Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Gingrich tanked (What happened to his surge?)
Washington Examiner ^ | 01/07/2012 | Byron York

Posted on 01/07/2012 2:20:03 PM PST by SeekAndFind

NASHUA, NH -- Just as in Iowa, Newt Gingrich's popularity has plunged here in New Hampshire. The former House speaker, who hit 24 percent in a Rasmussen survey in late November, is languishing at eight percent in the latest Rasmussen Granite State poll.

In the next primary state, South Carolina, Gingrich hit 42 percent in an NBC News poll in early December. Now, he is at 18 percent in a new Rasmussen survey.

The conventional wisdom holds that Gingrich fell as a result of highly effective attack ads aired in Iowa by rival Ron Paul and a super PAC working on behalf of Mitt Romney. Certainly those ads, which focused on issues like Gingrich's paid work for Freddie Mac and his global-warming partnership with Nancy Pelosi, did some damage. But talks with voters here in New Hampshire and with politicos in South Carolina suggest the ads are not what killed Gingrich. It was Gingrich's reaction to the ads.

Voters who once supported Gingrich but have now turned away from him say that his hot-tempered response to the ads, rather than the ads themselves, simply turned them off. "He's got a temper," said one Tea Party member at a Nashua coffeehouse Saturday morning. "I don't want a guy with a temper with his finger on the button." Other voters said Gingrich's ill-tempered complaints about the ads distracted them from the former speaker's message about jobs, the economy, and American renewal.

In South Carolina, Gingrich's decision to call Romney a liar did not sit well with many Republicans, including those who don't support Romney. "I think people saw him calling Romney a liar as just un-presidential," says one well-connected South Carolina political figure. "It just looked unpresidential."

As a political tactic, the brilliance of the Paul and Romney ads was that they provoked Gingrich to anger -- and into hurting himself. That allowed Romney supporters to follow up by accusing Gingrich of being in a state of perpetual anger, and therefore unfit for the presidency. "He's always angry," former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, a Romney supporter, said Friday. "There's nothing new about that…This is the old Gingrich. There was a new Gingrich for about 11 microseconds, and now you're back to the old Gingrich."

Gingrich has also been hurt by a long gap between Republican debates. Gingrich rose to prominence in the GOP race because of his consistently impressive performances in debates -- and by his decision to focus his attacks on Barack Obama and not on his fellow candidates. But until Saturday night's face-off in Manchester, there has not been a debate since the Fox News session in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15. That's a long time for a candidate to go without being able to showcase his strength. During that time, Gingrich has fallen steadily in the polls.

Voters here and in South Carolina still have great respect for Gingrich and what he has accomplished in his career; no rival can match him. And voters wish some other candidate had Gingrich's debating talent; one Tea Party member said he would like to see a candidate with Romney's business acumen, Gingrich's debating skills, and Rick Santorum's integrity. But for many voters, in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country, temperament is a threshold issue. If a voter determines that a candidate is too hot-headed, or in some way does not possess the proper temperament to be president, it ultimately doesn't matter what else that candidate does; he won't win the voter's support. And that is what has happened to Gingrich in the aftermath of the Iowa attack ads.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: byronyork; gingrich; newt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/07/2012 2:20:05 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What happened to Newt is what has happened, and will happen, to any Republican except Romney: he underwent an anal exam with every little comment pulled out from the last 10 years. Conservatives, including some of York's friends, attacked him for being too liberal. You can say that about almost anyone except Bachmann and Palin, and they aren't in it anymore.

And as soon as Romney is alone at the top, then the long knives will come out for him.

2 posted on 01/07/2012 2:22:35 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks SeekAndFind.

He’d be a great running mate, smart, experienced, older (like Cheney).

Have a great rest of the weekend, all!


3 posted on 01/07/2012 2:25:34 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! May 2013 be even Happier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Resurgent petulantism.


4 posted on 01/07/2012 2:27:00 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The media pushed Gingrich as the only alternative to Romney, and people rejected that. In reality, Gingrich wasn’t the conservative he was portrayed to be. Earlier this year, people he acknowledged his numerous drawbacks.


5 posted on 01/07/2012 2:29:07 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Yep. Exactly. And I’ve been saying it for months... Conservatives have a problem with EVERY candidate in the field. The most consistantly conservative was Bachmann (and Palin but she never dove in).

We couldnt nominate Perry because he has poor debate skills and is soft on immigration. We can’t nominate Newt because he’s too liberal on global warming. We can’t nominate Ron Paul because he’s a kook with foreign policy. We can’t nominate Cain because he cheats on his wife and is inexperienced. We can’t nominate Santorum because he voted constantly for earmarks and bigger government. We can’t vote for Romney because he flip flops on abortion and supports Romneycare/Obamacare.

I understand conservatives are angry at this field. But the reality is that none of these guys are perfect. We are not going to have a perfect candidate. We are going to have to punt on an issue somewhere.


6 posted on 01/07/2012 2:30:13 PM PST by floridarunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s the continuing game of musical Republicans, up and down, and spin them all around while Romney plays with his media pals.


7 posted on 01/07/2012 2:32:22 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
People tend to vote for candidates that are likable. Newt and Callista are the least likable of the GOP couples.

That coupled with his baggage - personal and political - plan for amnesty (that he claims isn't amnesty) and other things sunk Newt.

8 posted on 01/07/2012 2:35:19 PM PST by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yeah, Gingrich is a passionate guy...


9 posted on 01/07/2012 2:36:03 PM PST by dixjea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“In South Carolina, Gingrich’s decision to call Romney a liar did not sit well with many Republicans, including those who don’t support Romney. “I think people saw him calling Romney a liar as just un-presidential,” says one well-connected South Carolina political figure. “It just looked unpresidential.””

Then South Carolinans are p*ssys.


10 posted on 01/07/2012 2:36:19 PM PST by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SMEAR.

What's that smell?...

Smells like Romney.

11 posted on 01/07/2012 2:36:43 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (ROMNEY / ALINSKY 2012 (sarcasm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

So true, and they are right here on FR trying to paint a negative light, cause discord and disruption.

We need to pray then Keep speaking the truth and fight the fight.


12 posted on 01/07/2012 2:37:52 PM PST by ConfidentConservative (If my people shall humble themselves and pray,I will hear from Heaven and heal their land.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Polls the Gee-Oh-Pee Don't Want You to See

South Carolina: (primary Jan 21)
Gingrich 38%, Romney 21, Paul 10, Perry 5

Virginia: (Super-Tuesday/only Romney + Paul on ballot)
Gingrich 41%, Romney 15, Perry 8, Paul 6, Santorum 6

Georgia: (primary Super-Tuesday Mar 6)
Gingrich 65%, Romney 12, Perry 4, Santorum 1

California: (primary June 5)
Gingrich 33%, Romney 25, Paul 9, Perry 4, Santorum 4

Pennsylvania (Santorum's home state!):
Gingrich 32%, Romney 12, Santorum 12, Paul 9 (PPP)
Gingrich 31%, Romney 17, Santorum 9, (Quinnipac)

Florida: (primary Jan 31)
Romney 27%, Gingrich 26% (statistical dead-heat)

Colorado: (caucus Feb 7)
Gingrich 37%, Romney 12, Santorum 12, Paul 9

13 posted on 01/07/2012 2:39:53 PM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

yep, they are mixing blatent falsehoods in with some truths to try and sink Gingrich.

It’s true that Gingrich shouldn’t have been so whiney about the attacks.

But it’s patently false to say Gingrich shouldn’t have fought back. Nothing could be further from the truth, Gingrich lost because he DIDN’T fight back, not because he did.


14 posted on 01/07/2012 2:43:04 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Fox News went negative on Newt the instant his numbers went ahead of Romney’s. Before Romney ads. I’ve never seen such hyperventillating by FNC against anyone on our side of the aisle.


15 posted on 01/07/2012 2:43:28 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade, There are only two sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConfidentConservative

I still want to know what “baggage” people keep talking about with NEWT?

Does he have any more baggage thn Romney...NO
Does he have more baggage then OBAMA....NO

Does he have a lot more “conservative accomplishments” than all of the field....almost certainly so..


16 posted on 01/07/2012 2:43:44 PM PST by neverbluffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Thats not what happened in South Carolina...

In fact, Romney is a liar so Newt being accurate about that did not turn SC people away. In fact, I believe Newt is still the preferred choice of people in SC.


17 posted on 01/07/2012 2:45:57 PM PST by neverbluffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

Your say right.
They do have the least amount of charm and
Likability .
Palin has it which makes The Dems scared


18 posted on 01/07/2012 2:45:57 PM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LS

My brother’s right, for both the Republican and Democrat political elite this is just another Super Bowl. They just play the game and don’t give a thought to the danger this country is in. They’ll destroy anyone they don’t want and they’ll pull out all the stops for their guy.


19 posted on 01/07/2012 2:49:09 PM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

I don’t know where you are getting your SC polling numbers but the only polls that were done there this year is CNN and Rasmussen yesterday and they read as follows”

Rasmussen CNN

Mittens 27 37
Santorum 24 19
Gingrich 18 18
Paul 11 12
Perry 5 5

Gingrich has been damaged here and it appears it wasn’t the ads that did it but rather his response to them.


20 posted on 01/07/2012 2:50:20 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LS
And as soon as Romney is alone at the top, then the long knives will come out for him.

Saw the hideous Debbie "Washerwoman" on Greta the other night and it was nothing but projectile regurgitating of the Dems line re: Romney. They're already after him ... and it's not going to be pretty. What was MOST disturbing was a lot of what she said was actually true (everything he has flip-flopped on, etc.)

21 posted on 01/07/2012 2:51:20 PM PST by MissMagnolia (ObamaCare side effects: headache,delayed treatment, 0 choice,sky-rocketing taxes & premature death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It seems when there was a lull in debates the negative ads had a serious impact. When he debates everyone can see how effective he is. Newt/_______ -2012


22 posted on 01/07/2012 2:54:13 PM PST by paintriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Maybe we need someone who is angry.


23 posted on 01/07/2012 2:55:36 PM PST by Moorings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
People tend to vote for candidates that are likable. Newt and Callista are the least likable of the GOP couples.

I think you nailed it.

24 posted on 01/07/2012 2:58:11 PM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
Taking the South Carolina polling data back to the beginning of Dec. 2011 and it shows a huge drop for Gingrich. Something did a number on him for that large of a drop.

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul Perry Huntsman Spread
RCP Average 1/4 - 1/5 -- 32.0 21.5 18.0 11.5 5.0 1.5 Romney +10.5
Rasmussen Reports 1/5 - 1/5 750 LV 27 24 18 11 5 2 Romney +3
CNN/Time 1/4 - 1/5 485 LV 37 19 18 12 5 1 Romney +18
Insider Advantage 12/18 - 12/18 736 LV 19 4 31 7 5 4 Gingrich +12
Clemson 12/6 - 12/19 600 LV 21 2 38 10 5 3 Gingrich +17
NBC News/Marist 12/4 - 12/6 635 LV 23 2 42 9 7 3 Gingrich +19

25 posted on 01/07/2012 3:00:07 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

I do not know the words needed to describe my disgust for Fox news.

When the People realize, if they ever do, just how much FOX has helped to destroy our candidates and thus destroy our country, it is my fantasy to see Fox news go broke.

If FNC is successful at shoving Romney down our throats, thus giving Obama 4 more years to destroy our country, it should be time work on their advertisers to help to bring FNC down.


26 posted on 01/07/2012 3:02:11 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO.....!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverbluffer

Here is a list of lies that Gingrich has clarified ...

Fact Check: Latest Ad by Pro-Romney Super PAC “Restore Our Future” Contains Numerous Lies and Falsehoods

Atlanta, GA - Newt 2012 released a fact sheet today responding to the latest dishonest attack ad aired by pro-Romney Super-Pac “Restore our Future”:

Falsehood: Freddie Mac paid Newt $30,000 an hour - $1.6 million.

The Truth:

“I think less than maybe once a month, they [Freddie Mac] would drop by. We’d spend an hour [talking].”
-Newt Gingrich, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 11/17/11

It is this remark which the Super-Pac uses to justify this gross distortion.

First, Freddie Mac was a client of the Gingrich Group, a firm with thirty employees and offices in three cities. The client fees were not paid directly to Newt, they were paid to the company, and the vast majority of it went to staff salaries, health insurance, rent and other overhead.

Second, like any consulting firm, a great deal of work and research goes into the recommendations given. Newt and his staff spent time preparing for these meetings, putting in hours of research to bring a well informed opinion. To report that a one hour meeting is the extent of their work is ignorant of standard business practice.

Falsehood: Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.

The Truth: Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade,” which Nancy Pelosi supports, as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against the Nancy Pelosi-backed cap and trade effort in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while he was the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate. Newt repeatedly states there is no scientific evidence to justify a large government, centralized response.

Falsehood: Together [Gingrich & Pelosi] they co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal “One Child” policy.

The Truth: Newt never voted for this legislation and this never became law. Additionally, Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy was in place in 1989, which would have prevented any money going toward abortions in support of China’s One Child Policy:

“As to US contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, their continuation will be conditional on “concrete assurances” that no part of the US monies will be used for abortion and the Fund does not support abortion or coercive family planning programs.”
-US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population, 1984

This policy applied to any legislation passed through 1993, and implicitly prohibits any US funds from going to China’s One Child policy.

Falsehood: As Speaker, Gingrich even supported taxpayer funding of some abortions.

The Truth:

“House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday supported the availability of federally- financed abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest.”
-Chicago Tribune, April 10, 1995

Newt supported Hyde amendment language, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. This language often makes exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and is supported by conservative members of Congress. These clauses were found in the Republican supported Stupak Amendment to President Obama’s healthcare bill. Newt recognized that an outright ban on federal funding of abortion would not be signed by Bill Clinton, and worked to remove federal abortion funding as much as possible in the existing political framework.

Falsehood: [Newt] was fined $300,000 for ethics violations by a Republican Congress.

The Truth: Eighty-four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped.

The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. The agreement specifically noted that the payment was not a fine, but instead a “cost assessment.” The House vote affirmed this agreement.

In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”

For more facts about Newt Gingrich’s record, please visit Newt.org/answers.


27 posted on 01/07/2012 3:05:49 PM PST by ConfidentConservative (If my people shall humble themselves and pray,I will hear from Heaven and heal their land.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Yep. It’s been painfully obvious. F&F had an interview with Newt this morning and suddenly Karl (oh Karl we haven’t seen you in over a month) Rove shows up to bash Newt. He’s been acting like he’s OCD. Even Brit Hume’s voice went up 3 notches. They’ve been frantic to take Newt down.


28 posted on 01/07/2012 3:08:24 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade, There are only two sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Newt has done a lot of interviews and town halls, etc. in the last month that are just as interesting as what he says in debates, if not moreso. Problem is the media doesn’t seem to cover those at all. They instead pick the one sound bite that keeps the “horse race” going. Romney and Paul say awful lies in their ads, but don’t usually say it themselves out loud. Newt says what they’re doing is unfair and terrible out loud, that gets quoted while nothing else he has been saying gets quoted, and he looks like the bad guy.

There is a big reason the SuperPAC negative ads succeed and it’s because it takes that stuff out of the candidates’ mouth and puts it onto some amorphous non-entity. Without big money, Newt can’t do that type of thing. The idea that you’re supposed to smile and say vicious lies being spread about you by anonymous people doesn’t bother you is just ridiculous. Is it preferable to vote the liars into office instead of the people in the difficult position of defending themselves from the lies?

If voters want to continue to be ignorant about the spin game, not investigate the candidates’ platforms themselves, rely on the information they get from the media in cahoots with the big money candidates, they will get the candidate they deserve.


29 posted on 01/07/2012 3:19:48 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
Yep, and good ole Rove was there talking about how mad Newt was etc etc. for days. It reminded me of what he did to that Chick Christine, the minute she won.

Rove would rather lose than have anyone who could throw a wrench in the GOP Establishment plans.

30 posted on 01/07/2012 3:24:25 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

Sadly, those polls you cite are from December 19th.

It’s a lot worse now. They may have been his highwater mark.


31 posted on 01/07/2012 3:28:10 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

The South Carolina and Virginia polls are from 12/19/11. In politics that’s a lifetime ago. Meaningless.


32 posted on 01/07/2012 3:31:54 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What happened to the Romneybot York’s credibility? He has none.


33 posted on 01/07/2012 3:34:48 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

I have to say that I agree completely w/ you! There is just something about them that is like one long trip to creepytown. Call it shallow, but there is no getting around that observation!


34 posted on 01/07/2012 3:47:59 PM PST by leaning conservative (snow coming, school cancelled, yayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bought and paid for polling, gives you support 100 feet wide and 10,000 of an inch thick. In short hype, a fad, the bloom is now off the rose.


35 posted on 01/07/2012 3:49:43 PM PST by org.whodat (What is the difference in Newts, Perry,s and Willard,s positions on Amnesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Newt’s comments about illegal aliens hurt him. Why support illegals?


36 posted on 01/07/2012 3:50:22 PM PST by Jane Austen (Boycott the Philadelphia Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

“he underwent an anal exam with every little comment pulled out from the last 10 years”

Exactly. It is that simple and Newt at first did not have the resources to fight back. Those days are over and Newt is now fighting back. GO NEWT!


37 posted on 01/07/2012 3:50:31 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

While I agree with you that Callista is “unlikeable,” I still think Gingrich has a shot. Callista is going to have to soften her image. When Michelle The Moocher started out, she was worse than she is today (if you can believe it). Callista has got to get rid of that blond-on-blond helmet hairdo and let down her guard a bit (as well as swearing off facelifts and botox treatments). She comes across as incredibly brittle. That being said, I can still support Newt if he can rise above the negative ads being run against him by wealthier candidates.


38 posted on 01/07/2012 3:53:31 PM PST by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Rick Santorum's integrity"


in•teg•ri•ty |inˈtegritē|
noun

1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness : he is known to be a man of integrity.

2 the state of being whole and undivided : upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty.


I could stand that in the White House.
39 posted on 01/07/2012 3:58:36 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-man-who-couldnt-beat-obama-endorses-the-man-who-couldnt-beat-mccain/


40 posted on 01/07/2012 4:03:43 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
When the People realize, if they ever do, just how much FOX has helped to destroy our candidates and thus destroy our country, it is my fantasy to see Fox news go broke.

My fantasy too. I DESPISE Fox - seems like no matter when I do stop on that channel - someone is on there telling me Romney is the only one that can win. I watch MSNBC and CNN more than Fox (how many more bimbos can they pack into their shows?).

41 posted on 01/07/2012 4:24:19 PM PST by alicewonders ((GO PERRY!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

The left got their messiah in “The One” and now us on the the right demand our turn to have one. Since Romney and Huntsman are the only ones vying for the job of god, they have a head start, and every other candidate may have too many flaws for us. (Ron Paul appears to have been the victim of an alien abduction and some kind of mind altering extraterrestrial experience, which allows him to escape earthly reality. This is godlike enough for some. (RP call home.))

But when it’s all said and done, many Republicans just pick their candidate the same way they get a cold, it’s simply given to them. -sarcasm, sorta-


42 posted on 01/07/2012 4:26:59 PM PST by chickenlips (Mitt Romney, Obama's ticket to term 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Newt expected to get a sympathy vote, after he was attacked in Iowa. It didn’t happen. He had a campaign war chest in Iowa, but chose not to use it.


43 posted on 01/07/2012 4:39:34 PM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01

As far as I know, no concrete evidence exists that Cain ever cheated on his wife. A collection of well-timed hearsay might work well for much of the electorate, but not for those with their wits about them. I spoke with a good friend who happens to be black and he based his easy willingness to believe the Cain slanders entirely on his view of black culture, with no foundation in specific, objective facts about Cain, and his certainty crumbled to nothing when I challenged it.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying Cain was perfect. I am saying that as an electorate we have lost so much of our critical thinking apparatus in the last thirty years that we are now way too easily led. The media pulls the ring in our nose and we follow it, then they pull us another way and we follow it. Rush and many other conservative thought leaders have labored hard and prevented an all out collapse, but the damage is severe, and this election cycle, even more than 2008, is shining a bright light on just how bad it is.


44 posted on 01/07/2012 4:49:06 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS

The knives will never come out for Romney because he has no chance of winning the presidency. And even if he did, he’s an Obama clone, so nothing would change and the GOP would be effectively neutered, so the left is probably actually rooting for Romney to win.


45 posted on 01/07/2012 4:53:49 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

I don’t care about Cain’s wife; the problem was exactly the same as it was with Clinton, he lied about the whole thing. He even denied the settlements until it was proved that they existed, even though he had been questioned about them in 2004 when he ran for office then (and lost). In his defense, I think he never expected his candidacy to be taken seriously, and thus he wasn’t sure how to handle these things.

The problem is that right now we are not focusing on issues and who would be best equipped to deal with them. I don’t care how many times a candidate has been married or if he’s somebody I’d like to go out to dinner with. The only thing I care about personally is that he is somebody who seems to have the brains, conservative principles and drive to do what is necessary.

Obama has done a lot of damage to this country that simply has to be undone by an aggressive person with a program. So that’s what we’ve got to be looking for. (But not a nutbag like Paul, who actually is very similar to Obama’s extreme left, since extremes always meet.)


46 posted on 01/07/2012 5:01:02 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: livius

Did Cain lie? I don’t acknowledge this. I can be persuaded, so feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong, or am missing some pertinent facts, but as an attorney, if I’m “prosecuting” Cain, I know I have to show by other than hearsay that he knew what he said was false when he said it (“mens rea”), if I want to prove a lie, and I can’t do that with the stipulated facts.

For example, if he says there was no settlement, but he was aware of the payout of a marginal severance package, is it a lie to say there was no settlement? If one is strict with the meaning of words, you don’t have a settlement unless you have a lawsuit ready for hearing. To my knowledge, that never happened. Therefore, no lie.

My theory on why he didn’t prepare for or respond to these things all that well? He is a computer/math guy, not a politician with years of experience being up to his elbows in other people’s dirty tricks. He never imagined his enemies willingness to use and the broader electorate’s willingness to believe a string of forcefully presented but unproven lies. He underestimated Axelrod and overestimated the rest of us.

Remember that the Alynski school of politics designs an attack at precisely that point where your opponent enjoys his greatest strength among his own supporters. People quote the “isolate” principle all the time but they fail to recognize it when it is used against them. Isolation comes when you take a target whose strength is integrity and “show” he has none, whose strength is family values and you “show” him to be a cheater, or not really prolife, who strength is intellect and you amplify some single mental error all out of proportion to reality. By this you separate, or “isolate,” the target from the one group that could give him strength. Now he’s a sitting duck. Very effective. Evil, yes, but effective.

Bottom line, for me, is any of these front-runners (including the “also rans” and the “almost rans”), with the exceptions of Paul & Romney, would be infinitely better than what we have now, but because we are so willing to believe what we are told, and so haphazard in our analysis even when we do “question authority,” that we can be bamboozled into chasing ourselves into a cage from which we will not be able to escape.


47 posted on 01/07/2012 5:45:51 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
On the amnesty issue, Newt's whining was particularly loathsome. As I posted on a different thread:

When Newt announced his proposal in a debate, he said he was "ready 'to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.'”

The morning after the debate, Gingrich was already swamped with accusations from a wide variety of quarters that he was supporting amnesty, for example, HERE, which is a typical example describing Gingrich's plan as about amnesty ("The plan seeks to break the political deadlock over whether to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by splitting them into two groups.")

Sorry, but Gingrich knew VERY WELL that when he said what he said, how he said it, when and where he said it, that he was going to have to fend off accusations that his plan amounted to amnesty. He specifically said he was "ready to take the heat for that."

Then when his political opponents brought the heat, instead of accepting responsibility for explaining away the mess he himself made, he wails about how he's being lied about and it's so unfair.

It's not unfair and Gingrich knows it. He PREDICTED that his comments would be viewed as advocating a form of amnesty.

Whether his plan does or does not constitute amnesty is beside the point here. We are talking about political strategies.

Gingrich knowingly and deliberately made it VERY EASY for his opponents, from the minute he said it in that debate and forward (go back and watch the tape and read the threads about AMNESTY here on FR the next day), to characterize his position as allowing illegal immigrants a way to stay in the U.S.

Again, this is precisely what he claimed he was "ready to take the heat for."

Except he wasn't ready to take the heat. And he didn't go out there the day after the debate, and the day after and the day after, and make damn sure that HE explained himself again and again, if necessary.

Saying "Newt has a plan on his website" has zero impact on how politics gets done in the real world.

But the fact is that Gingrich proposed to allow at least some illegal immigrants to stay, be provided a "path to legality," which everyone knows then makes them, just by virtue of being here legally, eligible to apply for citizenship. Please check the voluminous FR threads on these points in the days after he made this proposal. These discussions about amnesty and Newt's proposal were not had by a bunch of Romney supporters; they were based on what NEWT SAID.

Gingrich made this mess and he didn't clean it up. End of story. So he had to pay the piper.

To go from that to crying that his opponents "lied" about the very thing he predicted they would say if he said what he said shows a shocking level of political incompetence (or delusions of grandeur). Gingrich would have been in a much stronger position to have simply said, "I said all along they were going to peg me as an amnesty supporter, but here's how my policy is not amnesty."

As it is: call the whhhhaaaaaaambulance.

48 posted on 01/07/2012 5:48:26 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Sorry, but you’re proving their point very well.


49 posted on 01/07/2012 5:51:20 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

The more Santorum appears as the Not Romney AND the Not Gingrich candidate, the prettier his numbers will get.

Newt’s support was never deep.


50 posted on 01/07/2012 5:55:26 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson