Posted on 02/05/2012 3:49:00 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Newt Gingrich’s post–Nevada caucus speech included about three minutes of inspired moments about issues and ideas in his usual imaginative and intellectually robust style. So why does he not just stay with that — given that he often seems more dynamic and glib than Romney in his attacks on Obama, and not long ago gained ground despite the attacks against him? Instead, he now turns ad nauseam to the tired reasons why he loses — yes, including lots of Mormons in Nevada — and ends up as Richard Nixon not going to get kicked around any more.
But whether he knows it or not, Gingrich is becoming a caricature of petulance: no concession in Nevada, no call to Romney, no awareness that his inability to raise money at levels of a political rival or to match a competing campaign organization is not necessarily unfair. That’s politics, and Gingrich knows it. I don’t understand why he thinks now losing to Romney in 2012 is solely due to Romney’s innate deviousness in a way McCain beating Romney in 2008 was not — given that Romney was about the same in both 2008 and 2012. Gingrich seems oblivious to the fact that McCain’s style and history gave him advantages over Romney’s money and hardball in ways Gingrich’s own proven liabilities apparently do not.
Gingrich should carefully play a tape of his post–Nevada caucus performance, and then he would quickly grasp that it was little more than a litany of excuses, whining, and accusations — characterized by stream-of-conscious confessionals and rambling repetitions. And, I think, will hurt him more than anything yet in the campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I’ve seen pictures of Willard without the black dye on his hair and his stage makeup. Aint a pretty sight. He’s hair is almost as white as Newt’s and he has blotches on his face.
Makeup works wonders.
Buckley was a good Republican. He wasn't a Conservative as we would define one today.
The GOP-e are really in full panic mode!!!
The only people making Romney’s Mormonism the issue are LDS members and the Media.
I could care less that He’s LDS...he’s got Socialist tendancies (Despite what El Rushblow says).
Romney got beat in 2008 because he had a pro-mccain BINO (Baptist In Name Only) who hated Romney because he’s a mormon. That and mccain had his friends in the media like Romney does now. But Romney does not have a huckster against him this time.
Mitt must be stopped! We can’t have a blotchy faced President!
I’m glad I went back and watched the presser. I dozed for the first few minutes last night and came in where Newt says “everybody will get a chance.” The beginning was the best part where he was able to articulate organized thoughts. The thing disintegrates when the press starts asking dumbass questions based on their groupthink.
For the life of me, I don’t know what happened to Newt. He was the one man in the race who could excite the voters with his big ideas, articulation of conservatism, and experience. But ever since FL he has been content to wallow in the gutter with Bishop Romney. RISE ABOVE IT NEWT!!!
Please reel in the wife. thanx.
What’s your point?
He still turned it around and became President.
Sadly, many conservatives are helping to put Obama in by continuing to support Santorum, Paul, Romney. I do not believe the negative numbers on Newt’s electability quotient. Many, many I know in Texas grass roots country like him plenty well. I am saddened at how “conservative” media is so clearly supporting Romney. I hope Fox’s viewer numbers go in the cellar.
Newts been crashing since Florida (A week or so ago)? I guess you didn't bother to look at this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2842271/posts
I have to say one thing; the media and Left are certainly encouraged by your comments and others who know look to find what Newt does wrong. If we lose this election (Mittens wins the primary), we can only blame ourselves..we will be fully responsible.
NKP_ Vet wrote: I’ve seen pictures of Willard without the black dye on his hair and his stage makeup. Aint a pretty sight. He’s hair is almost as white as Newt’s and he has blotches on his face.
Are they on the net?
know = now
hopefully one of Gingrich’s big money backers can find Santorum’s price....
“VDH is MSM? Or is that the blanket term for ANYone who disagrees w/Newt?”
Perhaps the poster who titled the post was referring to National Review, an old-line slick magazine like Newsweek, Times, and others - all definitely part of the MSM.
I am not willing to rule anything in or out. In my opinion, the nominee of this party could be either Santorum, Gingrich or Romney at this point. I discount Paul. And finally, the nominee may in fact be none of those three men. It is crazy and expect Gingrich to be on top again, then vanquished again, then again re-emergent. It is volatile and highly possible. I still work and hold out hope that my choice, Rick Santorum, will be the nominee as my own comprehensive issues/voting record/personal morals/likability/fidelity scorecard on him vs. the other three has him in the top slot (and how my political enemies, the progressives, seem to truly loathe and ridicule Santorum the most, especially the anti-life and anti-marriage lavender mafia lobby). He was never my initial first choice of all the candidates that entered the race. I had it down to him, Bachmann or Cain, and on the whole for a variety of reasons, went with Cain as I saw him highly effective and gained intelligence that the Obots were scared to death of him. (They fixed THAT didn't they!!?) Your mileage of course might vary. I think perhaps our only common ground is we want neither Romney nor Paul to gain the nomination, and we so want Obama to be rendered a single term, with a sweep of the House and the Senate to reverse the train of our Republic before it goes over the cliff and into the abyss of irreversible Socialism.
I haven't seen this much hatred by the press since Nixon
Newt understands that there may never be peace with his own party establishment and there will never be peace with the MSM
As a historian, he grasps the possible fatal results if Romney wins the nomination. Other civilizations died of weakness and compromise--I am surprised VDH did not come to the same conclusion...
For the first time since 1994, I’m not even remotely interested in Rush’s political opinion on an issue. I’d normally eagerly tune into his show on Monday to find out his opinion on an article like this, but his actions (or lack thereof) have me completely uninterested in his take on the issues.
I never thought I’d ever feel this way.
“Are they on the net?”
You can bet they will be during the general election. The age issue of all the GOP candidates has been studiously ignored. Only Bachmann and Santorum were under 60!
As I recall, there are 58 states. My recollection that Obama said he was in 57 states and he had one more to go. That makes 58.
Maybe I misunderestimated his remarks.
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.