) that’s more glib than genuinely significant.”
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/the-momentum-of-ideas/
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:22 pm
The Left I see as compassion driven. Call it misguided if you will, but it’s still compassion.
What I see playing out with the Newt supporters is emotion with a mean streak. An ‘us vs them’ setup imbued with ‘good us vs evil them.’ Demagoguery at its worst.
In it’s simplest form, then, you are saying Dem motivations = Good, Repub motivations = Bad. And you can’t detect even the faintest whiff of demagoguery coming from the Left.
Okey-do, then, Paul. I’ll be sure to keep all of that in mind next time you proclaim loudly that you’re not a Lib. You merely despise Cons and all they stand for.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
3:22 pm
Joe 3:20
And Republican primary voters eat it up.
Absolutely amazing.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:23 pm
Paul,
“I think Snooki’s that caricature Jersey girl, right? Jwow, not on my radar.”
They are both caricature Jersey girl’s.
“I’m waiting for him to come unglued. Or just plain nasty.”
It’s just a matter of time. I really can’t believe the Republican Party has come to this. If they best they have is Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron, then they really need BBDO for a re-branding.
Billybob
January 23rd, 2012
3:23 pm
barking frog,
fyi, this movement will take out rino senate republican’s, senate dems and hussein……..and will set back the libs for a decade………but i bet bookman will not let democrats go down without a fight…….conservatives welcome that b/c “PC’ and the lib media will not frame THIS debate, unapologetic conservatism will frame this debate……and win
stands for decibels
January 23rd, 2012
3:23 pm
one conservative commentator who’s published regularly in both the NY Times and the National Journal
aka “Chunky Reese Witherspoon.”
(sorry. hadda go there.)
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
3:24 pm
Bruno 3:22
This is why people shouldn’t introduce themselves to a blog by telling everyone how smart they are and letting everyone know where they went to school -
Talking Head
January 23rd, 2012
3:24 pm
Obama’s theme song for 2012: 1st of da month, Bone Thugz N Harmony
Wake up, wake up, wake up, it’s the 1st of tha month To get up, get up, get up, so cash your checks and get up…
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:25 pm
Here’s to hoping that there is some redemption in all of this…
Good thought, Am, and why I’m proud to call you my friend.
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
3:25 pm
Bruno: 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.
I don’t recall ever stating that “White people simply don’t get it” or anything to that effect. If that’s how you took my position, then you probably don’t get it. My point last night was that things are more complicated than something that can be distilled into a soundbite statement such as the one you made.
And, maybe Brosephus can help me out withe the judge thing. He seems to believe that a black defendant will get a harsher sentence than a white defendant, starting all the way back at Juvenile Court. Are you calling my man Bro a liar??
I don’t think he is, but at the same time you’re getting quite loose with my position on that as well. It is a known fact that there have been sentencing disparities in some areas, cocaine possession, for instance where some convictions carried much harsher mandatory sentences than other. Look also at the concentration of drug enforcement areas and how they are concentrated in urban environments although drug usage and distribution is fairly comparable across all racial lines. You’re oversimplyfing my position to the point where you’re just about misrepresenting it altogether.
————
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.
The only people who would fall for that are the people too damned dumb to read things for themselves. If they rely on others to tell them what to believe, then it’s fairly safe to say that they would vote GOP anyway as they would believe whatever they say regardless to what the truth is.
People who read and know that oil is sold on the WORLD market regardless to where it originates will laugh at that sh*t. Unless the GOP is campaigning on nationalizing the US oil companies AND their products, that dog don’t hunt.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
3:27 pm
Doom — “True dat. Bruno is just one guy with an opinion”
And that’s as far as it goes.
“But he aint the only one with that opinion. I mean seriously.Its bizarre.”
Shrug. That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. (laughing)
“I mean who does that crap???”
I do. If you don’t care for it, no one’s making your read it or respond to it.
“To my knowledge you’re the only one who engages in that kind of 6th grade childishness.”
Shrug. I’m not doing it to meet with your approval, and if that’s your opinion of what I’m doing, then again, you’re welcome to it. However, that’s not why I’m doing it, and I’m not going to change to suit you. BTW, did you have some substantive point you wanted to make, or what?
“As if putting (pointing, laughing) is actually a point of debate.”
Oh, Doom, you’re so *silly.*
Don’t you recognize one poster playing with another poster and not actually *debating* them at all? You should; after all, you do it all the time. (laughing)
Erwin's cat
January 23rd, 2012
3:27 pm
Paul – “This is why people shouldn’t introduce themselves to a blog by telling everyone how smart they are and letting everyone know where they went to school “
Nice win Bruno
Billybob
January 23rd, 2012
3:28 pm
sfd,
kamchak pointed out plagiarism towards another poster so i pointed out his hypocrisy in supporting the vp who plagiarized……if your ilk can pull things from previous decades(cain, gingrich) to attack republicans i sure can pull a FACT out of a democrats past to expose how libs change the goalposts as it suites them…..class over kammy
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:30 pm
Newt doesn’t appear to actually *have* a message.
Maybe he doesn’t need one, because he has a successful track record as Speaker of the House. In case you forgot, he is the engineer of all the things you Libs like to credit for during the Clinton years, such as the balanced budgets and welfare reform. That means a little more to me than hollow campaign promises.
Lord Help Us
January 23rd, 2012
3:30 pm
Bb, ‘unapologetic conservatism will frame this debate……and win’
Is Newt an unapologeted conservative? If so, so you think a guy who over 58% of voters disapprove could ever win?
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
3:30 pm
Kamchak,
So sue me sport. And anyone else who forgets to post the link. Have a good time doing so Mr. blog deputy.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
3:31 pm
Bruno — “His claim that it was so beneath him to even discuss it was never matched by any meaningful insights”
I didn’t say any such thing, Bruno. We may certainly disagree about what was said on that blog — and if you want to dig it up, I’ll be pleased to join you, but you’re once again claiming I said things that I did not say.
Please try harder to be honest, Bruno.
BigD
January 23rd, 2012
3:31 pm
For the DNC to run Obama again doesn’t bode well for their intelligence.
Obama and the Democrat Party: The Tick that bled the dog dry….
barking frog
January 23rd, 2012
3:31 pm
BillyBob, 3:23, If the Repubs split between Mitt and Newt
they will take nothing.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
3:32 pm
kamchak pointed out plagiarism towards another poster so i pointed out his hypocrisy in supporting the vp who plagiarized…
I didn’t support “the vp who plagiarized” sport, I supported Juan McSame and Snowbilly Snooki in the previous presidential election.
(ir)Rational
January 23rd, 2012
3:34 pm
Y’all seem to be having fun this afternoon.
Kam, did you see where your evil Blues were playing the very evil Reds on Fox Sunday after next?
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
3:34 pm
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:12 pm
Well, can’t wait any more for Joe Mama to come back and show us what he knows about deductive logic and how the human mind works.
Bruno,
One should never doubt Joe Mama. He is after all the omniscient perfesser of knowitallogy.
joe
January 23rd, 2012
3:34 pm
Keep banging that same old drum, Bookman…we don’t believe you or any other liberal mainstream media representative…sing it sister! Newt can win and he will beat Obama like a drum in a debate.
» Pre-Ican’tbelievethere’sanotherdebate - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
January 23rd, 2012
3:35 pm
[...] general election price of conflating Bain with capitalism and free markets, from a liberal columnist: “Newt Gingrich not only exposed Romney as a flawed politician; he exposed the fact that [...]
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:36 pm
“Nice win Bruno”
And there you have it. It’s funny to read the posts of those on here who are here to “win” vs. those on here to have a lively discussion.
If you here to “win”, you will ultimately lose because of something called the argumentative theory of reasoning. Basically this theory says that we don’t ask questions and offer answers in order to find truths, but rather to gain dominance over others.
The compulsion to triumph, more times than not, means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.
Lord Help Us
January 23rd, 2012
3:36 pm
The serial adulterer, on his third wife, Freddie Mac lobbyist, cap and trade supporter, individual mandate supporter, climate change advocate, who denounced the Ryan budget as right wing social engineering is ‘THE CONSERVATIVE.’
If I weren’t seeing it, I wouldn’t believe it…
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
3:37 pm
Nice win Bruno
Thanks, EC. I doubt if he sees it that way.
Look also at the concentration of drug enforcement areas and how they are concentrated in urban environments although drug usage and distribution is fairly comparable across all racial lines. You’re oversimplyfing my position to the point where you’re just about misrepresenting it altogether.
Brosephus, please. When I challenged you to defend the 72% rate of A/A babies born out of wedlock recently, you immediately referenced the higher rate of incarceration for black Americans, stating that it all begins in the Juvenile Court system. If I have misrepresented you, then please correct me, because I actually believed that you were making a valid point. Paul is now claiming otherwise, that judges couldn’t possibly be swayed by the color of the defendant’s skin. Emotion has little to do with it in Paul’s world.
Which is it, then??
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
3:37 pm
“Shrug. That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.” (laughing)
I find it rather upsetting that I only got a (laughing) and not the (pointing, laughing). Its the difference between a silver medal and a gold medal in terms of needling silly libs.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
3:38 pm
“if your ilk”
Synonyms for ilk: branch, brand, breed, cast, caste, character, classification, collection, color, degree, denomination, department, description, designation, distinction, division, domain, estate, family, feather, frame, genre, genus, grade, grain, grouping, hierarchy, humor, kidney, league, make, mold, name, nature, order, origin, property, province, quality, range, rank, rate, school, sect, section, selection, set, source, species, sphere, standing, status, stripe, style, suit, temperament, value, variety
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
3:38 pm
(ir)Rational
I knew that game was approaching, but I didn’t realize it was quite so soon.
Damn, just checked and that’s Superbowl Sunday.
Certainly a red-letter day in my diary.
Paul
January 23rd, 2012
3:38 pm
Erwin’s cat
You’re not much on understanding subtlety, are you?
You might want to try Brosephus’s 3:25 for a more direct example.