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
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:02 pm
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
4:55 pm
Oversimplify – I’ve read the book and you are spot on.
Further proof that libruls can get their raw meat from a variety of sources other than Jay Bookman. Next thing you know they’re going to be making crazy claims from a kook left blogger that a young black woman was abducted at random by local cops on the orders of W and then brought to the governors mansion for W to rape her. Oh wait! Midori already did that once already!
Oversimplify
January 23rd, 2012
5:04 pm
Considering the tens of millions that Ken Starr dropped trying to make any of it stick, it seems to me that you are the one with a credibility problem Thulsa.
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:04 pm
I do believe I was talking to someone else.
You proved a very long time ago what a complete waste of space you are when you take up your keyboard.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:05 pm
Bruno @ 4:24
Good post
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
5:05 pm
SoCo/Bro
Those kids learned that behavior somewhere.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:05 pm
Welcome “2011 ninth warmest year on record according to NASA.”
You should probably add the ninth warmest record since we started keeping records back in the 1800s. And of course we all know that 150 years or so is a mere millisecond on the geologic time scale and proves nothing. Oops. Self correction. At least the cons know that anyway.
Mama Says
January 23rd, 2012
5:06 pm
Hey occupation we’re on here posting about global warming last year ? You had a week of ice bound shut in to tell us the world was warming.
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:06 pm
“none of the people you mentioned set themselves up as a paragon of family values.”
Filter, you’re wrong about that but at very least you should be well aware of John Edwards and how he presented himself in regard to family values. I could enlighten you with details regarding the others that refute your claim but I’ll let you do your own research.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:08 pm
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:04 pm
I do believe I was talking to someone else.
Midori,
Thank you ma’am. I’ll be sure to use that next time you make an unsolicited opinion on one of my posts as you’ve done many times in the past. That ole hypocrisy thing. Gets the libs every time it do!
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
5:08 pm
Oh, and Hiya Midori!
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
5:08 pm
Thulsa,
I invite you to return to your old hometown and stay the *bleep* out of MY business. I’ll live anywhere I GD well want to. Fascist Freak.
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:09 pm
GOALPOST MOVE ALERT!!
CONDITION RED!!!
Where’s Ted Kennedy in your equation, Del?
Or do we have to wait for you to dig him up first?
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:09 pm
Recon
“I could enlighten you with details regarding the others that refute your claim but I’ll let you do your own research.”
With that said, I guess Newt will not be getting your primary vote and if he wins the nomination; you will not vote for him to be POTUS………. correct?
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:09 pm
LOL Matti
Hiya Kammie
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
5:10 pm
Erwin’s miau miau : and what does this prove/mean other than 2011 was the 9th warmest measured by NASA?
I’ll tell you what it proves, Mr. Hooper, it proves you colleges boys don’t know how to admit when you’r wrong — oops excuse me wrong movie script there!
It proves that those damn liberals are at it again, hijacking all of reality just to make their silly point that reality has a liberal bias, that’s what.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:10 pm
Recon 3111,
Kinda funny how many comments I’ve seen today on Newt leaving his sick wife. John Edwards who had an affair and love child while his wife was dying of cancer? Libs on here have never heard a him. No sir! Don’t know who the man is.
Filter
January 23rd, 2012
5:11 pm
Paul,
Really? Ah the subtleties of a blog. Got it.
Recon,
And what happened to John Edwards? Hmmmmmm? Kind of a bad example seeing as I recall there was pretty much universal scorn heaped upon the man from all quarters. Now I know your partisan glasses won’t let you see that but I’ll let you proceed with your denials.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:13 pm
It proves that those damn liberals are at it again, hijacking all of reality just to make their silly point that reality has a liberal bias, that’s what.
Nope. It actually just proves that since Nasa started tracking records, and nasa hasn’t existed that long, that we’ve had the 9th warmest year since NASA started tracking. So its largely a meaningless stat. Someone please send them libs back to statistics 101.
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:13 pm
“Where’s Ted Kennedy in your equation, Del?”
was he not Kennedy? He would be right down with John Edwards lower than a starving snake.
Mama Says
January 23rd, 2012
5:13 pm
Instead of trying to convince us the world is warming why don’t u libs try a more thoughtful approach.
Instead of conservatives are killing the planet how about arguing that pouring spent gasoline, battery acid and chemicals into our river stream is killing our drinking supply. Maybe argue that tearing down the woods destroys our ability to enjoy nature. Or maybe cite the air index as proof we are poisoning the lands.
If you get off the conservatives suck theme. Maybe more of us could support that effort
Scum Scam
January 23rd, 2012
5:14 pm
John Edwards is scum. Newt Gingrich is scum. Scum doesn’t wear an R or a D.
That being said, ask a member of the Christian Coalition which of those two scumbags they would likely vote for, if they were running against each other. And the answer is not the Libertarian candidate.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
5:15 pm
So ReCon, knowing what we know, would you vote for Edwards for president?
Me neither. I was never a big fan, but that behavior makes it impossible to support him.
So the question becomes: Knowing what we know about Gingrich, would you vote for HIM as president?
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:16 pm
Recon
Don’t forget Craig, Foley, Ensign, Vitter
It is a two way street…………
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:16 pm
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
5:08 pm
“Fascist Freak.”
Doomy do loves it when libruls resort to their textbook idea of what constitutes rational debate. Meltdown alert. Doomy got another one melting down. That’s 2 of em in the last 5 minutes.
Mama Says
January 23rd, 2012
5:17 pm
Jay and libs
U all speak of all the bad Newt has done.
Can you tell me just one of them please ?
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:18 pm
So the question becomes: Knowing what we knew about Clinton’s affairs, did Democrats vote for HIM for re-election?
josef
January 23rd, 2012
5:20 pm
“Newt Stinks on ice.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Thulsa,
Say what? John Edwards has been pilloried roundly on any number of occasions by just about every lib on board. Unlike the Newtie heretics, we don’t come in trying to defend him and, uh, have you noticed? He ain’t running for President…Dog Third is…hypocritical, self-serving dumb as dirt with an ego as bloated as his big bu*t…
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:20 pm
TD
quit spinning……… I mentioned earlier that there is hypocrisy on both sides
Can you see the irony that many who back Newt could stand Clinton for his politics and character ;yet can’t get enough of Newt who left office under and ethics cloud and seems to like the women as much as Clinton?
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:20 pm
“Kind of a bad example seeing as I recall there was pretty much universal scorn”
Took a helluva long time for that scorn to come out long after the main stream media finally stopped defending him against the tabloid reporting even though the knowledge of his affair had gotten pretty well known. You’re apparent lack of knowledge only exceeds your sanctimony.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:21 pm
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:13 pm
“Where’s Ted Kennedy in your equation, Del?”
was he not Kennedy? He would be right down with John Edwards lower than a starving snake.
Recon,
Don’t be too hard on Ted Kennedy. That water under the bridge was wayyyy too deep for him to try and dive down and help out Mary Jo Kopecknick out of the car. Word is that it exceeded 5 feet deep.
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:22 pm
now the scorn wasn’t good enough as it took it’s own time coming out.
oy…………
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:22 pm
Recon
So what is it?
Newt getting your vote?
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:23 pm
josef,
Are you trying to say you don’t like Newtser? Never mind. Don’t answer that.
DawgDad
January 23rd, 2012
5:23 pm
The outsider take on an intramural squabble within the GOP is quite entertaining. Keep some perspective in mind, political ambitions aside, there is far more in common between Romney and Gingrich than between either one and any Democrat voter.
TaxPayer
January 23rd, 2012
5:24 pm
Science and Christianity can manage to peacefully co-exist. It just takes a little faith in what you see right in front of your eyes.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
5:25 pm
Doom — “you did indeed try to ridicule the godel theorem as either simplistic, or weak, etc.”
Respectfully, I think you’re clinging to your misunderstanding of what I said. My disagreement with Bruno back then wasn’t centered around Godel’s IT; it was centered around him tossing it out and (per my recollection) arguing as if the *existence* of it invalidated what I was saying.
There may very well be an *application* of GIT that would have knocked out my argument, but as I recall, Bruno didn’t bother actually applying it. He just cited it and seemed to behave as if the discussion was over. I didn’t reply to his citation of GIT because I was waiting for him to present his *application* of it.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:26 pm
Mama Says
January 23rd, 2012
5:17 pm
Jay and libs
“U all speak of all the bad Newt has done.
Can you tell me just one of them please ?”
Yes. He cheated on his wives and he has a poor sense of history, particularly on Congolese affairs and the Belgian colonization. josef is particularly miffed by Newt’s appalling sense of African history.
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
5:26 pm
Resurrecting Mary Jo in an unrelated discussion constitutes “rational debate?” Mmmmmm-kay. Isn’t it about time to line up for evening meds?
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
5:26 pm
Thulsa, Monica didn’t happen until the second term, and I for one wrote at the time that Clinton ought to resign for that one.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
5:26 pm
Bruno @ 4:24
Good post
Oh, no, the blog kiss of death…..
Looks like I’ll have to put up 20 or so “I love Newt” posts in a row to restore my rep.
Paulo977
January 23rd, 2012
5:27 pm
Adam
January 23rd, 2012
4:18 pm
Disgusting. Apparently conservatives believe there is more than one way to skin a cat – literally:
___________________
As said “The worst of humanity”
How depraved can one get?
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:27 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“John Edwards who had an affair and love child while his wife was dying of cancer?”
I didn’t realize John Edwards was currently running for President. I seem to remember him dropping his campaign when his infidelity emerged. I guess that is the difference between Edwards and Newt…shame or the lack thereof.
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
5:28 pm
Those kids learned that behavior somewhere.
I can’t argue with that one. I even consulted our wise buddy, and he asked me to post this for him…
“The apple does not fall far from the tree.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:28 pm
Joe Mama,
Misunderstanding? Perhaps. But that’s all you and Bruno. Doomy done wif dat.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 23rd, 2012
5:28 pm
I invite you to return to your old hometown and stay the *bleep* out of MY business. I’ll live anywhere I GD well want to. Fascist Freak.
Well, seems to me Matti just twisted the Doom guy’s tallywacker into a pretzel and throwed it back at him. Remind me not to get on that woman’s bad side.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
5:28 pm
Mama Says: “If you get off the conservatives suck theme. Maybe more of us could support that effort”
I don’t argue that conservatives suck.
I argue that global market capitalism sucks.
Scum Scam
January 23rd, 2012
5:29 pm
The liberals argued, in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, that Clinton’s morality or lack thereof was irrelevant because it was his PRIVATE morality, i.e., it concerned his sexual behavior.
The conservatives argued that morality protection and promulgation is a basic function of government and that one who is immoral in one sphere is bound to carry that immorality into any other sphere of that person’s activity.
It all comes back to the fact that Gingrich is a hypocrite, and conservatives have exercised situational ethics since at least 1998.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
5:29 pm
Instead of trying to convince us the world is warming….
The is no real need to convince.
The facts prove it.
To your point, which is a good one, they go hand in hand.
Even now, with all of the protections fought for by progressives and non-Republicans, pollution is still a huge problem.
I believe that the latest figures I saw, state that the United States ALONE pumps 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the dumping ground called our atmosphere every single year.
Six billion tons.
And let’s not forget (or maybe we should) about the massive amount of poisons pumped into our waters and our land every year as well. I saw what happened to those children and families in the Love Canal. It was not pretty.
In some places in this country and around the globe over 90% of old growth forests have been eradicated.
And though some want to pretend it was no big deal, look at that debacle that killed 11 men aboard the Deepwater Horizon.
Gawd only knows what the long term effects are going to be on the Gulf of Mexico.
Hint it ain’t gonna be good.
How much more unashamed poisoning of our planet before we get the picture?
How many generations following us are going to pay the price for our greed?
josef
January 23rd, 2012
5:30 pm
I will say this, even the Imam the Parse-On Brownlow could take lessons from the G-d fearing, morally upright pontificators hereabouts on their defense of their heresy…! Shhoooee…and I called Obama the Shabbatai Zvi! Really, and truly, it does provide a welcome comic relief to this scene from the pages of the Book of Revelation we’re witnessing now…
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:30 pm
“seems to me Matti just twisted the Doom guy’s tallywacker into a pretzel and throwed it back at him.”
Doom got a Bobbitt.
Kamchak
January 23rd, 2012
5:30 pm
“I’m a lumberjack, and I’m okay.
I sleep all night and I work all day.”
–Thomas Jefferson
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:31 pm
Recon
You called out the elected Dems for their BS and the hypocrisy that some on the left display in regards to affairs, etc…
Now will you answer the question about whether you will voted for Newt?
Come on Recon
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:31 pm
“So the question becomes: Knowing what we know about Gingrich, would you vote for HIM as president?”
I’ll make you a deal. As we all know Edwards is under indictment. If legal issues didn’t force him out of the race and the only thing known about him was that he cheated on his sick wife would you still have voted for him against Bush had he gotten the nomination instead of John Kerry? Answer that question honestly and I’ll do likewise. Have to go pick up my daughter but I’ll check back later.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
5:32 pm
“Nope. It actually just proves that since Nasa started tracking records, and nasa hasn’t existed that long, that we’ve had the 9th warmest year since NASA started tracking.
Thulsa, if you believe that this is “the 9th warmest year since NASA started tracking,” then apparently you also believe that NASA started tracking records in 1880.
Which explains a lot about the rest of your contentions regarding this issue.
Jay
January 23rd, 2012
5:34 pm
Recon, yes.
But I would not have voted for him in the primary.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
5:34 pm
I’d like to repost this from earlier, as I doubt our evening posters are going to wade through the entire day’s worth of posts. This is an opinion piece by Ross Douthat that appeared in the NY Times; Douthat is also a regular contributor to National Review. I have to confess that I don’t really like Douthat’s work or opinions, but that I was really intrigued by his take on both Gingrich and Santorum. In short, he apparently thinks that Newt’s campaign is devoid of substance and that Santorum is the real idea guy on the GOP side.
It’s a little change-up for our conservative friends and associates; even though it’s a NY Times link, there’s a conservative of some note on the other end. Why not give it a read and maybe post your thoughts on it?
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/the-momentum-of-ideas/
Here’s a taste from within, to entice you to read (this is Douthat writing about Newt):
“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.”
Mama Says
January 23rd, 2012
5:34 pm
Occupation
What do u replace it with
You can change all u like but people are going to barter for what hey want. Use peanuts as your trade and you will still fight about who has more peanut butter.
That’s where your entire argument fails. Bottom line is that liberal movement wants to take my peanut butter and make your sandwich with it
Scum Scam
January 23rd, 2012
5:34 pm
I would have voted for the best man for the job. Given Mr. Bush’s known failures in 2004, I would have voted for the philanderer. Many Democrats would not have. Based on the South Carolina primary, I sincerely doubt the same could be said of the Republicans.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:35 pm
jewcowboy,
Actually there is one thing about newtster that I, along with many others, was wrong about. I just took it as truth that the man had asked his Marianne for an “open” marriage. Turns out there are 2 sides to that story. His daughters seem to support him in that disagreement. And as Newt statesd there is not one single, corroborating source that will back her up on that statement. Many of their close friends and associates say this is new to them. Apparently its something that she is just now claiming. The timing is very curious. We also do know that she stated long ago that she could and would sink his political ambitions if given the opportunity. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Now I’ve no doubt that the man is a rascal when it comes to matters of fidelity. But then so did Clinton who allegedly had many more affairs. I just find the focus on Newt’s 2 affairs very curious by the liberals who had not a bother about Clinton’s numerous escapades.Now if you want to hate on Newt because he is a man of incredible arrogance and egotism then have at it and I’ll fully agree with you on that. But then hell that’s no different than the man already in office now.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
5:36 pm
I believe that the latest figures I saw, state that the United States ALONE pumps 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the dumping ground called our atmosphere every single year.
Jam–Maybe we should seek common ground on this issue rather than getting sidetracked splitting hairs about what constitutes good science vs. junk science.
Jay seemed to make some concession a while back, stating that (in paraphrased form): “Even if AGW is only 85% or 90% certain, the possible consequences of continuing to pollute the planet are so grave that we need to clean up now and sort the science out later.”
This Mudder agrees with that statement wholeheartedly.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:36 pm
“he cheated on his sick wife would you still have voted for him against Bush had he gotten the nomination instead of John Kerry?”
Pointless since Edwards would have never received the nomination. Unlike Newt, where Republicans know what he’s done and are choosing to either a) ignore it or b) pretend that he has been redeemed (at 68).
Midori
January 23rd, 2012
5:37 pm
JCB – Doom IS a Bobbitt.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
5:38 pm
“NASA….building rockets and ray guns since 1880s.” — Thomas Jefferson
Recon 0311 2533
January 23rd, 2012
5:38 pm
Jay, Thank you for your honest answer. I intend to vote for Romney in the primary. Unfortunately, should Gingrich win the nomination and runs against Obama I’ll have to breath deep hold my nose and vote for him.
Oversimplify
January 23rd, 2012
5:38 pm
Thulsa,
Gingrich’s daughters are campaigning for his presidency.
And you dare belittle the neutrality of MY sources?
josef
January 23rd, 2012
5:38 pm
Look, folks, this pack of heretics went all tent revivalist on what a morally upright and good Christian solider that expletive deleted was during that DOMA horsesh*t and while I was here with my forsaking all others partner of the same sex raising three kids we didn’t sperm and listening to his high and mighty sermons, ole Elmer Gantry was out boinking everything in sight, lying through his teeth, asking for open marriage, etc. etc, etc, meanwhile telling the bleeding choir they were doing the holy thing in telling me and mine we weren’t deserving of respect and dignity…
Why wouldn’t I have something to say about it? Turns out that that bunch from back then were just as much the scumbags…they voted for him in massive numbers.,..heretics!
Do we have to have a Jerimiah walk naked through town to bring you to shame?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
5:39 pm
Recon — “As we all know Edwards is under indictment. If legal issues didn’t force him out of the race and the only thing known about him was that he cheated on his sick wife would you still have voted for him against Bush had he gotten the nomination instead of John Kerry? Answer that question honestly and I’ll do likewise.”
Had Edwards received the nomination in 2004 instead of Kerry, and had we known about his cheating ahead of time, I would not have voted for Edwards in the primary. I strongly doubt that I would have voted for him in the general election.
I has planned to vote for Libertarian Andre Marrou in 1992, but didn’t because of his bimbo explosions (they didn’t get much press). I was very displeased with Clinton’s bimbo eruptions, too, though I admit in retrospect that he was a better President than many give him credit for. That being said, I think a President should be a better man than me. I haven’t ever cheated on my wife, and I think that if a President can’t uphold his or her marriage vows, then there’s not much point in putting them through an Inauguration, either — as there are vows involved.
I suppose that if Edwards had been the Democratic nominee in 2004 and had been known to be an adulterer, I’d have given the Libertarian Party a very close look.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:39 pm
Thulsa, if you believe that this is “the 9th warmest year since NASA started tracking,” then apparently you also believe that NASA started tracking records in 1880.
Jay,
Nope. You may be late but you will notice previously that I myself posted that we began keeping records in the 1800s. I didn’t say NASA did since clearly I don’t think we even started NASA till the 50s. When I re-read his post I realized that he was citing when NASA started collecting records and not when we started collecting records back in the 1800s. Hence I changed my ensuing posts accordinly to reflect that he was citing only NASA’s records. You’ll have to get me on something else Jay. That or go back further and see my other posts on this.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:40 pm
TD @ 5:35
Many on the left who overlooked Clinton’s BS, now calling out Newt
The same thing can be said for those who called out Clinton and now want to say it doesn’t matter when it comes to Newt
Let’s be “fair and balanced”
Christine O'Donnell
January 23rd, 2012
5:40 pm
Jay, I can see Newt’s tallywacker from my front porch!
Adam
January 23rd, 2012
5:41 pm
We have a Jay imposter.
Also, I love the skeptics. First, it’s that CO2 has nothing to do with warming, Then it’s no, CO2 causes COOLING. Then it’s well, ok CO2 causes warming but it’s not our fault it’s NATURAL. Then it’s oh alright, we are adding CO2 and that is causing an effect, but not ENOUGH of one. Pretty soon it’ll be something like “because SHUT UP, that’s why!”
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:43 pm
Adam
Don’t forget at one point many naysayers were saying that there wasn’t a warming trend then went with the sun spot theory which is 180 degrees from it isn’t warming at all
Adam
January 23rd, 2012
5:43 pm
Best graph of how skeptics vs scientists see warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
josef
January 23rd, 2012
5:44 pm
Christine O’Donnell
@ 5:40
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:44 pm
Oversimplify,
My point is that his daughters seem to be backing his version of things. That’s all. Typically from what I’ve seen kids try to stay neutral in divorces unless one side is clearly wrong about what happened. Incidentally the thing about Newt going to his wife and asking for a divorce while she was in recovery is vastly overblown as well. He went to see her, they were talking about a number of thigns, and as I understand it she brought up the divorce and they talked about it for a couple of minutes. But hte divorce was not something that he went to the hospital to specifically talk to her about. As I said 2 sides to every story.
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
5:44 pm
Yes. I had written letters to the editor also and in my old hometown had several published. Never got any threatening letters or nasty voice mails though.
I’ve got a nice folder full of published letters I wrote to the AJC back in the early 2000s. I’m still proud of my 80% or so publish rate. The closest I came to getting in trouble was when one of my patients wrote in claiming that only liberals embodied the spirit of Christ. My rebuttal to that nonsense ended up being published one week later. Lets just say the guy wasn’t too happy about it.
Tommy Maddox
January 23rd, 2012
5:45 pm
Why do the folks on the Left even care about who runs against Obama?
Who ever winds up getting the nomination will be running against Obama’s [dare I say it] record. I’d be more concerned about that than whatever tidbits you can trumpet about the GOP candidate.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
5:45 pm
Bruno,
Right on.
We’ve strangled all her trees and starved her creatures
There’s poison in the sea and in the air
But worst of all we’ve learned to live without her
We’ve lost the very meaning of our lives
And now she’s gonna die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbAdIFr2wJY
TaxPayer
January 23rd, 2012
5:45 pm
Here is a nice history of global warming.
redneckbluedog
January 23rd, 2012
5:46 pm
Gingrich has exposed Romney’s jugular…..Name the last Yankee millionare to win the South….Not GHW Bush…He was elected in Texas…..
JFK is the answer….Roosevelt before him….and that’s when they were still chasing the Mormons to Utah..!!!!
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
5:46 pm
Mama says: “What do u replace it with”
You may not be able to actually replace it with anything, that’s the problem.
But as the example of China shows, capitalism with liberal democracy may be a historical anomaly whose days are numbered. Capitalism’s more natural habitat may very well prove to be some form of authoritarianism.
Either way, we can’t sustain the current system any more than we can simply replace it through revolution.
Which means humanity may be in a pretty pickle indeed.
But in practical terms, what I think we should do is push the system to its limits and try to formulate a way forward that is more just.
Polly Sigh
January 23rd, 2012
5:46 pm
The real question…the only question…that needs to be asked in this context is: does character matter when it comes to electing a President?
In a two party system, the relevance seems relatively insignificant.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 23rd, 2012
5:46 pm
Jay, I can see Newt’s tallywacker from my front porch!
It is simply amazing what spectacular gains have been made in the capabilities of microscopes by science.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:47 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“I just find the focus on Newt’s 2 affairs very curious by the liberals who had not a bother about Clinton’s numerous escapades.”
Perhaps it’s his unfettered and rank hypocrisy. Piously saying, “But I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do believe and we have every right to defend a 3,000 year clear record that that’s what marriage is. And I don’t think we should be intimidated against it.”
While shredding his vows. This hypocritical piece of filth doesn’t know what marriage is, yet he wants to deny it to millions of Americans.
TaxPayer
January 23rd, 2012
5:48 pm
There’s even a free online course on climate change available for anyone interested in the topic.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 23rd, 2012
5:49 pm
Doom — “My point is that his daughters seem to be backing his version of things. That’s all. Typically from what I’ve seen kids try to stay neutral in divorces unless one side is clearly wrong about what happened.”
To be fair, those ladies are taking Newt’s side over the side *of the woman who stole their dad away from their mom.*
redneckbluedog
January 23rd, 2012
5:50 pm
BTW…I ran into some of those “occupy” folks over the weekend for the first time…..
They are young and they are angry….and they don’t trust Wall Street or bankers AT ALL…!!!! I don’t blame conservatives AT ALL for not wanting them to vote..!!!!!
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:50 pm
They both suck,
Sorry I thought you were addressing the other td so I didn’t read.
“The same thing can be said for those who called out Clinton and now want to say it doesn’t matter when it comes to Newt”
True enough. The hypocrisy goes both ways. So then it should come right back to disagreeing with the man on policy and substance and leaving the personal crap out of it. I’m all for that and frankly my disagreements with Clinton were chiefly on policy. I don’t give a damn about Monica except that it was embarrassing that the president couldn’t do any better than Lewinsky’s fat ass. Come on now. You know I’m right. Good grief JFK had Marilyn Monroe. And the best Clinton could do was Monica L? Shameful?
“Fair and balanced”. You watching Fox news? Oh. It must be for the same reason as me. To watch the oh so beautiful Kimberly Guilfoyle.
Let’s be “fair and balanced”
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:51 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“My point is that his daughters seem to be backing his version of things.”
You mean the daughter’s that are working on his campaign? Those daughter’s?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
5:52 pm
Doom: “I just find the focus on Newt’s 2 affairs very curious by the liberals who had not a bother about Clinton’s numerous escapades.”
For the record there certainly were voices on the left that were strongly critical of Bill Clinton.
Christopher Hitchens being one of the more noteworthy examples.
They BOTH suck
January 23rd, 2012
5:52 pm
Thulsa
“it was embarrassing that the president couldn’t do any better than Lewinsky’s fat ass. Come on now.”
yes…….. we are in 100% agreement on this
Matti
January 23rd, 2012
5:53 pm
Let’s see.. one man steps out on his wife, steps in a big pile of it, apologizes for the pain and embarrassment, and then works to rebuild the marriage and continue on the one-spouse path. Another man dumps his wife while she’s seriously ill, and immediately replaces her with a younger, fresher, healthier model, leaving the previous one to fend for herself in her darkest hour. THEN DOES IT AGAIN TO THAT WIFE when she becomes ill. Is there a difference?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 23rd, 2012
5:54 pm
redneckbluedog: “They are young and they are angry….and they don’t trust Wall Street or bankers AT ALL…”
Oh I trust Wall Street bankers perfectly. Namely, I trust them to do exactly what it takes to further enrich Wall Street bankers, nothing more and nothing less.
Filter
January 23rd, 2012
5:54 pm
Recon,
I’m sanctimonious.
Hee-hee.
jewcowboy
January 23rd, 2012
5:55 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Lewinsky’s fat ass. Come on now. You know I’m right. Good grief JFK had Marilyn Monroe”
Not that they are in the same league as far as glamor goes, but Lewinsky and Monroe were the same dress size.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
5:55 pm
And though it may be rather obvious, that is a painting the great Kansas revolutionary and abolitionist John Brown on that album cover. The original resides in the state capitol in Topeka.
I don’t blame conservatives AT ALL for not wanting them to vote..!!!!!
Of course not. Jim Crow has given up on keeping Those People from doing so, he’s move onto other “undesirables”…
Bruno
January 23rd, 2012
5:55 pm
First, it’s that CO2 has nothing to do with warming, Then it’s no, CO2 causes COOLING. Then it’s well, ok CO2 causes warming but it’s not our fault it’s NATURAL. Then it’s oh alright, we are adding CO2 and that is causing an effect, but not ENOUGH of one. Pretty soon it’ll be something like “because SHUT UP, that’s why!”
Adam, as you’ve demonstrated in the past, your judgment about what constitutes solid science vs junk science is, shall we say, a little lacking. And Am, no matter how many times you want to take the “appeal to authority” route, it’s still a dead end because truth is not something that can be voted on.
Just my opinion, but I think we’d all be better off adopting Jay’s attitude. Let’s stop wasting our energy on trying to decide the undecidable and get to work cleaning things up.
Brosephus
January 23rd, 2012
5:55 pm
My point is that his daughters seem to be backing his version of things. That’s all. Typically from what I’ve seen kids try to stay neutral in divorces unless one side is clearly wrong about what happened.
One small note on that. Those daughters were from Newt’s first wife and not the one raising the allegations now. They could be protecting “dad” from the “wicked stepmother” for all we know.
Thulsa Doom
January 23rd, 2012
5:56 pm
“While shredding his vows. This hypocritical piece of filth doesn’t know what marriage is, yet he wants to deny it to millions of Americans.”
jewcowboy,
Well as a gay American than I can see that as a legitimate point of contention and dispute as to Newt’s worthiness for the job. Otherwise for the rest of us I think it should be about his policies. I’m just not that much for the personal life stuff since it doesn’t affect me although I would like for a president to have much better personal morals as a plus. I’m for Romney anyway.
JamVet
January 23rd, 2012
5:57 pm
First, it was Herman who was the poor, persecuted, set upon and misunderstood serial screwer of women other than his wife.
Now it’s Naughty Newt.
Hysterical…