Skip to comments.Gingrich strikes another blow for Obama's re-election
Posted on 01/22/2012 8:20:09 PM PST by Astronaut
If you were Barack Obama, or one of his advisers, you couldnt ask for a greater gift than Newt Gingrichs runaway victory in South Carolina. The Republicans will now be forced to spend the winter absorbing a cutthroat war between Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both forces pouring millions of dollars into high-profile media campaigns to tear down the other, rather than campaigning to defeat Obama next November.
Obama must love this. He barely has to campaign. Both Gingrich and Romney have demonstrated their willingness to be as nasty as it requires to tear down their rival. Now theyll be going at it for weeks, or months, doing the Democrats job for them, and providing juicy material Democratic researchers might not even have been aware of.
(Excerpt) Read more at fullcomment.nationalpost.com ...
Dumber than snot...
I think the real point of the definitely moronic article is: Strike not Little Lord Fauntleroy! His nose now doth bleed, ye uncouth lout!
I do not post such thoughts as an assassination attempt lightly—I put nothing past the Liberals out there and fear such a thing might happen—I feared as much for Sarah Palin as well. I will be happy if such things never happen—but they have in the past. May the Lord protect Newt and all in politics.
The only problem is that one or more debates between the Republican and Democrat nominees is not a requirement. There is no law that demands one or more debates. 0bama would be well advised to simply skip any one-on-one debate against Speaker Gingrich. Why in the world would 0bama give up the advantage of incumbency and risk it on a debate performance that 0bama might win (and secure the election) or draw (and likely still win) or lose (and risk the election)? It seems that only bad things (from the 0bama perspective) can happen following a Gingrich-0bama debate. Anyone remember Mayor Rizzo in Philadelphia? “I’m not going to debate you Thatch. No one knows you Thatch!”
You’re right. A hard-fought battle in the primaries is a tonic for the eventual nominee, unless he’s a sitting president. (See Carter and Ted Kennedy, or Bush and Buchanan for the latter.)
Not in this lifetime, he doesn't. Newt's the nominee...Obama wins in a cakewalk. Bank on it.
But that’s probably only because a sitting president already was coming from a weak position, otherwise they never would have gotten a primary challenge. So there’s no way to know that the fight didn’t help them hone their skills as well even if it wasn’t enough to win the contest.
Its called a “primary”. The party managers and paid professionals wanted a coronation. But thats not how it works. People have been telling them for a long time, we don’t want another McCain (we didn’t want the first one either for that matter) and we don’t want Romney.
This is what happens when the supposed “elite” tries to force a candidate on us. This is what happens when someone we don’t want tries to buy the election.
This is what ought to have happened last time when they jammed McCain down our throats. But we didn’t have anyone with enough grit to really take the fight to McCain and the elite, and what we got was Obama. They told us only McCain was electable but we always knew he wasn’t... and he wasn’t.
No more McCains. No more Romneys.
Eh, the approvals statistic was used by Newt’s media enemies to make Newt look bad, because his head-to-head matchup against Obama doesn’t look as bad. You will have people who disapprove of Newt but disapprove of Obama more. People may say they disapprove of Newt with his extramarital affair in mind, but that doesn’t mean they will hold that against him when they’re voting. The matchup against Obama can also turn around on a dime just like Newt’s poll numbers in this primary have. Kerry was ahead of Bush all year, up through at least July, when he was 7 points ahead of Bush in the polls.
Meanwhile the federal courts keep sliding the Texas primary back over redistricting. Latest schedule is April 8. The largest conservative block of votes and we don’t even get a say in who the candidate will be. Lets go back to smoke filled rooms, At least we generally got competent, rather than glib and/or good looking candidates.
The Democratic line of attack on this protracted battle is some kind of a “clown car/circus” meme, implying that all of our candidates are clowns and that this primary process is a circus/comedy. It’s their job to portray everything we do in a negative light. They have proven time and time again that they can effectively influence public psychology through their many media outlets. Goebbels would be impressed. They also hope to drag this out for us so they can prep the battlefield for the general election war while we remain bogged down in our primary election battles. As well, they hope to build up inner party resentments so as to drive a lingering wedge in between us come general election time. payback for operation chaos I guess.
I’m still open whether Newt can win or not against Obama. My prediction is that those things that conservatives (read: Freepers) despise will be used by him in general election. His sofa pose with Pelosi, his friendly pose with Al Sharpton, etc., will be shown as proof that he’s not right-wing zealous and he can work with the opponents if it’s needed.
First Romney, then Obama
We read the same bull-crap every primary election cycle.
36 judges and nine Republicans by every accounting. But Romney being Romney, he can't even tell the truth about how many judges he appointed.
In a February 2007 interview with National Journal Contributing Editor Marc Ambinder called "Romney Explains Himself" (and he'd have to do a lot less of that if he (a) told the truth and (b) stuck to an ideological position), Romney was asked:
You remember, though, in 1994, you said you'd be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?
As part of his answer, Romney said:
"I've appointed approximately 60 judges, one or two of whom... one of whom I'm quite confident is gay, the other may be gay as well. I think he probably is, and there may be more for all I know."
To me, 36 is approximately 40. But when you're trying to say "hey, there were only one or two gay judges; I'm a conservative," it sounds a lot better to say it was only one or two out of 60 than out of 36, or approximately 40, or approximately 50.
Romney may as well have said "I only appointed one or two gay judges out of approximately 239."
His mouth was moving; he was
lying trying to be deceptive.
True, debates are not a requirement, but if he refuses, I think it will be a sign of weakness. I would imagine even some Dims and the MSM would want him to debate. How can they defend him not debating? So in essence he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.