It’s looking like a fairly sizable victory for the former Speaker of the House. So much for Romney’s inevitability.
Open thread for discussion. Please keep it civil.
Friday, April 19, AD 2024 5:16pm
Menu
Excellent! I’d really prefer anyone but Romney on the Republican ticket. It doesn’t matter much though, because Obama round 2 is inevitable. At least with a Gingrich we’ll have some interesting debates.
1) The inevitable oh-so-electable Romneybot is now 1 for 3 in his own party.
2) Santorum got hosed by Newt’s ego starting on Monday night.
3) Santorum needs to stay in the race, and every time he’s asked about that he needs to say, “Absolutely, it’s only a matter of time before Newt implodes and we all know it and I plan to be here to give people that solid conservative choice when he does.”
Santorum made a good show tonight. Having been denied the momentum of a first claim to victory in Iowa, he still beat Ron Paul. That’s bigger than most people think. I think it likely that Newt supporters will dwindle as they start to review his record rather than his rhetoric. The same is obviously true with Romney. Game on. Go Rick Santorum!
Just throwing this out there, but if Newt wins the election – the general – then that’s gonna go down as the biggest political comeback in American history. Not even Nixon comes close.
Indeed Paul. Absolutely nothing would surprise me this election year. The country is in such a mess that a candidate like Gingrich who would normally not even be in the running might just be able to get the nomination and go on to win. I suspect that the Obama campaign would much prefer to run against Romney, who I think they regard as McCain II. Gingrich is just too unpredictable to make an opposition strategy easy to map out. Additionally a candidate who can take a normally campaign destroying event like the resurfacing of an ex-wife who talks about adultery, and turn that stinkbomb to his advantage, is a candidate with formidable political skills. Note how Gingrich in his victory speech played up the religious bigotry of the Obama administration. He will not be an easy candidate to fight against due to just how unconventional and imaginative he is. Gingrich is usually his own worst enemy, but he is also his strongest asset.
Whatever happens, Obama has got to go. Seeing how Obama and Sebelius destroyed any pretense at conscience protection has infuriated me to no end. The days of my ever being nice to liberals are over (if indeed there were any such days). They have got to be shoved out of power for good. As to Gingrich, may God bless him. I prefer Santorum to be sure, but Gingrich isn’t a bad choice and even the Weather Vane as Donald calls him is far superior to that man of depravity and idolatry now sitting in the Oval Office. I just finished posting a nasty letter to http://www.whitehouse.gov (I wasn’t threatening, but did make the King Manasseh comparison) and then prayed the Rosary for God’s mercy on our nation and on his soul. Let’s see if I am arrested tomorrow morning! 😉 Nothing would surprise me at this point.
Godless wicked Democrat! Arrrrrggggghhhhh! But hoorah and thank God for Newt!
I dunno. I don’t see Gingrich as having enough fuel in the tank to make it all the way through the primary contest. I’d still tend to bet heavily on Romney being the eventual winner, but I hope Santorum stays in for the long haul so we continue to have a viable alternative after Gingrich eventually implodes.
Honestly, I can’t see Gingrich managing to win the general unless outside history manages to intervene (say, with the European economy collapsing like a house of cards in the fall), and if he did, I’m not sure he’d actually be any happier a political comeback kid than Nixon.
It’s fun to hear him spout off but he just isn’t reliable at any level.
All good points Darwin, but I would note that Gingrich has been given up as political vulture meat not once, but twice in this campaign so far. I certainly thought he was politically dead the first go round when his entire New Hampshire campaign staff bailed on him. I am not going to make the mistake of underestimating him again this year, although I rather hope that Romney continues to do so. Santorum will doubtless stick around through Florida. If Gingrich wins Florida however, I think Santorum may decide that there is no way that he gets back to being the anti-Romney and drop out. If he does that and endorses Gingrich, I think that Romney has a difficult path ahead of him.
It doesn’t matter much though, because Obama round 2 is inevitable.
I keep hearing people say this, and not one of them is able to elaborate upon an explanation of why they think this.
—
What disconcerts about all this is what a gratuitous self-inflicted injury is incorporated within it. The man is a godawful spectacle who appears to be prospering on the basis of a certain sort of forensic talent. Serial adultery? No problem! A complete absence of administrative experience? No problem! An affection for management fads? No problem! Payola from Freddie Mac? No problem! And didn’t he do a job on that moderator?
A thought
The Daley machine hack in the White House had his second machine provided Chief of Staff decide to go back to Chicago and his replacement did not come from the machine. With Ritchie Daley retired I wonder how many more of the President’s entourage will want to go back to Chicago.
Will this put a crimp in his operation?
Who Knows? But interesting
Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings
John King of CNN actually inadvertently produced this result. Gingrich is a media slayer and South Carolina loved it. If the media stops the Gingrich attacks, does Gingrich then fade into normality and get beat by Romney’s money chest and it’s resultant ad and organizational power?
The gingrich performance in response to John King was an embarrassment, his win in SC is an embarrassment and if he would be president, he would be an embarrassment. Glib, manipulative, brilliant-but-phony, pugnacious, opportunist, cheater – not exactly words I would like to apply to our president.. He is not the best man in the race… may be the worst.
The major embarrassment thus far in this race Anzlyne is the attempt by Romney to pass himself as a conservative Republican. The average GOP voter understands that he is nothing of the sort. That fact is why they have been looking for an alternative since the start of this race, and that is why Gingrich is prospering now. Absent that fundamental antipathy to Romney, Gingrich would be ready to announce today that he is heading back into retirement, instead of leading an insurgency which may deprive Romney of his opportunity to see if he can blow the election against Obama in the Fall.
Ninety-seven percent of us are worried about the economy. Seventy-nine percent are very worried. There are significant numbers preparing for economic and societal collapse.
It ain’t Newt that will implode.
One cultural note about “cheating” for those who think Gingrich did not really repent: country music, loved in many non urban oriented states, has an odd combination of a gospel aspect and a cheating or fornicative aspect. Patty Loveless sings gospel related songs and sang also ” I Know You’re Still Married”….and ” On Your Way Home” ( after leaving her house: “Where’d you get that alibi/ did it fall out of a midnight sky/ or did ya find it/ laying by the side of the road”).
Loveless was twice married.
Alison Krauss, divorced and a Grammy Winner…26 of them and twice winner of the Gospel Music Association Award… recently with Union Station sang “Let Me Touch You For Awhile” about a girl in a bar hitting on a cowboy on the rebound for at least a one night stand…..despite Krauss doing entire gospel albums.
The country audience is neither the Knights of Columbus nor the Mennonites in the sexual or
faithfulness area.
Gingrich? Newt Gingrich?
Wow.
The man has political skills, but I think the best case scenario is that he loses by McCain’s margin.
Unless the economy significantly weakens, which, long term, is more likely than the current smooth patch indicates.
I dunno. Nominating Newt seems like the ultimate own-goal.
I recognize Santorum’s profound executive weaknesses and sometimes grating demeanor in the spotlight (though he’s a winning, genuine guy in person, as I can attest), and I think I’ve even acknowledged the same here. But unless one gets hives at the thought of a sincere social conservative with the nomination (e.g., the Reason [sic] fanbois), he has far less baggage to explain away than Gingrich or Romney.
Thanks, Jindal, Christie, Jeb, etc.
Question: After three marriages and three affairs (2+1), how does this man stay in the good graces of the Catho
lic Church. Or is he?
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Georgia/Newt_Gingrich/Scandals/Marital_Affairs
Thanks, Jindal, Christie, Jeb, etc.
This is an oft-repeated lament. While most of these folks (not Christie) would be an improvement over the current field, I am sure that the circular firing squads would have taken them down. To borrow from my comment at Ace last night, if Paul Ryan had entered the race, for example, he would have been the front-runner. Then Michelle Malkin would have written some naggy article about how two or three votes of his that suggest he’s a RINO. Then he would have given some answer in his first debate that ticked a few people off, and his poll numbers would have gone. Then he goes on CNN to present his 30 point plan to improve the economy. Point 19 sounds vaguely similar to an Obama proposal, causing Red State to run three days worth of blog posts calling him a statist.
And so on and so forth.
To put it another way, if Rick Perry had not gotten in the contest, we’d all be lamenting how the sure-fire winner decided not to run.
Conservatives: our own greatest enemy since 1995.
Rotifer:
Here’s the “drill”: repentance, Confession, penance, amendment of life, good works . . .
Do you think Newt converted to Catholicism in a cynical posturing to get elected prez? If so, what evidence do you have?
Obviously, Obama wants to get in the good graces of the Catholic Church. He gave his USCCB a year to get used to the fact they will be required to pay for employees’ chemical abortions.
Rotifer
The Church records are confidential but guessing despite that: Newt’s second marriage was probably annulled by the Catholic Church because the wife was married prior and did not annul her first marriage. His first marriage could well have been annulled because Newt himself at the time was morally incapable of really knowing what a Christian marriage is nor capable of vowing it til death. An annullment is a declaration by the Church that a real marriage in the past never took place before God even if Catholic Church authorities or separated Christian authorities authorized one at the time…..while not knowing the true hidden moral maturity or lack of it
in one or both people….OR….a separated Christian authority permitted a second marriage despite a first (Newt’s second wife’s case).
Does Church infallibility enter into this area? No. Just as the Church could have been incorrect marrying a couple, it could be incorrect permitting an annullment.
Perhaps someone could explain how Newt Gingrich is actually more conservative than Mitt Romney.
I wonder if any of the remaining candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will
join, even for a short time, the March For Life tomorrow?
Sure BA:
1. Flip flops on abortion. From 1994 when he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy: ‘But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.”
2. Romneycare.
3. Judicial appointments while governor of Massachusetts.
4. Tax increases he sponsored while governor of Massachusetts.
5. Flip flop on abstinence based sex education.
6. Flip flop on embryonic stem cell research.
7. Flip flop on the minimum wage.
8. Flip flop on gun control.
9. This quote when he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
10. This quote: “My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”
11. Flip flopping on abolition of the Department of Education.
12. Flip flopping on allowing prayer in school.
Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan if truth were a requirement for such things: “If you do not like my views today, they are bound to change tomorrow!” Mitt is a conservative now because there is no way that anyone but a conservative can get the nomination. His record clearly indicates that he is a liberal Republican.
“I wonder if any of the remaining candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will
join, even for a short time, the March For Life tomorrow?”
Karl, Rick Santorum was there in 2011, as he has been in earlier years. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is there tomorrow.
Then Michelle Malkin would have written some naggy article about how two or three votes of his that suggest he’s a RINO. Then he would have given some answer in his first debate that ticked a few people off, and his poll numbers would have gone. Then he goes on CNN to present his 30 point plan to improve the economy. Point 19 sounds vaguely similar to an Obama proposal, causing Red State to run three days worth of blog posts calling him a statist.
Game. Set. Match.
As a catholic, I am especially grateful for the redemption I have received from Jesus Christ through His Church. Examination of Newt should include a thoughtful examination of his character post conversion to the Catholic faith. The Lord seems to like to use those of us who have been the greatest sinners to serve Him–just look at His choice of King David, Mary Magdalen, Augustine, and Thomas Becket to name a few. To me, considering Newt as a serious contender in this Presidental race was cemented when he stated emphatically that marriage is a sacrament. He gets it! Additionally, his SC victory speech emphasized the extremely important issue of religious liberty his number 1 point of contention. Of all the contenders, Newt is the only candidate in my lifetime since Ronald Regan that actually speaks truth to power. We need to pray to the Lord that His choice for President be done. Perhaps its time for America to begin a fast of sack cloth and ashes.
Don,
Thanks for the list. What interests me about your examples is that they are almost exclusively about positions Mitt Romney took many years ago, rather than anything he’s said or done during this campaign (or the last one). By that standard Ronald Reagan wasn’t particularly conservative, and neither is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich supported an individual mandate (and at the federal level) for more than a dozen years, supported embryonic stem cell research, supported cap and trade, etc.
More significant, however, are the flip flops that Newt has made just during the course of this campaign. He attacked the Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering.” Then flipped and endorsed the plan (and said that anyone who quoted his prior statements on the issue was a liar). He defended Fannie and Freddie as necessary for the housing market (after getting paid millions to do so), then flipped and said they should be broken up. He attacked Romney for his private equity work at Bain Capital. Then said his prior criticisms were irrational. Then made the same criticisms again, only more forcefully. As far as I can tell, the idea that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney seems to depend almost entirely on the assumption that when Romney changes his position he doesn’t really mean it, whereas when Newt does so he is completely sincere.
You are incorrect in your assumption BA. Virtually all of my examples, except for the Senate race statements, come from Romney’s term as Governor of Massachusetts which was from 2002-2006 and which I do not think qualifies as “many years ago”. In regard to abortion Romney ran as a complete pro-abort in 2002.
The McCain opposition research book on Romney is a very good mine of information on the Weathervane’s flip flops and is linked below:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78582788
Be pro-Romney if you will BA, but Gingrich is a piker when it comes to flip flopping compared to the Weathervane. Romney could hold a very interesting debate all by himself himself considering that he has managed to be on both sides of so many issues over the years.
“Be pro-Romney if you will BA, but Gingrich is a piker when it comes to flip flopping compared to the Weathervane. Romney could hold a very interesting debate all by himself himself considering that he has managed to be on both sides of so many issues over the years.”
Almost could not catch my breath from laughing so hard as the result of this statement!
To be witty is a gift; to alloy it with intelligence is a blessing, not just to the one gifted with it but to whomever is blessed through observing it. Thank you.
Don,
2002 was ten years ago. Perhaps it’s a sign of my relative youth, but that seems like a fairly long time. And in any event, Gingrich was still supporting a federal individual mandate, cap and trade, and embryonic stem cell research after all of the cases you cite against Romney.
Can we agree at least that, going by what they’ve said in this campaign, Romney is clearly the more conservative candidate, and that the only way to say Gingrich is more conservative is if you believe what he says but not what Romney says about their own positions?
Thank you Karl!
Ten years seems like a mere blip to me BA, either due to my study of history or my approaching 55th birthday.
One could say that Romney is now a conservative if one were to have a bad case of amnesia as to the rest of his life. I can accept a politician having a Road to Damascus experience on one or two issues, but Romney’s conversions have been wholesale, and always very convenient for whatever office he is aiming at. I doubt the man’s honesty and for me in regard to a politician that is the kiss of death. If he is the eventual nominee I will vote for him for one reason and one reason only: he will be the Not-Obama in the race.
Tess. Pope Gregory in 590 or so made up the story about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. There is nothing to support the assertion. Give the girl a break.
Re Newt. He went thru 3 wedding ceremonies. He has bought his way out of one or (possibly) two thru annulments. He was of legal age, 19 yr old, at his first wedding and married his math teacher, 7 years his senior, after a 3 year ‘affair’. In all, he had affairs with his next two wives, while married to someone else. It’s called adultery. Another affair has been documented. All the time he was beating up on fellow legislators for doing the same. Is this the guy u think should be the leader of the free world; appoint moral judges; push the right kind of social legislation (or lack thereof)? This guy into repentence? He’s too arrogant. He has rationalized all this as part of working too hard. Have u read his reasoning? Seen the tape? **choke**
Politics is all about comparison Rotifer. Compared to Gingrich I prefer Santorum. Compared to Romney I prefer Gingrich. Compared to Obama, I prefer the Republican.
“19 yr old, at his first wedding and married his math teacher, 7 years his senior, after a 3 year ‘affair’.”
If that is true, then his first wife was more at fault than the 16 year old Gingrich, and that got him off to a rather rocky start in regard to man-woman relationships.
Gingrich at least has a balanced budget and welfare reform to point to when making his claims to conservatism. What aspects of Romney’s record does he point to? He ran as a liberal. He governed as a liberal. And he is a liberal. His 2007 election-eve conversion of convenience is not convincing to me. And, apparently, it’s not convincing to most other people either.
I will NOT vote for that fraud should he win the nomination.
“Bought”, eh? Care to reveal what the bid-ask spread is on annulments these days?
If the past is any guide, the establishment media doesn’t stop attacking Speaker Gingrich until he’s long since stopped bringing himself to public attention. I doubt they can even help themselves anymore, they just can’t resist trying to attack him. Likely, the South Carolina results shocked them; bunches of media operatives are probably still shouting “inconceivable!” Come Monday, they’ll be back.
This:
“Mitt Romney has no tangible record of conservative accomplishments but has occasionally made statements that sound conservative.
“Newt Gingrich has a tangible record of conservative accomplishments but has occasionally made statements that don’t sound conservative.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/22/mitt-romney-evitable/comment-page-8/#comment-5352896
Can anyone really argue that this statement is untrue? So, I’m struggling to ascertain on what conceivable basis one might posit that Romney is “conservative”, much less come to the conclusion that he is “clearly … more conservative” than Gingrich.
Dan McLaughlin has had some very insightful posts on the candidates. Here his take on Newt, and here’s a series of posts on Romney. Long story short, though there are some troubling things with Newt’s style of conservatism, it’s really not even close between the two.
As the comment Jay links to points out, there is simply nothing in Romney’s actual record of governance that indicates any sort of conservatism. At all. And the Massachusetts excuse doesn’t fly. We here in Maryland were governed at the same time by Bob Ehrlich, a fairly conservative (though pro-choice) governor who governed much more conservatively than Romney. Yes, he was defeated in his re-election bid – as Romney would have had he run – but he actually left office fairly popular. He just had the misfortune of having an -R next to his name in 2006. But he managed to govern a state that is every bit as liberal as Massachusetts without imposing an individual mandate or other disasters.
We here in Maryland were governed at the same time by Bob Ehrlich, a fairly conservative (though pro-choice) governor who governed much more conservatively than Romney.
Some things are a matter of honor, Paul, and when people breach that, you cannot forget.
http://www.theamericancause.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=213&cntnt01origid=26&cntnt01returnid=29
Then Michelle Malkin would have written some naggy article about how two or three votes of his that suggest he’s a RINO. Then he would have given some answer in his first debate that ticked a few people off, and his poll numbers would have gone. Then he goes on CNN to present his 30 point plan to improve the economy. Point 19 sounds vaguely similar to an Obama proposal, causing Red State to run three days worth of blog posts calling him a statist.
You’re 100% right on that, and the “own worst enemy” comment. And Redstate’s woodshedding of Santorum has been a gruesome wonder to behold–if not as laughable as Coulter’s weathervaning on Romney.
Butbutbut…
Any of the others would have less baggage than Newtromney, and less fodder for credible flyspecking. I think even Christie (save on 2nd Amendment issues) would be less subject to it. Oh, the Axis of Redstate would still find something to fulminate about with each, but it wouldn’t have the same traction. It would be relegated to the eyerolling closet much, much faster.
Perry’s fatal flaw was expectations combined with some of the most remarkable pratfalls this side of Chevy Chase. That, and running a socon campaign when he had the Texas economic record to tout.
Thomas Sowell on the Gingrich vs. Romney comparison:
… While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long-overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody now claims that they were.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain…
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/286226
I doubt the man’s honesty and for me in regard to a politician that is the kiss of death.
Do you consider Gingrich to be an honest person?
With his first two wives? Absolutely not. With the voters? Much more so than Romney.
Conservative, neocon, moderate, log cabin republican– “average republican voter’??
personally I want someone whose policies and personal life are coherent and trust worthy I think we have an opportunity to vote for a candidate who is good.. which is such a relief from so many years of choosing the lesser of the evils–
I want to vpte for a leader disciplined by faith in true Authority -higher than his own impulses and or value judgments (G, R and O).
” broken promises, glib demagoguery, and cynical political moves ” phrase used by Thomas Sowell to describe B Obama. could that also describe Newt-different particulars, but same idea about lack of respect for a promise and willingness to demagogue ( is there a better example of exploiting peoples emotion than Newt’s display last week? Ethics – is it ok that he does questionable things as long as he gets things done?
Look at Townhall Rebecca Hagelin’s “Blinded by Hate” column and
“Newt and Mitt: Two Sides of the Same Coin” .http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/01/23/newt_and_mitt_two_sides_of_the_same_coin
Don,
Leave aside the issue of his marriages. Gingrich claims that Freddie Mac paid him $1.6 million dollars for him to tell them “as a historian” that there business model was flawed. Do you really believe that?
I believe he has said a good deal more than that BA, although I understand that is the talking point of the Romney campaign.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57344816/gingrich-we-earned-criticism-over-freddie-mac/?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel
The contracts between Freddie Mac and the consulting firm of Gingrich will soon be released and we will all find out all about it. No doubt Romney in return will be itching to disclose literally tons of documents about his activities at Bain and other business ventures over the years.
Really BA this Tu Quoque defense of Romney will not hunt. Romney is a pretend conservative, a liberal trying to masquerade as a conservative, and that, along with being a truly lousy politician, is why against an underfunded challenger like Gingrich, who has tons of baggage, he is floundering. Most politicians will be mendacious on occasion, but few politicians have ever been as mendacious as Romney as to just what he believes over such a wide spectrum of issues.
Really BA this Tu Quoque defense of Romney will not hunt.
It is not a Tu Quoque defense, except for Democratic pols who also got a share of the swag from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Barney Frank, &c.)
Disagree Art. The issue that BA and I have been discussing is honesty with BA claiming that Gingrich is as big a liar as Romney, which is simply not the case.
Don,
Actually I only asked whether you thought Gingrich was an honest person in response to your claim that you couldn’t support a politician if you didn’t think they were honest. Would you like to modify your position to that you can support a dishonest politician so long as you think they are less dishonest than Mitt Romney?
No BA, my position is that Romney is a wretchedly dishonest politician that I will only vote for if the only alternative is Obama. However, considering the meltdown I think is happening with the Romney support in Florida and around the country, I am beginning to hope that I will not be forced to vote for President with my left thumb and forefinger clamped on my nose. Compared to Romney, Gingrich is Diogenes’ honest man found.