1 No RINO necessary
------
Music to my ears.

2 The question shouldn't be why the rest of the field runs so poorly- but why Romney's numbers against the President haven't improved.

My guess is that the base is still looking for a more conservative alternative and can't quite stomach voting for Romney yet because they don't want to admit that he might be their choice vs. Obama.  Denial and all that.

3 Romney sucks, has no spine, is thin-skinned, and trust me, when the powers that be turn their guns on his sorry ass, he will make John McCain look like a viable candidate. They will have a field day with Romney. Notice how most of the MFM has hardly laid any gloves on Romney, similarly to McCain in the last election at this time? You think that is simply by chance? Romney means four more years of Obama folks, and you know it.

4
Romney's campaign is most baffling.

Either he's holding back and saving his wad for when he really needs it, or he's the worst presidential candidate in history.

5

We are well underway to having the media pick our candidate, again.

If we get Romney or Newt for the nominee......how do we fight for them, when the media brings up all that stuff about them that we ourselves don't like?

 

6 Figure out who in these states are most inclined to vote against the President, find a nominee who will effectively connect with them, and you've got the White House. No RINO necessary.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole argument.  I support Romney not because he is the most ideologically in-tune with me, but because my admittedly anecdotal experience is that many in the middle will not vote for Gingrich, Perry, or any of the other vessels into which so many have poured their hopes.  They will vote for Romney, though. 

7 Romney means four more years of Obama folks, and you know it.

I know no such thing, and neither do you. 

8 Yea, and he was real electable last time, until Florida.

9 Ehh,this reminds me of "polling" I did in early 2008, just calling R's in my precinct.   Most preferred McCain, one liked Romney, no one for Ron Paul despite all the noise his followers were already making by then.

It was just familiarity because McCain was on TV all the time, and his story.  When we voted in the caucus he won too, despite the party people favoring Romney because he came and talked to us, and the old dowagers remembered his father and stuff, and he was good looking.  And rich.

So what I wonder is, did we still do the best we could picking McCain, because the average voter still goes by who they're most familiar with?   But I'm not sure Romney comes close to McCain in media whoredom either.

10
My gut instinct tells me Romney has Aces up his sleeve.

I refuse to believe that Romney, after years to prepare and plenty of resources and natural talent for politics, could be so inept to run such a passive lackluster campaign.

From the point of view of the average person, Romney appears not very interested in winning, which makes no sense. It would be foolish to believe Romney would allow his candidacy to simply evaporate without showing a hint of fight.

So that only leaves the possibility that a stratagem does indeed exist. But what is it?

11 If we get Romney or Newt for the nominee......how do we fight for them, when the media brings up all that stuff about them that we ourselves don't like?

Because the consequences of not supporting one of them are infinitely worse.  The choices aren't good, but they are what we have.  There isn't any point anymore in hoping for a better candidate.  So, we hold our noses and do the best we can so that Obama gets the boot. 

12 Romney means four more years of Obama folks, and you know it.

Posted by: Lord Humungus Wasteland Teahadi at December 10, 2011 12:36 PM (Yv6gq)

Bull.

He can win an election against Obama. Just ideologically it would be along the lines of Bush V Dukakis, a northeastern liberal Republican versus a goofy liberal. Only problem is that the goofy liberal is already inside the White House.

 

13 Romney has done a really good job positioning himself as the "acceptable" candidate while all the others are "extremists."

Whether that's true or not, it's worth noting that someone who is really good at shaping the message and massaging the media is a very useful candidate to have running against Obama.

14

I know that the media cannot wait to tell the public about the racist history of the Mormon church, and to bring up the magic underwear, and use things like that to shock the public about Romney. Is it fair or does it really matter? Nope. But that won't stop them, and it will make a difference.

Not to mention, the enthusiasm for Romney would be lukewarm at best. The liberals and media do not fear Romney, and if he does get in, he will do next to nothing to address the real problems facing our country. Doubt me? Look at his track record. The guys a pussy. Loves to suck up to liberals, and hates being painted as the "bad" guy. F Mitt. F the establishment.

15

Unless someone spectacular decides to jump in last minute -this is the field.

Polling and momentum say it's Romney v. Gingrich. Rino it is.

16 could be so inept to run such a passive lackluster campaign.

He seems like typical political-family-insider type to me.  They know people, they know how it's done, they just don't have any core beliefs to speak of.  "Just elect me and I'll do whatever!"  Because it's the family business and all.

17 This brings us back to the age-old problem:  do we want a real conservative who might lose, or a safer bet whose main qualification is not being Obama?

For me, Obama is such a horrifying disaster I'll go with the second option.

18 From the point of view of the average person, Romney appears not very interested in winning, which makes no sense. It would be foolish to believe Romney would allow his candidacy to simply evaporate without showing a hint of fight.

So that only leaves the possibility that a stratagem does indeed exist. But what is it?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2011 12:43 PM (sqkOB)

------------

It seemed that way to me. Every competitor fell, and it seemed like strategy but they are truly surprised at the Gingrich rise and I think were totally caught off guard. I dont think he has any cards left.

19
No matter who it is, Gingrich or Romney, the veep pick will decide if we win or lose.

Whether it is Newt or Romney, both equal each other out with their own positives and negatives. The second-banana on the ticket is the difference between victory and defeat.

A good pick can help both Newt and Romney's ticket. Conversely, a poor choice could doom either candidate.

20 My gut instinct tells me Romney has Aces up his sleeve

I've thought the same thing.  However, I don't think he ever anticipated the rise of the Newt (who among us did?).  Romney didn't get where he is by not having contingency plans. 

IMO, the strategy always was to go with his only real option.  He couldn't outflank the other candidates to the right, so he went with calm, quiet competence.  It worked well for him, even though he only ever had a quarter of the base. 

21 Let's see: Should I support Obama so he can spend four more years fucking a chicken? Or should I support Romney so he can spend three years giving the chicken cunnilingus before making sweet passionate whoopie to the thing? No fucking thank you to both options.

22

Yes, thank you Ace.  I've been saying it for a while too: the "vs Obama" numbers mean almost nothing right now. 

What you really want to look at are the negatives, but even there it doesn't tell you the whole story, as the MSMDNC will spend 2012 pushing those up as much as possible, and someone like Newt may have more resistance despite starting out higher vs someone new to the national audience like Perry or Cain or considered moderate today like Romney.

23

There's plenty to criticize in Romney, but at least his numbers with suburban women voters aren't as appalling as Gingrich's.  Romney may lose by three, but he won't lose by fifteen, which is what we're risking (asking for?) with Newt.  Romney is a guy who potentially runs even in all fifty states.  With Newt we're ceding 200 electoral votes right off the bat to Obama.    

24 I remain reasonably certain Romney will be the nominee, and that does not please me at all. Gingrich has no money and no campaign staff. We have long suspected so-called candidates like Cain and Bachmann were in it to help Romney. Maybe it's time to start wondering if/when Gingrich will start taking this run seriously enough to mount an actual campaign, because at this point it sure appears to me if he doesn't, Romney will walk to the nomination, essentially unchallenged.

25 Trim , I hear you, But, will Romney do what it takes to get business and people back working? Will He be able to fight the established beast sitting there waiting for him?
I mean we here day after day we are doomed if things do Not Change, Will He have the will to change what is killing us? Does He even see it?

26 No ... thank you to both options.

And it exactly that attitude which will enable Barack Obama to select the ideological direction of the court for the next 20 years.  Congratulations.

27 What I am worried about is Newt's stability and ego, he has an impressive ability for offputting self destruction, and he gives off #^#hole vibes to huge numbers of people. Granted Obama does too, but I don't want to give people another excuse to vote for him. I just don't think Newt is all that good of an executive and I worry his crash and burn could be epic, and worst of all before the general election. I would support anyone else over him, until this weeks Perry ads, which I found reprehensible, literally anyone. I'm a good party man, but when I watch Newts little smug crap I start having fond thoughts about Buddy Roemer.

28

Why is Romney's campaign so lackluster? Because he is. He wants to pretend he is smarter than everyone else, that he can stand in the middle of the road and not get run over. Romneycare is great, but Obamacare is bad. Okay. Pull my other leg.

Have you people not watched when Romney gets a tough question? You see how mad and flustered and red he gets? What do you think is going to happen when every interview goes like that?

A Romney first term would make Bush's second term look like a strong defense for conservatism and limited government. If the next president is not willing to be a one term president, this country is doomed anyhow, might as well deal with that unpleasantness sooner rather than later.

29

The President is facing abysmal approval ratings in most of the purple states and even the light-blue ones. Figure out who in these states are most inclined to vote against the President, find a nominee who will effectively connect with them, and you've got the White House. No RINO necessary.

You took a pretty big leap in this last para.

So, you're looking at taking some purple and blue states with someone in the field of candidates we have, right? Please elaborate with whom and how this gets done.

The President is a failure--that alone should guarantee the red states. So how do you win at the margins? You can't win the red ones twice.

30 A good pick can help both Newt and Romney's ticket. Conversely, a poor choice could doom either candidate.

That's what I always says to Barack!

31

11.... So, we hold our noses and do the best we can so that Obama gets the boot.

Well that didn't work out too well last time.

At least with McCain, he was a veteran, so he had that going for him. I didn't like his positions on a lot of things, but I told myself that at least he would be sympathetic towards our military.

But with Romney or Newt we don't even get that.

32 we hear*

33

I know that the media cannot wait to tell the public about the racist history of the Mormon church, and to bring up the magic underwear, and use things like that to shock the public about Romney. Is it fair or does it really matter? Nope. But that won't stop them, and it will make a difference.

Axelrod is probably the dirtiest campaigner in history.  With Romney, he's going go after the Mormon, with Newt he's going to unseal and dig through all the divorce records like he did with Jack Ryan.

34 Really a shame Rubio didn't run.

35 gah, found another gray hair.

36 Have you people not watched when Romney gets a tough question? You see how mad and flustered and red he gets? What do you think is going to happen when every interview goes like that?

A few months ago all we heard was that Romney killed in every debate because he was "glib".  IOW, he had an answer to everything, and spoke in complete sentences.  Now he's an inarticulate rageaholic?   Please. 

37
It is little consolation but if we go into the general with either Newt or Mitt, we have two things in our favor that we didn't have in '08.

1. Both Newt and Mitt will be better candidates,perhaps only slightly but who knows, than the Loser of Indiana and Virginia, John McCain.

2. Obama is less popular now than he was in 2008.

38 @37
Stop thinking strategically.  We must continue to fight the last battle. 

39 A few months ago all we heard was that Romney killed in every debate because he was "glib".  IOW, he had an answer to everything, and spoke in complete sentences.  Now he's an inarticulate rageaholic?   Please. 

Did you see the Baier interview? And his crying afterwards? Just wait when somebody asks him if he wears magic underwear, and to explain their meaning. Fireworks and tears.

40 All this is fine and dandy but I will point out again that Romney is stuck like truck in the alabama mud at 25% at best. No matter who else goes up or who else goes down, Romney never moves. And that is because 75% of the Republican voters hate him. So it really doesn't matter how he might or might do against obama, I don't see any way he gets the nomination.

41 Look, right now a President who just sits in the White House watching porn and occasionally going out on Air Force One for an empty meet-and-greet would be better than Obama.

If the choice was between Action or Inaction in a conservative direction, I'd pick Action, of course. But right now the country is suffering from rampaging Action in a socialist direction. I don't want to nominate a purist who loses, giving Obama four years (or more . . . don't underestimate his contempt for the Constitution) to finish off America.

42 No RINO necessary.
Yet, we have Newton Leroy Gingrich.

43

And it exactly that attitude which will enable Barack Obama to select the ideological direction of the court for the next 20 years.  Congratulations.

Congratulations to you, too!  Got that loser alibi all ready, a whole year in advance!  Anything else you need?  Obviously not conservative votes, since you're so eager to insult and degrade their owners.  Never mind, though, whatever happens, it's not your fault, right?  It's those damn purists who just won't play ball anymore.

44

The President is a failure--that alone should guarantee the red states. So how do you win at the margins? You can't win the red ones twice.

Posted by: spongeworthy at December 10, 2011 12:51 PM (puy4B)

There are quite a few lunatics and pinatas in the crowd. Cain, Paul, Bachmann, Kruger, Roemer, etc.

There are still a few left. If Perry can actually right his ship and get back to his original messaging at the start of his campaign, he can go right back to where he was compared to Romney. Perry was liked before his serious collapse in several light-blue states.

Huntsman is more conservative than Romney, if he redirected his snark at Obama and the Democrats he would be more appealing to his base.

While I took shots at Romney with this piece, I would still vote for him if he was the candidate. As the guy everyone (beyond our party) knows the best, he is the easiest to see a path to victory- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, Maine's ME-2 EV, etc. Doesn't mean there isn't a SW route Perry could exploit, or a Romney-like route for Huntsman.

 

45 Two words: Antonin Scalia
He is currently 75 years old.

Obama's two picks were lib-for-lib replacements.  The next one is not likely to be.

46 Did you see the Baier interview?

I did see it.  It was not his best performance, but hardly the apoplectic hissy fit you describe.

So it really doesn't matter how he might or might do against obama, I don't see any way he gets the nomination.

See my #2.

47
The way things are going right now, Newt will get the nomination.

The only way Romney can break out of his stagnant 18-25% funk is to become very aggressive or receive key endorsements.

Twin endorsements by Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio, for instance, can seal the deal for Mitt.

48 35 gah, found another gray hair.

Posted by: willow at December 10, 2011 12:53 PM (h+qn

Above or below the navel ?

49

Also just realized I forgot to put Rino in semi-sarcastic quotes.

The term is used far too often and nobody in the current crop fits the bill.

None of them, no matter how moderate, approaches the turncoatedness of a Moocowski or Specter.

50 5 reasons not voting for Romney over Obama would be a disaster: -Keystone XL -Another Kagan on Supreme Court replacing Kennedy -The risk of losing the House and more seats in the Senate -NLRB -Eric Holder And everyone of these is a reason to not support Newt. I opposed Cain on policy grounds, I hated the sales tax portion of 9-9-9, and I have too many gay friends and family members to like Bachmann, Santorum, and now Perry, though I'd vote for them if it came down to it. But Gingrich is the kind of temperamental idiot-savant who got himself gaslighted by Clinton, and I don't trust him to not screw this up. Imagine a 379-159 vote electoral victory for this wounded version of Obama, imagine that in the wake of a catastrophic Gingrich collapse losses in Senate and House. Do you want to live in that country?

51

So many people think some miracle perfection candidate with 100% perfect conservative bona fides is going to descend from the heavens.

It's made everyone so cranky. It's not happening. 

52 Neither Romney, nor Luap Nor, will be the nominee.

53
the veep thing

Mitt absolutely needs a conservative on the ticket. Newt, less so. But Newt needs someone with high Q ratings.

Newt just doesn't have much personal charm. Not saying Romney does, so relax buttnuts. It's just that Newt is very professorial, not very personable.

54 I believe in a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution.  None of the current Republican candidates are as strict as I am when it comes to strict constructionism.  That is why I am willing to stay at home on Election Day and let President Obama pick the next 2-3 SCOTUS justices.

55 And everyone of these is a reason to not support Newt.

So, Congress kicked Newt out.
People hate Congress.
Newt knows how to deal with them.
Therefore we should shun Newt.

I knew I was missing something in that logic.
Thanks for not helping me find it!
(I award you no points, by the way)

56 Sock OFF!

57 Twin endorsements by Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio, for instance, can seal the deal for Mitt.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2011 12:59 PM (sqkOB)

I dont think many outside of Florida Republicans will be influenced by a Rubio endorsements. I really dont think endorsements help Mitt at all. People like Rubio, Palin, Ayotte, but we just dont like him.

58 Mitt absolutely needs a conservative on the ticket. Newt, less so.

Agreed, but I'm always puzzled when folks start talking up Rubio, Christie, etc.  If they wouldn't run for prez, why would they run for veep?  My money's still on McDonnell.

59 The last RINO President gave us squish SCOTUS justices like Kennedy and Souter.  That is why RINOs can't be trusted to make solid SCOTUS appointments.  Instead I will pout and not vote for RINOs, instead letting Obama pick liberal moonbat justices for SCOTUS.

60 I'm not cranky, but I am also not pleased at the prospect of Romney getting this nomination without even having to look to his right. I'll say it again, if nobody is quite getting it, Gingrich does not HAVE A CAMPAIGN. It's him and his ego at debates. That's all! Perry never could articulate well enough to mount a challenge. So Romney sits, because he doesn't have to move at all. 25% is enough for now, it'll get bigger when the vast, uninformed masses of Republican primary voters start paying attention, because he's the only one with enough money and name recognition to GET their attention.

61 on my head.

62
btw, it turned out that Joe Biden was a very smart choice for Obama

Joe was put on the ticket for one reason: to make certain White Democrats feel comfortable with voting for Barack Obama.

Joe, the idiot and affable uncle figure, liked the black guy, and by-golly that was good enough for the Whites in the Democrat party who were apprehensive about voting for Obama.

And it worked.

63 No matter who else goes up or who else goes down, Romney never moves. And that is because 75% of the Republican voters hate him.

I don't hate him, I just don't like him.  It's visceral.  If he wins, I'll wear the cornbrero.

ABO mfers.

64

I am not ready to give up on Perry yet.

This is pretty cool.....The Veterans for Perry Coalition:

National Co-Chairs:

Major General James Everett Livingston, MOH, U.S. Marine Corp (Ret.) (South Carolina)
Chuck Larson, Sr., Fmr. U.S. Attorney and Justice Attaché to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Colonel (USAR, Ret.) (Iowa)
Dakota Meyer, Sergeant, USMC (Ret.) (Kentucky)
William R. Mann, Lt. Colonel, US Army (Ret.) (Florida)
The Honorable Allen B. Clark , Fmr. Assistant Secretary for Veterans Liaison and Program Coordination and Director, National Cemetery System at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, CPT (USA-Ret) (Texas)

National Steering Committee

The Honorable James Inhofe, U.S. Senator, Oklahoma, U.S. Army (Ret.)
The Honorable Sam Johnson, United States Congressman, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
The Honorable Brian Birdwell, Texas State Senator, District 22, Lt. Col. U.S. Army (Ret.)
The Honorable Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner, Lt. Col. U.S. Marine Corp (Ret.)
Dr. Richard Box, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Marcus Luttrell, Petty Officer First Class, U.S. Navy Seal (Ret.)
Mike Thornton, U.S. Navy Seal (Ret.)
Daniel P. Moran, Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

[Full list in link in my name....hope it works]

65 Cac- who is replace-able (Rep and Dem) down ticket next go around?

66
A Rubio, Palin, or a Demint endorsment would take the sting out of supporting Romney. That's all.

But it's enough to motivate depressed people.

67
why would Rubio join the ticket?

because he has nothing at all to lose and so much to gain

68 I think Romney got into this primary thinking that he already closed the deal just by showing up. Thats why he is running a general election campaign (which may change now that he takes on Gingrich [personally?]).

69 Cac- who is replace-able (Rep and Dem) down ticket next go around?

Posted by: willow at December 10, 2011 01:16 PM (h+qn

Can you rephrase that?

70 I'm still baffled by Romney clinging to MassCare.  Even in the general election, it will hurt him.

71 So many, too many.
RINO platform is capsizing.

72 because he has nothing at all to lose and so much to gain

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2011 01:17 PM (sqkOB)

You might wanna ask Palin about that.

73 Cac, who do we have that would help Romney or Gingrich be more conservative in the next down ticket elections.
for instance a lot of complaints about Boehner, He isn't tough enough?
any notable conservatives that have a chance?

74
I'm still baffled by Romney clinging to MassCare.

I think they calculated that it would hurt Mitt more in the primaries if he denounced it.

75 Gingrich does not HAVE A CAMPAIGN. It's him and his ego at debates. That's all! Perry never could articulate well enough to mount a challenge. So Romney sits, because he doesn't have to move at all. 25% is enough for now, it'll get bigger when the vast, uninformed masses of Republican primary voters start paying attention, because he's the only one with enough money and name recognition to GET their attention.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 10, 2011 01:12 PM (Gc/Qi)

I found an article about a week ago saying this could be the cheapest primary in a while for a presidential campaign. I think it could be true. Remember Sharon Angle? She had no campaign and somehow easily won the Nevada Repub nom. I even asked who she was the night she won.

76 Flap, hah, she was anyone but Reid i guess.

77 for instance a lot of complaints about Boehner, He isn't tough enough?
any notable conservatives that have a chance?

Posted by: willow at December 10, 2011 01:19 PM (h+qn

Hard to say. On the senate side I REALLY like Johnson from Wisconsin.

Or are you asking about VP candidates?

Susana Martinez, Luis Fortuno, Bob McDonnell all would make excellent VP choices. McDonnell is the most popular governor in the nation, with majority approval amongst ALL groups besides liberals (and I mean all, positives amongst AAs, latinos, independents, Democrats, moderates, conservatives, Republicans, TP, Northern, Western, Central, Tidewater, etc.

78 Rubio already said he wont be VP. I dont know who he will endorse but Gingrich is like 45 in polls in Florida now which is kind of crazy to notice.

79 ... who do we have that would help Romney or Gingrich ...

Perry would help Gingrich, if Gingrich gets the nod.
It's a perfect match.

Romney wouldn't pick anybody suitable that I can think of.

80 "No "RINO" necessary."

Amen.

I like Perry, but I liked Daniels before him and I really like Ryan despite the lack of experience.

I don't think it's worth freaking out if someone like that isn't the nominee, but we really don't need an absolute liberal like Romney.  The guy is an ultra panderer, and would redefine the GOP to quite some extent.

It's like at the end of LBJ's term... the country has a choice... do we find a way to make the entitlement state work, or do we resist the pander?  Nixon built up the entitlement stuff because that was politically expedient.  That administration has infected the GOP for a long time now with these 'establishment' guys who just insist they are the default, they decide when the primaries are and who moderates the debates, who is unacceptable to fund, etc etc, and generally, they suck in ways that just happen to benefit liberal republicans and deliver the GOP some short term expediency.  They think this is clever politics, and those who see the big picture but disagree are just hillbillies.

No.  The GOP doesn't have to be hardcore right wing, but it definitely needs to be very distinguished from the democrats, who are defined by far leftist policies like forcing people to buy health insurance to afford 'free' health care for constituencies and screaming about no jobs that kill people (via the environment).

Romney is simply too hard to distinguish, ideologically.  If we nominate him, of course he should be supported because Obama is vastly more corrupt and less competent, but ideologically, I think we would suffer the consequences for a generation.  In a way, Nixon is more responsible for the Great Society BS than LBJ was, and Romney would be responsible for the entitlement collapse he didn't solve, because in his short single term, it would be more expedient to pander on this issue at the expense of the next generation.

I liked Perry because of all the candidates, he was the one I trusted most to fight to cut the entitlements.  Newt is second on that, so if Newt's the Not Romney of the day, I can happily support him.

81 don't hate him, I just don't like him. It's visceral. If he wins, I'll wear the cornbrero. ABO mfers. Posted by: toby928©: Perrykrishna and Credible Commenter at December 10, 2011 01:14 PM (GTbGH) Oh I'm with ya. If Romney were to somehow get the nomination, I'm 150% behind him. What I was saying was that I doubt with 75% of the Republican voters disliking him, he can get the nomination.

82 ok thanks for that Cac and Jwb.

83 If Newt is the nominee, I would suggest a Martinez VP since he is from the south. Just a East/West ticket.

84 will the Dems having the majority at the point of the election, have the heart to fight for Obamas progressism or will they move to the middle, IF they lose.

85 How about it Mitt, are you game for a rematch?

Mitt .... I'm LAUGHING at the Superior Electability

86 i know i should buy a crystal ball.

87  If Newt is the nominee, I would suggest a Martinez VP since he is from the south. Just a East/West ticket.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 10, 2011 01:24 PM (/LoSR)

Corbett would help in PA, but don't think he wants to leave the governor's mansion yet.

McDonnell locks up virginia and perhaps helps thicken up Republican support in neighboring NC- they have an unpopular governor who is compared regularly to the very popular governor from their neighbor to the north.

88 Perry would help Gingrich, if Gingrich gets the nod.
It's a perfect match.

Romney wouldn't pick anybody suitable that I can think of.

Posted by: jwb7605 at December 10, 2011 01:22 PM (Qxe/p)

Would Perry really be okay with that? Being No 2 again? Must have pissed him off to serve under W. when he actually didnt like him.

And what worries me about Newt right now is, that he said in his interview with Domenech that he doesnt care about executive experience in his veep.

I also thought that a Gingrich/Perry ticket would be a perfect match, but does anybody on that ticket think so as well?

89 If Newt is the nominee, I would suggest a Martinez VP since he is from the south. Just a East/West ticket.

That would work, too.
Anybody currently getting hammered on illegals viewed (and sued!) as a conservative would work.

The "good part" is that the "discussion" would have to change to policy, not personality.  A discussion on that subject would keep the "illegal war" nonsense within the borders.  And would necessarily involve Eric Holder, among other people.

I don't think Newt is just 'willing to take the heat'.  I think he wants it.

90
big debate tonight in Iowa

is Ace gonna lovebug it?

91

McDonnell locks up virginia and perhaps helps thicken up Republican support in neighboring NC- they have an unpopular governor who is compared regularly to the very popular governor from their neighbor to the north.

Posted by: CAC at December 10, 2011 01:27 PM (7LXvT)

Corbett would be good for PA, but being my Governor, I feel he has not done enough yet and I think he feels the same. But VA is two states away from Georgia, would it help? I could see Martinez help get NM and the hispanic fence sitters in Colorado.

92 Whomever gets it, anybody but the SCOAMF

Despite repeated warnings from the Pentagon, Barack Obama rejected three plans to recover or destroy drone.

93
the debate will be moderated by Diane Sawyer and George Stuffitupmyass

94 Diane "Thousand Countries Dressing" Sawyer

95 Would Perry really be okay with that? Being No 2 again?

I would be astonished if Perry declined a VP slot.  Other than Palin, who's been there, done that, didn't even get a tee-shirt, I can't picture anyone passing up the chance.

96 Maybe he was a tea partier upset about Obamacare;

Sudden Jihad Syndrome – Hollywood Edition: Gunman Shoots Random Drivers While Screaming “Allahu Akbar”

As Atlas Shrugs reported – not one media outlet reported that the man was screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he shot at innocent Hollywood drivers.
Once again the media hid the truth from the American public.

97 3 words.  Gingrich. Would. Lose.

98
was it classified by the DHS as a simple case of road rage?

99 I would be astonished if Perry declined a VP slot.  Other than Palin, who's been there, done that, didn't even get a tee-shirt, I can't picture anyone passing up the chance.

Since I wouldn't bet money on which of those two (Gingrich or Perry) is going to get Palin's endorsement, I fully agree with that, too.

Can you imagine the 'splody heads once Gingrich taught Perry how to debate publicly?

I'd even salivate at the prospect of a Perry-Biden debate given six weeks prep time with the Newt.

100 "The eventual nominee should see his numbers equal Romney's as he becomes the alternative heading into the general." Depends on the nominee. I don't think Ron Paul would ever equal Romney's numbers, and I'm doubtful that Bachmann or even Gingrich could do it, either. If Perry weren't such a lackluster campaigner, he might be able to. Romney's electability partly hinges on his nonthreatening demeanor. He doesn't scare the centrists and wafflers. The same can't necessarily be said of the more ideologically aggressive candidates. Bachmann just comes across as nutty to a lot of people. Gingrich, whom I like as a thinker, can come across as reckless and mean. I wouldn't count on either of those candidates to fill the role of generic Republican challenger. For better or worse, there's nothing generic about them.

101 I will vote for Romney over Gingrich. And I'm not even a Romney fan.

102 VP is a pretty cool job.  Presiding over the Senate when you feel like it, sitting around waiting for the Prez to croak it, giving speeches, going to funerals.  No real responsibility.

It was a job tailor made for the SCoaMF.

103 Maybe he was a tea partier upset about Obamacare; Sudden Jihad Syndrome – Hollywood Edition: Gunman Shoots Random Drivers While Screaming “Allahu Akbar” As Atlas Shrugs reported – not one media outlet reported that the man was screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he shot at innocent Hollywood drivers. Once again the media hid the truth from the American public. Posted by: kbdabear at December 10, 2011 01:36 PM (Y+DPZ) Hollywood will not turn Pro-American again until someone like Hanks and Steilberg gets shot in the ass

104 A Rubio, Palin, or a Demint endorsment would take the sting out of supporting Romney. That's all.

Rather, it would besmirch Rubio or Palin to endorse Romney's PRIMARY campaign. Rubio made his claim to fame touting Austrian Economics, delivering memorized speeches and debating Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. Palin, having removed herself from the '12 campaign, should stay out of the primary endorsement business as well. It isn't as if Palin can successfully tie Tea Party to Rockefeller Liberal without proving a sheer opportunist with no scruples. DeMint? Perhaps he would given that he has no practical conflict of interest with Romney being Obamalite. DeMint, for all his conservative parading on occasion, represents the Republican Leadership who perform the bipartisan RINO tap dance routinely.  /If only they had Fred's class./If only the nation weren't bankrupt.

It would be BEST for those holding official Republican Leadership positions to stay out of the primary campaign business of endorsements, and let the voting chips fall as they will according to the voice of VOTERS. Endorse the party platform, if there really are planks shared in common under the GOP big tent of varied "Republican" interests. Then leave it to candidates to promote the damned platform, whatever that's supposed to be, with their views of how best to achieve the party platform.

105 Whomever gets it, anybody but the SCOAMF Despite repeated warnings from the Pentagon, Barack Obama rejected three plans to recover or destroy drone. Posted by: kbdabear at December 10, 2011 01:33 PM (Y+DPZ) Well if your hell bent on destroying the US Military, it all makes sense

106 I would be astonished if Perry declined a VP slot.  Other than Palin, who's been there, done that, didn't even get a tee-shirt, I can't picture anyone passing up the chance.

Posted by: toby928©: Perrykrishna and Credible Commenter at December 10, 2011 01:34 PM (GTbGH)

Right now he is No 1 in Texas and being No 2 in Washington isnt all that big a deal, is it? Didnt Biden say that being veep was such a sweet deal because he actually dont do anything important? The political equivalent of being a grandfather? Leaving the throne in Texas for being the potus's first adviser cant be that tempting. 

107 Right now he is No 1 in Texas and being No 2 in Washington isnt all that big a deal, is it?

How many times can you be governor before you, or the electorate, gets tired of the status quo?

108 Although it is Texas.  Which is kind of like wondering how long you can be the head coach at Alabama before you get bored with winning.

109 How many times can you be governor before you, or the electorate, gets tired of the status quo?

Posted by: toby928©: Perrykrishna and Credible Commenter at December 10, 2011 01:44 PM (GTbGH)

Yep I didnt think of that. Thats true. I originally wondered why he run for a third term anyway. A 4th would be kind of a drag

110 Saban'12

111 If Newt looses to scoamf then so would Mitt. Even though I am not a big Newt fan I would like to see him get the nod. That said, Newt needs to pick a running mate from one of the battleground states ... Rubio ( best choise, could I think be persuaded )

112 I hope Perry doesn't take the VP slot.

I don't love the man like some kind of fanboy here.  I just think he knows how to run a government.  If he's gone from the TX governorship, I think Texas will have inferior leadership.  No kidding... I credit Perry with being materially good for my state.

To replace the President, that's a compromise I'm cool with.  To just boost his profile?  I could care less about that.

Let Romney be the VP.  The guy is terrific at raising money, and I think if he has a boss, he's probably a very effective statesman.  I don't trust him to be guided properly, but if he's part of someone else's administration?  I don't worry about him at all.   Honestly, I don't put any stock in Romney's business skills.  Anyone who happily is unemployed for six years is not a passionate business leader.  He just had the luck of great subordinates, is my guess.

However, Romney's been unemployed for most of a decade and I feel sorry for him.  At least let him run the tour of the East Wing or something.  Give him a special hat.

Ideally, Romney becomes a democrat.  I think he would be very good for that party.  He espouses many liberal ideas, but I think he's much more competent than the average bozo in the left.  A democrat party of Romneys would be a lot better than the democrat party of Obamas and Sheila Jackson Lees.  I don't hate the man... he's just a liberal, though, and I'm conservative.

Newt could pick Rubio, but I don't think he's ready, and that's a pander I find distasteful. 

What about Mitch Daniels?

113 I still think governors, and war winning generals, make the best Presidents, which makes it Perry or Romney for me, and like I've said before, Romney just rubs me the wrong way.

114 the debate will be moderated by Diane Sawyer and George Stuffitupmyass

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2011 01:33 PM (sqkOB)

Thats good I'm stealing it. No bigger dumbass Journolist than george snuffalupigus.

115 We need a Governor. It's vitally important, I'm sorry. I don't care if it's Huntsman, the nom needs to have executive experience running a US state. You guys really want PA? Don't stupidly run Newton. He's not gonna fly in SE PA, no way, no how. I don't like it either! But I'm telling you. Will. Not. Fly.

116
My history prof was talking about Theodore Roosevelt.

Apparently the NY political bosses couldn't stand him so they put the governor on the 1900 ticket because McKinley's veep just died. So they put TR on the ticket to get him out of politics because in those days a veep never went on to do anything more in politics.

Unless the president died. McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo, NY in 1901.

McKinley's chief advisor, Mark Hannah, is on the train taking McKinley's body back to Washington turns to these NY political bosses and says,

"Now you see what you've done...that goddam cowboy is President of the United States!"

117 "

Yep I didnt think of that. Thats true. I originally wondered why he run for a third term anyway. A 4th would be kind of a drag

Posted by: Elize Nayden at December 10, 2011 01:46 PM (97AKa)"

It's simple.  He's doing a good job.  Texans don't love the guy.  Politics don't work that way here.  We don't like government generally.  Even when we were a democrat state, we didn't like much government.

Perry's competitors weren't bad or anything (White and KBH), but Perry was doing a good job, so why replace him?

He can run the state for 100 years for all I care, so long as the spending and regulating stays where it is.

118

Completely O/T, but here's some Christmas music for today:

My Advent Calendar of Music – Day #10: The Bells of Christmas http://t.co/UM2O74lB

BTW - as a lifelong Texan (and I am too young to remember the 3-4 years that my family was out of the state), I am very fond of Rick Perry; would love to see him as President (and still think he's got a fighting chance, 'cuz Newt's gonna shoot himself in the foot at some point), but if that doesn't come to pass, I will be thrilled to have him back as our governor.

Don't count that man out - he's a fightin' Texas Aggie.....(Whoop!)

119 I don't mind a non-governor as the VP, even if that makes them the heir apparent.  Hopefully the President won't die before the VP gets the hang of executive governance.

120 The thing that gets me about Romney is that he never, NEVER, made any overtures to the party base or to conservative outlets during the whole time...until now, since his coronation is threatened by Newt. I get that that might've been a strategy to keep himself to the center for the general election. But really, he could've done a couple of early interviews signaling this kind of strategy, and he'd have prevented much of this criticism. Newt, on the other hand, had his campaign explode in the beginning, but just kept his nose to the issue grindstone until his time came around. I mean, look at how many times during the debates everyone said, hey, great answer by Newt--too bad his campaign's in the gutter. And now that it isn't, we're supposed to say he's undisciplined? And after his entire campaign advisory team quit because he wouldn't run a normal campaign, but he kept going, we're supposed to say he's a conventional Washington type?

121 Would Romney accept the VP?  Even if the party line is that Obama/MassCare is a total cockup?  I think he'd really hate having to go out and sell that.

122 Well if your hell bent on destroying the US Military, it all makes sense

This morning I watched something on the History Channel that didn't make m wanna barf. It was The Art of War, about Sun Tzu and how his teachings applied (or didn't) to various wars throughout the centuries.

Knowing that his teachings are also applied to business, it made me wonder... When anything can be called war, where don't those rules apply?

Let's say you are an ambitious young man with a desire to fundamentally change a nation and an utter contempt for the heathens who reside in said nation. How would one apply the lessons of Sun Tzu to overthrow that nation?

Laying Plas/The CalculationAttack by Stratagem/The Plan of AttackTactical Dispositions/PositioningEnergy/DirectingWeak Points & Strong/Illusion and RealityManoeuvring/Engaging The ForceVariation in Tactics/The Nine VariationsThe Army on the March/Moving The ForceTerrain/Situational PositioningThe Nine Situations/Nine TerrainsThe Attack by Fire/Fiery AttackThe Use of Spies/The Use of Intelligence

123 Let's say you are an ambitious young man with a desire to fundamentally change a nation and an utter contempt for the heathens who reside in said nation. How would one apply the lessons of Sun Tzu to overthrow that nation?


I'd use assassins.

124 71. I'm still baffled by Romney clinging to MassCare.  Even in the general election, it will hurt him.

Obama, Gingrich, and Romney all have at one time or another made the case for compulsory health insurance.  It was once part of the personal responsibility theme of the GOP.  I would be interested in seeing Gingrich explain his opposition to it in detail in 2012, but I suspect that won't happen because he's not actually opposed.  We'll see. 

125 dang formatting

126 The above is one of those "in theory" posts because it treats the election entirely as a referendum on Obama. It won't be--or we'd be sure of a win. But the public remembers the Bush years and also has a pretty good idea of what the GOP stands for too. And the eventual GOP nominee will have his own baggage.

In 2004 generic Democrat beat GWB in a lot of polls before Kerry won the nomination. And who could have been more generic Democrat than Kerry? I don't think you can count on the "solidification" of the party behind a nominee carrying this race, as the party is not popular. It would be better to have a nominee who by his (or her) own record and charisma brings in supporters.

That is not to say conservatives should give up running a conservative candidate and settle for Romney. Nevertheless, Gingrich is neither conservative nor electable IMO. Conservatives are going to regret it if they do not prevent this man's nomination.

127 115 I still think governors, and war winning generals, make the best Presidents, which makes it Perry or Romney for me, and like I've said before, Romney just rubs me the wrong way.

Posted by: toby928©: Perrykrishna and Credible Commenter at December 10, 2011 01:50 PM (GTbGH)

There is just something about him.  And I can't seem to place it.  Its just a wrongness I don't even feel with a lot of Democrat politicians and I positively loathe them and their ideas.  But there's just something with Romney that makes me say "NO!"

128 113 If Newt looses to scoamf then so would Mitt. Even though I am not a big Newt fan I would like to see him get the nod. That said, Newt needs to pick a running mate from one of the battleground states ... Rubio ( best choise, could I think be persuaded )

Posted by: SoCalMe at December 10, 2011 01:47 PM (s72/N)

For the love of God stop trying to kick Rubio and our other conservative senators out of the Senate.  We do not want them removed from the Senate, we should be wanting them moving up in the leadership, replacing the shitheads we have there now.  Rubio, DeMint and Rand Paul (so long as he doesn't start really taking after his father) need to remain in the Senate and attempt to push that more to the right.

129

Romney as vp would be a gruesome idea. Why would take Newt somebody who is even to the left of him, when he already feels the scorn for being somewhat lacking in conservative credentials? Newt needs to choose a real conservative.

And, what if really something would happen to Newt. Nope, keep Romney as far as possible from the Oval Office.

130 Newt needs to choose a real conservative.

Ah, but what if it were Perry?  His conservative credentials are good.  It would be like Reagan taking GWHB to solidify the party.

And I think Palin needs to campaign for the eventual nominee, hard.  Even if that means we have to take Piper hostage.

131 We cannot go into this election divided.  We must win.

132 130 .. that is a good point. but we would still need a VP that can sway a battleground state to red. What about Santorum, maybe tha'ts why he is running to begin with, just to get the #2 slot.....not sure how he is viewed in Pa these days though

133 ot sure how he is viewed in Pa these days though

Posted by: SoCalMe at December 10, 2011 02:07 PM (s72/N)

As a dweeb, because he is. A sexist dweeb too. He basically called my mom a housewife in 2006 when running for reelection.

134 I think there is a flaw in the logic here.

'The President is facing abysmal approval ratings in most of the purple states and even the light-blue ones. Figure out who in these states are most inclined to vote against the President, find a nominee who will effectively connect with them, and you've got the White House. No "RINO" necessary.'

Who will connect with these purple state voters best? A moderate or moderate-seeming Republican, or one who can/is being painted by the media as a radical right winger?

135 Yeah, Romney as VP makes no sense.

I can't think of a single person who would be more likely to support Gingrich if Romney was behind him.

Romney backed 100 MA legislature candidates in ... 2006 I think?  Give or take two years.  All 100 lost.  It's fascinating to me that he's got even the 20% he's got despite all the money he's poured into his campaign.

I guess he is the test... connections and money with zero merit gets you 20% or so.

136

I keep coming back to the idea that we need to elect someone who will actualy do stuff... not just sit there talking in the cocktail lounge as the Titanic runs into the Iceberg.

Yet talking to people, and listening to the media... that is about the only choice the GOP is willing to give us.;

137

I'm thinking female voters are not going to get all warm and fuzzy about the missus.  It isn't just that she's his former mistress.  Newt's daughter-aged, "isn't Tiffany's divine?" pushy trophy wife is thoroughly unlikeable.

Wives and marriages don't matter?  Au contraire.  As has been mentioned, Axelrod was a pitbull with the marital histories of Obama's previous opponents.

She is Newt's Achilles' heel, although she is far--very far--from the only one.  He evidently dotes on her and has proclaimed her off-limits to MSM scrutiny.

Well, that ain't gonna happen.  Callista is no shrinking violet. She wasn't smitten by Newt's stunning good looks and dazzling personality. With politicians it's the power aphrodisiac. They're a team, like Bill and Hill, out to make a difference together.  In interviews she's throwing around the "we" word--we are worried about the future of the country, WE decided to give it OUR best shot.

Can't have it both ways.  If she's going to be co-presidentin' like Hillary, then she's fair game.  And Newtie's famous "temperament" is not well-suited to turning the other cheek.

138 I haven't read all the comments but, has anyone noted that Barry is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure yet?

139 I keep coming back to the idea that we need to elect someone who will actualy do stuff

Newt addressed that (indirectly) a few days ago in an interview regarding Education.

He said it's not the president's job to do (mandate) stuff.  It's his right and responsibility to suggest stuff.

140 I haven't read all the comments but, has anyone noted that Barry is A supporting ring clusterfuck OF A miserable failure yet?

141 The question shouldn't be why the rest of the field runs so poorly- but why Romney's numbers against the President haven't improved.

I'll take "Tea Party Accomplishments" for 1000 , Alex.

142 The only thing I care about at this point is beating President Obama. I could frankly care less if it was a homeless guy who smelled like an occupy encampment.

Ace taking a second look and Ron Paul? 

143

I think Jagger and the boys expressed it well with, "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

Defeating Obama and Re-Occupying the White House with OBA is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fixing what ails the nation.  Der Mittster would not bruise the tender sensibilities of the country club GOP by shoving them hard right.  Instead, we'll drift left.  Into the gaping fiery maw.

[hyperbole we much]

144 The only thing I care about at this point is beating President Obama. I could frankly care less if it was a homeless guy who smelled like an occupy encampment.

Here's a raucous AMEN from the Peanut Gallery....

145 @38 Stop thinking strategically.  We must continue to fight the last battle.

FTFY

146 Newt addressed that (indirectly) a few days ago in an interview regarding Education.

He said it's not the president's job to do (mandate) stuff. It's his right and responsibility to suggest stuff.

Posted by: jwb7605 at December 10, 2011 02:14 PM (Qxe/p)

Horse pucky.  The Presidnet weilds enormous power, as he sits at the head of the regulatory agencys.

There are also a whole bunch of power, Congress has ceded to the President over the years (like the EPA stuff...).

Staff IS Policy... and the US Executive branch holds HUGE amounts of power, because none of the other branches are willing to slow it down.

The idea that Federal Prosecutors, at the behest of Eric Holder, can decide to just not enforce some of the Immigration laws?  The Administration being in contrempt of Court on drilling in the Gulf? Acorn STILL getting money?

Example after example of a Federal Government out of control... and do you really believe that Romney, or Newt, would stop that?  Or, as I believe, would they just use that same power to push their OWN agendas?

147 Is Ron Paul bat shit crazy or is it just me?

148 Dustin, have you read any of Romney's books? You seeem to think that the caricature generated in the echo chamber of anti-Romney blogdom has some relation to the real man. It doesn't. Not that the books will convince you to support him, but the last time the topic came up you posted some KosKid cut-and-paste about him shipping jobs to China and firing all the poor people. No real knowledge of his life or career was evidenced.

149
  Looking at  the pros and cons of Gingrich and Romney makes me ask if ABO will work with either?  Disillusionment with the nominee could spell disaster,imho.  A depressed turnout would screw us down ticket, an ironclad majority in House and Senate is every bit as vital as the Presidency at this stage.

  Thoughts?

150 A depressed turnout would screw us down ticket,

This is my argument with all who say they will stay home if [insert not my guy's name here] is our nominee. Fine, if you can't bring yourself to pull the lever for Mittens or whoever, atleast show up and vote the rest of the ticket.

Oh barf, they've led off the A/N coverage with SCOAMF.

151 134 130 .. that is a good point. but we would still need a VP that can sway a battleground state to red. What about Santorum, maybe tha'ts why he is running to begin with, just to get the #2 slot.....not sure how he is viewed in Pa these days though

Posted by: SoCalMe at December 10, 2011 02:07 PM (s72/N)

Santorum as VP would probably cause us to lose PA by 20 points regardless of candidate at the top.

152

By the way, tune in now to ESPN3 (or a local channel if you live in NC or MI) to watch the NCAA D2 Football semi-final game. It's mainly run, run, run all the time, and both teams have great (relatively speaking) backs. Plus you can laugh at the taupe grass, "We've never played December football here before, the greenskeeper shrugged"...

7-0 Wayne St. lead in the first.

153 Chemjeff @45: Two words: Antonin Scalia He is currently 75 years old. Obama's two picks were lib-for-lib replacements. The next one is not likely to be. THIS.

154 I've come to the conclusion that a President I can feel good about is just not a possibility. Most of the field cannot even articulate why they believe what they claim to believe. Of the two that can, one is insane on some major issues and the other is too easily swayed by emotion and money.

I only need two things from a candidate.

Beat Obama.

Follow the lead of an increasingly conservative Congress.

Beyond that, it can be golf and blowjobs from interns 24/7.

155 The man who said Paul Ryan's plan is "radical right wing engineering doens't light my fire. The true rino here may be Newt.

156 If it's Romney, I'll pull the lever for him happily, but that's just because I hate Obama and his all-aboard-the-craaaaaazy-train policies that much. However, I do think that he is the most likely of the current field not named Ron Paul to lose to Obama, because he just does not exude any core principles at all. He's slimy. I do not believe that moderates or centrists will vote for him in droves any more than they would a more serious alternative to the Communist in Chief, because Americans want to believe that a potential President believes in something, even if it's full-bore Communism. 

157 ...
Example after example of a Federal Government out of control... and do you really believe that Romney, or Newt, would stop that?  Or, as I believe, would they just use that same power to push their OWN agendas?
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2011 02:23 PM (NtXW4)

What I'm saying is that Newt and Perry are the only ones I've heard even suggesting the concept.
The rest of them are saying that they'd use their power to do things differently.
Gingrich and Perry are not saying that.

In your defense, Newt also said that you couldn't immediately stop all those agencies -- which is where he and Perry seem to differ.
Newt did say that it was the president's responsibility to push his ideas (or agendas, if you prefer).

158 I will continue to hope for Perry to catch on.  The media has been studiously ignoring him (until he makes a gaff), but he has been giving great speeches and interviews lately, so I have not given up yet.  Perry/West would be a great ticket, as would Perry/Bolton.

159 CAC,

Almost all of us continue to view Romney, Gingrich, and Obama through Political Junkie Goggles. Because that's what we are - political junkies. We constitute less than 10% of the voting public. We're not going to be "reintroduced" to any of these candidates, and our votes are not up for grabs.

We are failing to anticipate the reaction of the Oblivious Voters who make up the overwhelming majority of voters. These are people who may tend to vote Republican or Democrat or who don't usually have a preference of left versus right but make up their minds near election day based on whatever. But the key feature about these Oblivious Voters is that they don't follow politics. Most of them have heard of the names Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. But if asked, most Oblivious Voters would not be able to say what office they held or even be able to pick their faces out of a line up. The Oblivious Voter simply does not know who these candidates are in any meaningful sense. And they will only get to know one of these candidates after he or she receives the nomination.
Inescapable Conclusion: Whoever our nominee is MUST be reintroduced to the American Public (also known as the Oblivious Voters). - This is not an option. It cannot be avoided.

That's where Obama and his billion dollar makeover come in. Whether we like it or not, Obama has the brute financial muscle to insist on being the first to reintroduce our candidate to the Oblivious American Voter. 

We had best take off our Political Junky Goggles long enough to get a glimpse at what this will look like to the Oblivious Voter. Because I contend that once they are done reintroducing Newt Gingrich to the Oblivious American Voter, even we recognize him.

Put simply, unlike any other candidate we have to choose from:
Newt Gingrich is PRE-IRRADIATED.
But as conservative political junkies we're mostly insulated against his radioactivity; it doesn't especially bother us. Even those of us who don't prefer him will vote for him anyway because he's still miles better than Obama.
But this is precisely where we fail to slip the Political Junky Goggles and see Gingrich the way in which the Oblivious Voter will be introduced to him. And it is MUCH uglier than the way any of our candidates can be reintroduced to the public. So, this is not a Gingrich versus Romney issue. Rather, this is a Gingrich versus ANY of our other candidates issue. This is Gingrich versus a ham sandwich issue. 

Just consider this one, simple but devastating aspect. Gingrich is on his third marriage. Put aside that this is an obvious symptom of emotional volatility and personal unreliability (both of these features having been repeatedly and emphatically confirmed by congressmen who have worked him). Instead focus on why two of his marriages failed: Serial Adultery - as he himself has admits. Taking off the Political Junky Goggles for just two seconds, ask yourself how this can be parleyed into an eviscerating political weapon when it comes to the female vote. "Yes, but Newt has begged God's forgiveness! And those were private matters!"
Did you hear that? That's buyer's remorse talking. That's a sobered-up conservative political junky rationalizing during a general election campaign as he watches Gingrich's inexorable and unrecoverable slide in the polls.
I'm not asking you to judge Gingrich for once having been a serial adulterer - I don't judge him for it because it is in fact a private matter. But now it's public. And Obama who has been happily married to one woman with an intact and loving family with two adorable young daughters is going to have a billion bucks to draw the ugly contrast. Like it or not, this will have significant (and possibly even devastating) impact on the female vote. It's not a rational political calculation. But whoever said politics was? (Look who the nation installed in the White House for Pete's Sake!) Being cheated on by their husbands/boyfriends is a detestable thought for women - it speaks to their emotional core. And Newt has done this many times with not one but two wives!
None of our other candidates has anything like this kind of baggage. - And that's just one issue.  

It is significantly ugly that Newt Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to have ever been found guilty (and by his own party, no less) for Ethics Violations for which he was fined Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars. (Notice how Ethics Violations pairs nicely with Serial Adultery.) It is also significantly ugly that shortly thereafter his own party pushed him out of the role as Speaker because they couldn't stand him any longer. And yes, it is ugly that in a fit of shame Newt then quit Congress altogether.

Is any of this stuff going to cause a conservative political junky like me to vote for Obama? Hell no, I'm voting for the GOP nominee no matter what. But that's obviously irrelevant. My vote is already spoken for. These ugly, radioactive issues are going to play in the general election, and they are going to have a serious impact on the Oblivious Voter. The Oblivious Voter is not going to view or "know" Newt the way we do.

This election should be a referendum on Obama's failed policies. But if we nominate Gingrich, we could effectively turn this into a choice between two personalities. Where one is more likeable and more charismatic than the other - and has much better name ID.
We all want to see the economy improve, and we've seen tiny signs that maybe it's kinda' starting to. If the economy comes to be seen as making even small improvements, this election will become an intensely competitive nail-bitter that any of our candidates other than Gingrich would have a real shot at winning. If the economy stays about where it is, any of our non-Gingrich candidates should win handily. Only the radioactive Gingrich can be reintroduced to the American voting public in such a way that a what should have been a near certain victory (considering our current economy) becomes a competitive nail-bitter - or worse.

160 Army, Navy football game is graced by the presence of Barak The Magnificant and Slow Joe Biden.

I don't mind Presidents sitting in the stands and getting some face time. But this cock holster is on the field, pretending to be in charge of stuff.

161 Very cogent, Dave.

162 Has the GOP base learned nothing from letting the GOP establishment select the "next in line" candidate?

163 A little O/T but would some of you brilliant rons and etts think about how to divide the country between Conservatives and libs. Maybe something along the lines of irreconcilable differences divorce.

164

I say again: read Kristol in The Weekly Standard, 'The Valentine's Day Option'.

Ryan.

Rubio.

PETRAEUS, even.

But SOMEbody, ANYbody else, and SOON.  Because folks, we are looking down the muzzle of the re-election of a domestic enemy more dangerous than anything this country has EVER seen.  WE COULD LOSE with the crew we've got to choose from, and that is ballgame if we do.

It's got to be a late-entry or a player-to-be-named-later at a brokered convention, because I just don't think we're going to get across the finish line with the swayback old nags we're running right now.

165

http://tinyurl.com/7dj8anw

The link to that column.

 

166

So the "GOP Establishment" is backing the guy who has spent all of four years as an elected politician (none of them in DC) as opposed to the lifelong politician that is Newt Gingrich, who slunk off into the shadows after his public shaming only to re-emerge as Beltway "consultant" and ultimate DC insider?

Establishment, I do not think people know what the word means.

167 Never thought much about it before but yeah, I could see a Perry VP. For either Newt or Mitt.

168 http://is.gd/tIiquX

This is O/T, and maybe NSFW, but very funny.

169

Posted by: Dave at December 10, 2011 02:51 PM (SV650)

Dave, that was a well thought out post but  just think about Carter and Reagan. Compare the misery index and the fact that Reagan was a Hollywood actor that had been married twice and he won in a landslide. Are you saying that the women voters today are more concerned about Newts sexual escapades than they were Clinton's? Are they more puritanical now than 30 years ago? The country is being destroyed and I actually do not think we will survive in our current state even after we dispose of the SCOAMF. I prefer Perry but will vote for ABO.

170 Oh they're sucking up to SCOAMF again. I looked hard but can't see TOTUS.

171 Anecdotally, my Democrat wife (I know) likes Romney the most because he seems "very Presidential" and "calm headed". She said he never gets loud and she likes that.

172 irongrampa @ 151: I agree with you 200%. We must not have a candidate who depresses voter turnout, because that is THE key thing in this election. Why? Because the Democrats' Election-Stealing Machine is gonna pull so many dirty tricks they're gonna make the '08 election look like an elderly church ladies' afternoon tea. The ONLY way we stand even a chance is to turn out the GOP vote as never before. It will have to be an unprecedented, mind-blowing GOP turnout, one for the fucking Guiness Book of World Records.

173

think about how to divide the country between Conservatives and libs. Maybe something along the lines of irreconcilable differences divorce.

Texahomiana for starters.  Add the CSA states and any other right to work states.

 

SCOAMF now in the broadcast booth.  He can't get enough of himself.  Next. he'll be piloting the blimp.

174

Posted by: Dave at December 10, 2011 02:51 PM (SV650)

I think you should make it a bit more clear to us how egregious Newt's crimes were.  (Hint:  he either did or did not know that the funding for two history courses he was teaching was illegal).

The other 83 (?) charges against him went nowhere, and the IRS investigation resulting from this also went nowhere.

Here's a link.
It was serious stuff.  Not like the trivial crap they're pulling today, like insider trading.

175 Only political junkies like us are paying attention. The first poll that will indicate the real state of play will be the one taken after the GOP has a nominee; until then, this is political masturbation.

176 Bluesman @166: Ditto!

177 Are you saying that the women voters today are more concerned about Newts sexual escapades than they were Clinton's? Are they more puritanical now than 30 years ago?

Being unfaithful is one thing with Newt you got someone that was carrying on an adulterous affair for five years. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that does make a difference to most women.

178 I know that the media cannot wait to tell the public about the racist history of the Mormon church, and to bring up the magic underwear, and use things like that to shock the public about Romney. Is it fair or does it really matter? Nope. But that won't stop them, and it will make a difference.

Think think the response:  is being Mormon more radical than being a Black Liberation Theologist?  ESPECIALLY as preached by Rev. 'God Damn America' Wright?

I think it could be Washington-Grade stupid (the only Grade superior to 'Weapons-Grade') to make the candidate's religion an issue.

179
_____________

Response to comment # 176:

Again, it's less a matter of how egregious Newt's ethics violations were. (I'll vote for him anyway.) It's that he was found guilty of them at all and by his own party and that he's the only Speaker of the House in history who has been found guilty of ethics violations.
My point is not that it disqualifies him from the presidency (as it does not). Rather my point is that these facts can be parleyed into devastating weapons in the general election. Do you think the media might help out Obama's billion dollar campaign war chest in savaging Gingrich. Bet money on it.

The typical Oblivious Voter is not going to take the time to carefully research history to reason out whether Newt's ethics violations were all that bad. They're only going to emphatically and repeatedly hear the facts: Ethics Violator & Serial Adulterer. This will effect vote turn out. This will hurt us. It's political reality, and we had better realize it before we make out nominee purchase.


Response to comment #171:

Reagan was no adulterer. His wife left (divorced) him. Those are HUGE differences from Gingrich's selfish acts of Serial Adultery. You can be sure of this because Carter and the Democrats never even tried to after Reagan for his first wive divorcing him. Do you really think Obama and the Democrats and the Media are not going to go after Newt for his Serial Adultery?

Also, yes, Reagan had once been a Hollywood actor. But then he went on to a distinguished career in politics. He was a highly successful two-term Governor of the State of California.

Put simply, Reagan did not have personal baggage at all, let alone the incredibly toxic baggage the Gingrich is carrying. This will NOT be a 1980 replay of Reagan v Carter. With all due respect, I would have to be wearing some pretty thick Political Junky Goggles to believe that Obama v Gingrich will look like Carter v Reagan.

180 If you listen to Newt's full comment on "right wing social engineering", he's absolutely right. Ryan proposes totally replacing a 50 year old program for a free market alternative that doesn't exist now, and failed the last time.  I'm no fan of Medicare, but it's important to remember that it came into existence because private insurers wouldn't insure elderly people.  It's hard to make a profit on insuring someone who already dealing with lots of health problems, especially when you're almost certainly going to be stuck with their end-of-life problems.  So while in theory, a private sector plan is more desirable, we have no assurance that it will work in practice.

What Newt wants to do is to give people a choice between Medicare and private sector offerings, in the hope that the private sector will come up with something more attractive, and Medicare will shrink naturally.  If this doesn't happen, it will be because the private sector failed. 

Conservatism isn't only about small government and fiscal responsibility.  It also is about respecting the past, understanding how things are interrelated, and being very aware of the law of unintended consequences.  New Deal and Great Society programs have been around for 50-80 years.  Like it or not, they are woven in to the fabric of our society and economy. Many of them will need to be gradually wound down, rather than yanked out.  Yes, there's a risk that the next Administration will grow them right back..  I think there's an even greater risk that a too-rapid shift to the private sector will cause a lot of dislocation, misery, and pave the way for left-wing revolution and dictatorship.

181

Additional response to comment #171:

I think the voters did care about Clinton's rumored infidelities. But he had several advantages. One, he never admitted to the infidelities. Two, he was married to the same woman. Three, she (Hillary) stood by him throughout the unconfirmed rumors. Four, the media basically exonerated him. (Don't expect a GOP candidate to get help from the media. It's a completely different ballgame.) And finally five, lest we forget, Ross Perot was a HUGE third party spoiler during that election cycle. There's no way to know for sure, but I believe Bush would have defeated Clinton had it not been Perot. I was an idealistic 20 year old at the time, and I voted for Perot. Otherwise I would have likely voted for Bush. No way in hell I would have voted for Clinton.

So yes, I think the unconfirmed (at the time) rumors of Clinton's sleaziness did hurt him. But he had LOTS of help and advantages.

182 with Newt you got someone that was carrying on an adulterous affair for five years. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that does make a difference to most women.

Not with me, not this time. What matters to me is doing something about this spending and this debt.

Defense is my next prioority. I want a non-apologetic ass kicker in the Oval Office. I am tired of this mealy-mouthed weakling in there.

I am also fairly rabidly pro-life, but even that makes no difference to me now. If a woman wants to kill her own baby, she'll find a way do it legally or otherwise, and it's between her and God anyway. It has no impact on the country as a whole, and right now we have bigger fish to fry.

Perry's my man for now, but ABO.

I keep hoping that Mitt has been hiding his Conservative, Mormon values safely away til the time is right. You can't judge a man who had to govern a Liberal mecca like MA.

My fantasy is that he went there to gain national exposure, knowing that he wasn't doing any harm, because they'd have elected a Lib anyway, and that he was honorable enough to not pull a bait and switch once he got in office.

Yea, I know, but keeping this fantasy alive is the only way I'm going to be able to pull the trigger on him, should he be our nominee.

183 Everything Dave says is 100% correct.  It must, desperately, be heeded before it's too late.

A Newt Gingrich nomination is a guaranteed one-way ticket to the reelection of Barack Obama, and quite possibly the end of the conservative movement as well.  It would be deeply tragic (but hilariously ironic, in a grim way) if it were to come about because the Tea Party voters, in their unthinking get-me-an-attack-dog-NOW rage, nominated the most liberal (and personally loathsome) candidate in the field as their True Conservative avatar.

But dear god it could well happen.

184 ____________________

Gingrich does not pose a real problem with staunch pro-life conservative women. They'll likely vote for him anyway.

But Gingrich will be a nasty pill to swallow for moderate women (only slight right or slightly left of center) who don't yet know much - or anything - about him.

When Obama's campaign is done highlighting Gingrich's ugly serial adultery in two failed marriages and contrasting that ugliness with Obama's happy, loving intact family: we are going to lose a huge chunk of non-conservative (but also non-liberal) female voters. It's that simple.

And that's just one of the many radioactive isotopes embedded in the weird bird that is Gingrich. His past is a veritable Treasure Trove of scandal and ugliness. There is not one single other candidate in the field that comes close in this regard.

Santorum, Romney, Perry, Bachman, Huntsman, Paul: ALL of these candidates have clean, wholesome backgrounds. There is simply nothing there to generate a significant personal attack out of.
Not so with Gingrich.

185 >>>Not with me, not this time. What matters to me is doing something about this spending and this debt.

You don't get it, do you?  It's like you completely ignored Dave's first post, where kept on hammering the simple truth that you aren't representative in any way of the majority of American voters.  You are an ultra-motivated, conservative, politically-engaged ideologue.  You are commenting online at a conservative political website, which by definition means that you are not where "the rest of the nation" is at. 

The entire problem is that while people like YOU are willing to forgive the fact that Newt is an immoral, rotten bag of filth...the vast majority of folks (in other words, people who AREN'T already in the "I'll vote GOP no matter what, even if they run Mao" group) will not be so forgiving.  So please stop citing to your own point of view as if it validates a Gingrich choice.  

186 #184

Oh, I don't think there is much uncertainty about it. Without Perot there would never have been a President Clinton. In 1992 Perot tallied 18.9% of the votes. The spread between Clinton and Bush was less than 6%.

Is there any contention regarding which way the majority of Perot voters leaned? If only two-thirds of the Perot votes had gone to Bush instead it would have been a very close race. But I'm pretty sure it would have been much higher than two-thirds, probably more like 8 or 9 out of 10.

We could fix this if we implemented sequential run-off voting. Under that system you don't vote for a single candidate. You vote for several in order of preference. When the person with the least votes is eliminated, the #2 choices on all of those ballots are allocated. This keeps going until there is a clear winner.

Under that system, Perot would probably have picked up another 10% or so initially and then been eliminated, with the majority of the former Perot votes going to Bush. Thus everybody's choices would have been clearer and there would have been no fear of throwing away your vote.

(Damn. Appropriate Simpsons clip not found on YouTube.)

187 Posted by: Dave at December 10, 2011 03:30 PM Reagan did have a serious disadvantage that Newt doesn't have. When Reagan ran for President, the country had been run by New Dealers and neo-Keynsians for 50 years. Congress had been controlled by Democrats almost continually since the 1930's. To many people, Reagan sounded completely crazy. Any Republican running today has the advantage of having Reagan's success behind him.

188

The only one who will have a prayer of a chance to move this bloated, deeply-in-the red government of ours is a governor who has done the governing and the limiting.  Romney esssentially is a Democrat, the way they used to be -- with good feelings for the USA.  However he has no, absolutely none, experience changing the course of bloated government.

Currently that leaves only Perry and he has done it for the 2nd largest state economy and the 13th largest economy in the world.  I don't need to "like" my President, although it would be nice.  If he makes a number of gaffs, so what, so long as his head is screwed on right for fiscal prudence, limited government, and the free market -- and has proven that he can take the vicious attacks and achieve "our" objectives.

Perry is the one who can look Obama in the eye and say you failed where I succeeded. All Republicans, most Independents, and "former" Dems who do not want a marxist out to destroy us elected President again.  They/we will all have to carry some of the load.  There is no one on a white charger coming to our rescue.  We also must minimize -- this needs some brilliant minds and inventive doers -- the Dem/marxist/lying media.  

I think Gingrich might have extremely valuable talents moving these programs through the legislature that few others have at this time.  Therefore, Gingrich for VP.

Credentials, credentials, credentials.  What have they done that proves that they are the right one for today's job.  Don't let verbal gaffs turn off the need for proof.

The only credentials Obama had when he was running for President was destroying opponents, supporting radical marxism (the slightest research showed this everywhere), and following the Chicago Way.

189 162 Army, Navy football game is graced by the presence of Barak The Magnificant and Slow Joe Biden.

Both in the same place? I thought that was a security no-no.

190 If I read you correctly, the fact that Romney is still basically tied with Obama a year after the first Pennsylvania poll means he can't improve, but the fact that others are behind is irrelevant because they can build with a campaign?

Save the words and just say you hate Romney and will say anything against him whether it makes any sense at all or not.

191 So please stop citing to your own point of view as if it validates a Gingrich choice.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 10, 2011 04:00 PM (hIWe1)

Well, good grief, Jeff, last I checked we're allowed to have an opinion here. I don't think my opinion validates a darn thing, I'm just sharing my thoughts.

What's your opinion on how to tackle the election? I don't come on much during the day, so I haven't seen what you think we should do. Who do you like?

192 195 - Don't sweat it Tammy, Jeff B has been in Mitt's bed for a long time. He thinks we're doomed unless we nominate the blandest candidate around, so as to not offend the big mean lefties, I guess. If Gingrich wins the nomination, I suppose the left will tell everyone about all those hobos Newt murdered and ate... or whatever it is that's so horrible about him. I'm not in favor of nominating Newt either, but I just don't get the logic of those who say it would be the end of the world as we know it.

193 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

194 Romney? Gingrich? Who cares? Certainly not us.

195 Mitt will manage the decline and extinction of the USA better than Newt and much better than Ebola.

196 You made a few good points there. I did a search on the matter and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.

197 "Dustin, have you read any of Romney's books? You seeem to think that the caricature generated in the echo chamber of anti-Romney blogdom has some relation to the real man. It doesn't. Not that the books will convince you to support him, but the last time the topic came up you posted some KosKid cut-and-paste about him shipping jobs to China and firing all the poor people. No real knowledge of his life or career was evidenced.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 10, 2011 02:24 PM (Qjh0I)"

I didn't cut and paste anything from Kos.

I googled Bain and noted they are proud to have pioneered outsourcing manufacturing to China.  They are the first American investment firm to have opened an office in Beijing and they have pioneered manufacturing in China in 30 industries.  This is what they are all about.

And don't get me wrong: that's what the American consumer wants.  They crave cheaper stuff, and those running investment firms have a *duty* to make money, and this is how to do that in manufacturing.  They did the right thing when they outsourced tons of jobs, and laid off jobs to make domestic concerns more profitable (or in some cases profitable where they were not making any money at all!).

This is what Romney's business experience is.  I don't personally know what Romney did other than raise money.  No one seems to.  I think he probably just had great connections because his dad was a major businessman and politician, and he used those to bring in good talent and money and probably did not have a direct role to play in these decisions.

Why in the hell would I read Romney's books?  He's a shameless flip flopper and I don't think he tells the truth about anything.  It would be wasting my time.  The guy swore he would never waver in supporting Roe v Wade, and promised he supports strong gun control, and insisted he opposed a return to the 'reagan' policies, and now he's shamelessly opposite on everything he needs to be.

He doesn't have enough credibility that his testimony about his history can change my mind.

Can you actually dispute anything I've ever said about Romney?  Like... a fact I mention... is there one of those you disagree with?

Sure, the far left will also hit Romney for some of this in the unlikely event he's nominated.  Is that supposed to mean something?

What of his life and career to you want me to know?  I know he made MA's government more intrusive and much, much more expensive.  I know he has never won a fight against democrats despite entering many.  I know he was in France during the Vietnam war, despite claiming he supported the war. 

Instead of demanding you have secret knowledge about this guy, share with me what I'm missing.  Make the case for Romney.  I want the candidate who will fight, even if unpopular at times, to cut down entitlements and other spending.  I don't think Romney is the guy for that.  Explain how I'm wrong, I dare ya.

198 btw, anyone can google Bain China.  just go to Bain China's corporate website.  That's where I got my information about Bain.  Not Kos.  The idea I'm just parroting Kos is a very very weak defense.

You'd think someone would take 30 seconds and see if what I said was accurate (and it sure is).

199 A Note About Romney's "Superior Electabilty"

Haaahahahahhahhaaaa, superior electability, my ass.

Only a fucking RINO would come up with shit like that.

200 All I care about is beating Obama. Big deal.

That kind of thinking is what has enabled the one mongrel dog party to remain in power for 50 years. We settle for some bag of shit who is slightly better we think than the piece of shit he is replacing.

Rinse and repeat. I'd take Ron Paul any day over these two douche bags. Let's see if a real constitution and scandal free guy can tackle Mr. Marx and win...I am amazed at the willingness of the younger guys to make the same fucking mistakes us older guys have made. And think you will get different results.

201

What would I say to Romney if I was his Campaign Director?

You wanna be President, slick?  Attack Obama.  Attack his intelligence, his credibility, his qualifications, his truthfulness, his croney-capitalism, his association with terrorists, racists, and corruptocrats, his free ride from the media, and his content-free past (ignore the BC).  Then for a change of pace every other interview or so, attack the media on basically the same themes.  Don't leave anything to the imagination - tell them they are lying sons of bitches!

You let be known you are a fighter, and you will give us conservatives a justification to show up and vote for you.  You've got the beltway vote already, and they won't leave you for Obama (okay maybe Frump will), but you don't have the respect of the conservative base.  Best start earning it, pal.

202

I don't think our eventual nominee needs to attack Obama.  He just has to actually stand for everything Obama isn't.  He/She/It/HamSandwich needs to show integrity (not the word, but actual integrity). 

Obama does a seriously good job of attacking himself.  What he doesn't do the socialist boot licking media do for him. 

Not much is really going to happen.  Faith in politicians is pretty much zero and is improving about as fast as the quality of candidates we are getting.  I'm not sure if a lobotomy is required to run for office or if you need to party with Ozzy for a decade.  (Followed by 5 years with Charlie Sheen).

203 sherlock -- Aren't you forgetting about AttaaaaackWaaaaaaaaaaatch?