Newt Gingrich was as tough as nails, and deserved extra praise for not taking Juan Williams’s race-baiting. “No, I don’t see that.” Every person who believes in a color-blind society, especially tonight, ought to thank Newt for that. He then went on to show (again) he will be able to challenge President Barack Obama on nearly every fact and anecdote that could come up should they ever debate. The standing ovation he received was more than well deserved. To paraphrase a little: When he is right, he is great. The ongoing problem is when he is wrong. But tonight he was right — about a lot, and said it better than anyone.
If he could run his campaign and non-debate moments the way he runs himself during the debates, he would deserve the nomination. But, too often, he does not.
Rick Perry had his first very good night in a very long time. It’s a bit too late in my view, however. I think at this point the party very much deserves a Romney-Santorum or Romney-Gingrich race, two distinct visions of the Republican party. It would be good for the ultimate candidate and it would be good for the Republican party. This race is not over and it should not be over — not after two states have voted. The stakes are huge, and that nagging feeling in the broad electorate that we should be able to do better is out there for a reason. We’re getting better, but we’re not there yet. Let the fight go on, but let it be just a little narrower.
Well, the difference between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is that every one of the dozens of smart, meaningful things Gingrich's extraordinary brain casually wastes at one single Christmas party is smarter and more meaningful than a torturous Romney debate slogan invented by a high-paid brainstorming team, after a long collective effort, and taught bit by bit to a guy who still can't get the delivery right.
Being intelligent, being informed, being imaginative are neither the only nor the sufficient qualities necessary in a President but, frankly, I am flabbergasted at how resentful some in the Republican field are when it comes to the fact that other candidates, together, not holding a candle in front of the most brilliant GOP mind since Ronald Reagan. The problem is not that Gingrich can't be wrong. Thank God, he can. The problem is that the GOP establishment tries to make it look as if Gingrich is wrong more often and more obstinately than Romney, which is baloney.
Yes, it's not fair, everybody's special, even Romney, but let's give credit where credit is due. I believe that nobody's compelled to admire, like, or not see Gingrich's past flaws. On the other hand, pettily, speculatively minimizing Gingrich's blatantly bountiful brilliance speaks very badly of Romney's blind establishment support. It's almost as if people would prefer a Justin Bieber as a candidate, rather than a Beethoven, just because Beethoven could be grumpy, stubborn, and obnoxious on occasion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalling all poor black kids lazy is not exactly what people who "believe in a color blind society" would generally take as a step in the right direction. This is Newt at his Dickensian worst, which is right in line with the GOP Primary voting populace in South Carolina.
The problem is not that people are not taking the jobs, there just are not enough jobs available for the under educated class that the schools in our poorer communities are pumping out. Mocking the poor is as bad, if not worse, than patronizing them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Seth Leibsohn tends to symbolize the fashion we see, stuck on image and the superficial. It is a pattern for some to get excited about a few answers from Newt, ignoring the entire offering.
Early on in the debate, when the focus was on the ugly leftist attacks on Romney via his Private Enterprise experience via Bain, Gingrich looked nearly as bad when addressing questions about his 1.8 Million graft from Fannie and Freddie.
Newt simply ducked his ugly "looting" commentary. Did Mr. Leibsohn believe the nonsense of the "asking questions"? The entire crowd was silent, probably the only time throughout the entire evening. It was that ugly of a subject, even more pathetic to see Perry and Gingrich follow the Obama - Democratic Party further by demanding Mr. Romney release his tax records. The ironic aspect here, Newt Gingrich has not released his own tax returns!
But there are always a few to try to hype and get excited about a few answers by Gingrich. It is his long served talent to placate Our Base, selling an image on various Conservative Media Outlets, which hides the double life, which is taking everyone for a ride as a Beltway Celebrity.
Did Seth Leibsohn pay attention to Newt's vivid dishonesty, hypocrisy, manipulation for trying to blame Romney for negative attack Ads produced by Super PACs? When Romney bluntly, simply asked if it is against the law to communicate with the Super PAC, Gingrich had to retreat and say "absolutely".
* Newt even danced on the ugly "King of Bain" folly, suggesting the Super PAC has sent a list of questions to Mr. Romney to "clarify the record". This is simply insulting to all. First, how does Newt know about this list of questions? Is he communicating illegally with this Super PAC? Second, it was the same proposal of a typical Democratic Partisan, who offers slant, enables the libel, and demands someone to provide evidence to "clarify the record".
Newt's hubris knows no bounds. He is too full of himself to show any shame on the Stage, after this garbage he has offered.
suggestion we need to slow down, to have more dialogue, seems to support some of the fashionable push which opposes Romney. We aren't rushing things. This is the Primary, where the votes will stand. The voters will determine the outcome.
Besides, what different visions is he speaking about? Santorum who opposes "Right To Work"? Santorum who seems to want to give Felons the ability to vote again? Or is it Gingrich who is pushing Amnesty? The same Gingrich who has been attacking Private Enterprise in the same manner as Obama? The very same Gingrich who suggests his influence peddling in the Beltway, the grafting off of Fannie and Freddie, is legitimate Private Sector Business?
Mr. Leibsohn writes, "nagging feeling in the broad electorate that we should be able to do better is out there for a reason."
Sorry, but this reminds me of the fashionable claims about a ceiling over Mr. Romney, which simply ignores past Primary history. The expression often indicates this is all about 'stopping Romney', not finding the strongest offering, or defeating Democrats in 2012. The reality is, the polls and the votes are indicating there is vast, strong, sincere support for Mr. Romney. NH was a vivid display for overwhelming support for Mr. Romney.
"Romney dominates Conservative vote with 42%, Romney wins Tea Party vote with 40%, Romney, etc."
This also quite impressive:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Mitt Romney is now the only candidate that a majority of conservative and moderate/liberal Republicans nationwide see as an "acceptable" GOP nominee for president. Conservative Republicans are more likely to say Romney would be an acceptable nominee than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum."
Once again, the resident - and predictable - pro-Romney answerer gets posted first and quickly, even if his message was sent way after other posts, which sometimes are posted later, much later, sometimes not at all. Please, National Review, do something about this more or less explicit form of censoring. Remember, you will exist as one of the most prestigious conservative publications long after Romney's taking his place in a long list of stellar GOP luminaries, such as Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Do not treat us as badly as that. We still love you. Thank you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, he must've beat your boy like a rented mule. This is serious spin here. You're trying to drown this win in blather.
And, just a note, should someone else win in SC, they'll have more delegates than Mitt. They'll be the frontrunner--not in polls, but in delegates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief, Old Fan. All of that text just because Seth said "Newt had a great night; too bad he wasn't better during the rest of the campaign?" Do you have no ability whatsoever to stand back for a moment and assess a candidate's debate performance, including your own guy, and say "I will not vote for this man, but he did well" and "I support this candidate, but I wish he had done better?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegreat comment. too bad you aren't on cable or on any of these blogs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Fan,
You are sheryl aren't you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo refering to Obama as "the food stamp president" is not race -baiting? The commenters on this website proved their ignorance today!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, it isn't (and you're the one showing your ignorance). Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the vast majority of Congressional Democrats support extending these programs to the middle class. They demonstrate this continually with their votes on things like SCHIP. The Democratic idea is to get a majority of voters accustomed to receiving these insidious forms of welfare so that once hooked, they will be loathe to surrender their "entitlements" and will not vote for candidates (like conservatives) who might be inclined to take them away. Obama subscribes fully to this strategy and does whatever he can to further it and is thus fully deserving of the label "food stamp president". Get your mind out of the racial swamp.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse